120: The Moon Landing: Stanley Kubrick's Greatest Film | How NASA and Hollywood Fooled the World
47:20 Share

Plug in a Hyundai EV and the extraordinary happens.

From the charge time and range in the Ioniq 5 and 6 to the adventurous spirit of the Kona Electric to the 601 horsepower Ioniq 5N, Hyundai EVs make the extraordinary electrifying. There's joy in every journey. EPA estimated 303 mile driving range for 2024 Ioniq 5 SE SEL Limited Rear Wheel Drive and 361 mile driving range for 2024 Ioniq 6 SE Long Range Rear Wheel Drive with fully charged battery. Actual range may vary. Visit HyundaiUSA.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details.

Stanley Kubrick is considered one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Of his 13 movies, a few are considered classics. But in 1968, Kubrick released 2001 A Space Odyssey. And this is more than a classic. It's a masterpiece and widely regarded as one of the best science fiction films of all time and probably the most influential. This collaboration with science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke tells the story of an alien intelligence that visited Earth in the distant past.

and left behind artifacts in the solar system. The movie features groundbreaking special effects, which still hold up today. In fact, the effects looked so good that the movie gave the American government an idea. Billions of tax dollars were invested in the space program, but the Soviets were still years ahead of the United States.

NASA desperately needed to get to the moon before Russia, but they knew it was impossible. So they turned to one of the world's best filmmakers for help. Because when it came to the moon, if they couldn't make it, they'd fake it.

From the moment that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on the moon on July 20th, 1969, rumors were circulating that the whole thing was faked. That's because it was faked. Yeah, I know you believe that. I believe it because it's true. Well, we're going to explore the theory, but there are... It's not a theory. The moon landing was fake. Yeah, but can you be quiet for one minute while I set this up, please? Fine, fine. Go ahead. Set up your theory. Thank you. It was fake.

Science journalist Richard C. Hoagland wrote in his 2007 book Dark Mission that he saw NASA press officers helping distribute flyers to the press saying the landing was faked. Even though the astronauts brought back hundreds of moon rocks and took thousands of photographs of the moon, some people simply didn't believe it. Considering the technology of the time, going to the moon and back sounded like science fiction. At

At one point, almost 30% of the American public believed the moon landings had been faked, and this started to show up in pop culture. In the 1971 movie Diamonds Are Forever, there's a sequence where Sean Connery as James Bond breaks into a warehouse, and there he finds government agents filming a fake moon landing sequence. He steals a weird-looking moon buggy to escape.

That thing is almost as ugly as the Tesla Cybertruck. A few years later, the movie Capricorn One, starring James Brolin and O.J. Simpson, was released. Oh, did O.J. find the real killers yet? Uh, not yet. Well, I'm sure they're hiding on a golf course out there somewhere. Capricorn One told the story of a fake mission to Mars. As millions all over the world watched and listened, the President of the United States spoke to the astronauts across the vastness of space. There's only one small catch.

It never happened. It's all a lie. So because of these and other high-profile references, the idea of a fake moon landing conspiracy really took off in the 1970s. Oh, the 70s had the best movies, the best music. You got a nice beaver, nice beaver. You know how to do it. Give me that nice beaver, nice beaver. You know how to show it.

What are you doing? Yeah, that song's gonna be stuck in my head all day now. Oh, you don't remember that one, buddy Bee Gees? "Nice Fever"? Night Fever. No, Night Fever. That doesn't even make any sense. What, does he have the flu? It's Nice Beaver. It's not. Well, if you spent as much time at Club 54 as I did, you know that Nice Beaver makes way more sense. Oh, that may be, but the song is Night Fever. Eh, agree to disagree.

The conspiracy faded in the 80s, but the internet helped it make a comeback in the late 1990s. By the mid-2000s, the idea that the moon landings had been faked caught on with millennials who weren't alive for the Apollo missions. An extremely popular documentary was the Bart Sabrell film, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon. Oh, isn't that

That's the guy. You're the one who said you walked on the moon when you didn't. Calling the kettle black, I've ever thought of saying I misrepresented myself. You're a coward and a liar and a thief.

Ooh, that old timey could really throw hands, eh? He sure could. But to be fair, Sobrell had been chasing Buzz around with a camera, badgering him to swear on the Bible that the moon landing was real. Buzz begged the guy to back off, which he didn't. Finally, Sobrell called him a liar and a coward, and he got a knuckle sandwich for his trouble. So the moon landing conspiracy was back, and popping up all over American pop culture. And they just start making stuff up. Yeah. Like that Neil Armstrong guy. Have you seen him on the talk shows? Neil Armstrong? You mean the first man to walk on the moon? Talk about a fish,

story. Yeah. Man, and they're buying it.

And when Joe Rogan started questioning the moon landing, that exposed a theory to a huge new audience. Joe who? Joe Rogan. Comic? Podcaster? Between 1969 and 1972, they had seven attempts, six of them successful. That was the only time in history that a human being has been more than 400 miles above the Earth's surface. Never heard of him. 400,000 people worked on the Apollo project.

600 million people watched the moon landing live. If this is a hoax, it's the greatest hoax in history. Bold claims require bold evidence. Is there evidence that the moon landing was faked? Lots of it. Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time? That's not an eight-year-old's question. That's my question.

The motivation for faking the moon landings was driven by several factors. The United States was under tremendous pressure to get to the moon before the Soviets. The Soviet Union had already proven they were far ahead of the U.S. in space technology. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not. And it is one of the great adventures of all time. And no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind.

The Soviet Union put the first man-made object in orbit with Sputnik 1 in 1957. They put the first animal in space when Laika the dog was launched with Sputnik 2. Laika didn't survive, but in 1960, the Soviets launched two dogs and a bunch of mice and rats that did return safely.

The first human in space was Yuri Gagarin. Valentina Tverskova was the first woman in space. The first multi-person crew. The first spacewalk. The first spacecraft to reach the moon. The first pictures of the far side of the moon. And even the first soft landing and transmission from the moon's surface. These were all Russian achievements. Meanwhile, America's attempts to catch up were not going well.

Rumors started going around that the Russians were going to put nuclear weapons on the moon. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge. So there was tremendous public pressure to get there first. We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other thing. Not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

On July 16th, 1969, Apollo 11 launched successfully. Four days later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on the moon. "Tanglility Base here. The Eagle has landed." "That's one small step for man."

In just a few years, the United States went from being years behind the Soviets in space exploration to eclipsing all of their achievements. To many people, this was just too good to be true. So skeptics started poring over photographs and film looking for evidence of a hoax. And the evidence was everywhere. The first clue of a hoax was

was that the astronauts seemed to be casting shadows in two different directions. But the sun is the only light source on the moon. On Earth, shadows run parallel. On the moon, not only did shadows go in different directions, but sometimes they were at right angles to each other. The only way to explain this is multiple light sources, like you'd get on a movie soundstage. Studio lights would also explain this shot.

In a vacuum with only a single light source, the shadows on the moon should be absolutely completely black. But there's a lot of film and photos where even though the astronauts are in shadow, they're lit extremely well. Now in the movies, the sun would be called a key light, which is your main light. And this light in the shadows would be from what's called a fill light. But there's no fill light on the moon, only a key light, the sun. There seems to be a Hollywood lighting technique happening here.

Now, you're not going to find any direct evidence of studio lights in any pictures from the moon. NASA's too smart for that. But even in big-budget movies, you can sometimes see the cameras and lights in reflections. Now look at this. In the reflection on the helmet, it looks like a neat row of movie lights. And look at the reflection on this photo. What the heck is that? That looks a lot like a studio light with the barn doors open.

Now here's a photo that shows what looks like a movie prop. This rock is labeled with the letter C, but the crew forgot to remove the label when they started shooting. How about this picture of the landing module? Do those hills look like they're miles away? Or do they look like this was shot on a soundstage? Speaking of those hills, this photo was supposedly taken a few miles away from the landing module.

then how come the backgrounds are identical? Because they use the same backdrop. Now let's talk about stars. On Earth, even with our thick atmosphere, the sky looks like this. But on the Moon, with no air, the sky is just...

Black? Shouldn't the sky be full of stars? NASA really thought this one through. If you're going to hoax something in space, the stars are a big problem. This is because by using a star map, you can not only get the precise location a photo was taken, you can even get the precise day and time. So they had to get rid of the stars. When you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars and the solar corona in spite of the glare?

We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the Sonar Curl what stars we could see. I don't remember seeing any. Small problem: they use stars to help them navigate to the Moon. The astronaut navigator finds a known star in the wide-angle telescope.

So are there stars or not? Which is it? There's a lot of evidence stacking up that doesn't look good for NASA or the moon landing. And we're just warming up.

NASA and the government faked the moon landing. It was technically impossible to do it. And they simply had to come up with some sort of alternative that they felt the public would believe. I believe, had they wanted to, that NASA could indeed have pulled off the greatest hoax of all time, never sent anyone to the moon, and recreated it in a television studio. Can you realize that we, the

you and I, that all of us, have actually begun the exploration of another world? The United States Geological Survey decided to build a model of one part of the lunar surface in an area accessible to present research centers. Four, three, two, one, fire!

Reflections of studio lights, accidental movie props, repeating backdrops. There's a lot of evidence suggesting that the moon landing wasn't filmed on the moon, but on a soundstage. The lunar module engine puts out 3,000 pounds of thrust, and the lunar surface is covered with dust that was described as fine powder. If that's true, why did the engine leave no mark on the surface? And shouldn't there be dust everywhere? Even the footpads are clean and shiny.

So either the landing module was sitting there, or it was gently lowered down by a crane. And you'd have to lower the thing gently. Look at it. It looks like tinfoil and curtain rods held together by duct tape. More evidence that a crane was used is when the astronauts separate from the module and return to orbit for pickup. Look at this.

The module separates and the astronauts gently lift back to orbit. And look how slowly it moves. Where's the rocket plume from the engine? What's allowing this to fly all the way to orbit? If you watch the footage closely, it looks like the object is wobbling a little on cables or wires.

By the way, who shot this footage? There was no camera remote control, but somehow the scene is framed perfectly. They're zooming in and out. The camera tracks the object up into the sky, but conveniently loses the object when it gets too high. But the camera does pan around the surface. Who's working the camera? Now, speaking of cables and wires, look at this footage. Does this look natural? Or does it look like he's being lifted by wires? I guess it's a follow-up, and I agree.

Apollo 11, this is Houston. Go ahead. LEM looks to be in pretty fine shape. That's all we can see from here. Okay, in reference to your question on this step 13 on the decal, I understand that you used up the contents of the Repress-02 package, and at that time, instead of being

Then there's this footage of Neil and Buzz putting up the American flag. But if they were both on the moon's surface, who's shooting the footage? And how is the flag waving if there's no atmosphere on the moon? Now, sure, we've been told that there was an aluminum tube holding up the flag, but it seems to be moving around a lot. Now, here's a picture of what an Apollo astronaut's spacesuit looked like. But look at the soles of the shoes. They don't look anything like the footprints the astronauts supposedly made in the lunar dust.

And what about the heat? The surface temperature on the moon during the day is over 250 degrees Fahrenheit. That's as hot as an oven. The film inside their cameras should have melted. But there are thousands of pictures that all came out perfectly fine. Well, fine, except for the whole wrong shadows, no stars, movie props, visible lights, and stuff being hoisted by cranes. Right. Except for that.

And there are plenty of photos that are flat-out doctored. If you remember our episode on NASA's Mars cover-up, we proved that the photos of Mars were altered before being released to the public. This is a technique perfected during Apollo. The Apollo handheld cameras had special crosshairs on them called Rousseau marks. And these were here to help make sure the photos were printed properly from the negatives and not distorted, and to make it easier to stitch photos together for panoramas.

But in some of the photos, the crosshairs aren't there or are only in part of the picture. In other photographs, objects appear in front of the crosshairs. Now, that's physically impossible unless the objects were added after the photo was taken by layering them on top of empty backgrounds. And there are even more problems with the photography. Here's a picture of an Apollo astronaut saluting the American flag.

But look at his feet. The shadows don't even reach them. It's like he was edited in later and somebody forgot to add a shadow. Now, even if we could explain all these anomalies in the photos, there's a big reason why nobody can get to the moon. A reason why human beings can't leave Earth at all, at least not yet. The reason is real and scientifically proven as fact. Radiation.

We see the ascent stage suddenly pop up without any exhaust plume whatsoever, as though it were jerked up by a cable. Our research suggests that images of the Apollo landings are not a true and accurate record. In our view, the Apollo picture is the fate. Many of the images are replete with inconsistencies and anomalies.

There are problems with almost every aspect of the visual records, equipment and technology used to supposedly put a man on the moon. But there's one even bigger problem we haven't dealt with yet. There's no way the astronauts could have even escaped Earth's orbit, much less gone to the moon and back.

In 1958, scientist James Van Allen discovered two enormous belts of high-energy radiation surrounding the planet. The Van Allen radiation belts are a pair of toroidal belts of... Donut-shaped...

They are donut-shaped belts of high-energy particles. Any object leaving the Earth's orbit to visit the moon or beyond has to pass through them, and they extend out about 37,000 miles from Earth. These two radiation belts have different compositions. The inner belt above the equator contains energetic particles that are charged up to 100 million electron volts. The outer belt is electron plasma from the sun's solar wind, and it has energies in the 10 million electron volt range.

When it was first detected,

The strength of the radiation was so powerful that scientists thought they had recorded a Soviet nuclear test. These high energy particles can penetrate spacecraft, damage instruments, and are lethal to astronauts. But we have photos and even film of the Earth taken from much farther out. How could this be faked? Well, the astronauts never left low Earth orbit. From there, the Earth fills the entire window of the craft. We only have one window that

So to get this film of the Earth, they blocked out sections of the window.

This film is an outtake. The astronauts didn't realize they were still rolling. They said the camera was pressed up against the window to get a good shot of the Earth, but that's not true. You can see someone pass in front of the window, then quickly jump out of the way. And here you see the dim work light that was used so they could operate the camera. We're not supposed to see this. We're also not supposed to see this. Someone adjusting the insert that controls the shape of the Earth.

Now remember, they're in low Earth orbit, so the Earth is actually really bright and fills the whole window. How do we know? Because when they open up the iris of the lens, we can see it. Holy sh**. Yeah, we can't pass through the Van Allen belts yet. Don't take my word for it. Take NASA's. As we get further away from Earth, we'll pass through the Van Allen belts, an area of dangerous radiation.

Radiation like this could harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. But Orion has protection. Shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study.

We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space. I guess we're still working on solving this issue because I thought we... We're also really pushing the boundaries in terms of where we're going forward with exploration. I think humans are naturally driven to do this and this is really the beginning, I think, of human beings leaving low Earth orbit. I certainly plan on being around to see that.

I don't want to be a jerk because she seems like a nice girl, but newsflash, the moon is way outside low Earth orbit. The plan that NASA has is to build a rocket called SLS, which is a heavy lift rocket, something that is much bigger than what we have today. And it will be able to launch the Orion capsule with humans on board, as well as landers or other components.

to destinations beyond Earth orbit. Right now, we only can fly in Earth orbit. That's the farthest that we can go. We only can fly in Earth orbit. That's the farthest that we can go. And this new system that we're building is going to allow us to go beyond and hopefully take humans into the solar system to explore. So the moon, Mars, asteroids, there's a lot of destinations that we could go to. And we're building these building block components in order to allow us to do that eventually.

Once we travel beyond low-Earth orbit, the crew will be exposed to larger amounts of radiation. So we have to design both the crew protection systems and our electronic systems to withstand this radiation. But didn't we already design those protection systems for Apollo? Why don't we just use that technology? I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond.

The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to, but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again. Wait, we destroyed the technology and we can't recreate it? So nobody wrote anything down? That seems irresponsible. Oh, you mean irresponsible like recording over the original moon landing tapes? Yeah, NASA did that. There are no original high-quality moon landing tapes. They were erased and reused. Allegedly.

The footage we see of the moon landing was taken in a very strange way. NASA took a video feed from the moon and projected it onto a screen. Then TV stations pointed their cameras at the screen. The stations wanted a direct feed, but NASA refused. That's why the moon landing footage is such a mess. Anyway, the best way to protect a fragile human body from Van Allen radiation is lead shielding.

But even a thin layer of lead would have made the Saturn V rocket too heavy to get off the ground. The only protection they had was a thin sheet of aluminum. But aluminum melts at about 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit. The electrons in the Van Allen belts have energies of millions of volts. Now, this would equate to a temperature of about 10 million degrees Kelvin. So how did NASA overcome this problem? They didn't. Instead, they called Hollywood.

I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period

will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long-range exploration of space. But right now we need a 10 to 12 year program that has as its ultimate goal the man domination of space. And if we don't we're going to be in trouble. To put people on the moon with enough fuel to enable them to return safely home to Earth requires

He's still a larger and more powerful rocket, however. A member of Congress said today that he was tired of seeing the United States second to Russia in the space field. And only the future will tell whether we'll manage to close that gap. It's going to take some time, and I think we have to recognize it. They secured...

These large boosters, which have led to their being first in Sputnik and led to their first putting their man in space. We are, I hope, going to be able to carry out our efforts with due regard to the problem of the life of the man involved this year. But we are behind. We are behind. We are behind.

Kubrick's Odyssey is a short film created by Jay Widener in 2011. Recently, it gained attention after being picked up by the Gaia streaming network. This film is the primary reference for the theory that Stanley Kubrick filmed the moon landing footage for NASA in the 1960s and 70s. By 1964, NASA knew that sending men to the moon was impossible.

the deadly radiation belts, issues with chemical rockets, and weight and radiation shielding issues. It made it unachievable. Kubrick became involved when someone in the Pentagon saw his 1963 film, Dr. Strangelove. Impressed by the special effects, this person offered Kubrick a secret project.

Faking the Apollo moon landings. Kubrick was persuaded using a carrot and stick approach. If he helped fake the landings, he would have artistic freedom and financial support for his future films. That's the carrot. The stick was blackmail. No one knows how the powers that be convinced Kubrick to direct the Apollo landings. Maybe they had compromised Kubrick in some way.

So a deal was made in 1964.

Kubrick was given three years to complete 2001 in order to test the filmmaking technology necessary to make the moon landings appear believable. To assist him, he had access to several NASA experts and the use of a special 50 millimeter lens made specifically for the Apollo program. - Originally was a lens manufactured, designed, developed and manufactured by Zeiss for NASA. - So how did he do it? Without the use of CGI, Kubrick perfected a new kind of visual effect

called front screen projection. Experimentation with front screen projection began in 1949, shortly after the invention of scotch light, a material used for screens in movie theaters. Scotch light is cloth embedded with millions of tiny glass beads that have high reflectivity.

Due to the sensitivity of scotch light, a minimal amount of light is required. This means that actors can stand in front of the projection without it being visible on their bodies or clothing. Front screen projection was so convincing that many people think the Dawn of Man sequences in 2001 were actually shot on location.

They weren't. Almost all that part of 2001 was shot in a studio, with actors on sets. If you look closely at Apollo photographs of the moon, you can see a line where the fake moon set ends and the front projection screen begins. At that line, the texture of the lunar surface changes dramatically.

Please note how everything is in focus, from the rocks and pebbles close to the camera, all the way to the crystal clear mountain behind the astronaut. There is a stark difference in ground texture between the set and what is being projected onto the screen. You can almost count the number of small rocks and the granularity of the ground that is clearly seen on the set. Once we get to the screen on the other side of my line, this granularity disappears.

The little pebbles and dust just seem to disappear behind my line. The latter part of Kubrick's Odyssey discusses the hidden messages in The Shining that Kubrick directed in 1980. Kubrick leaves clues that he faked the moon landings. The characters Jack and Danny, who are the father and son in the movie, symbolize different aspects of Kubrick's own personality. Danny, the child, represents Kubrick's inner innocence, while Jack represents the jaded and morally compromised adult that Kubrick has become.

There are also specific visual clues. The Indian wall hangings on the walls of the Overlook Hotel look like rockets launching into space. The pattern on the carpet of the hotel is a hexagonal shape that represents the shape of the launch pads at Cape Canaveral.

And in one scene, when Danny is playing with his toys on this carpet, he stands up and is seen wearing a sweater that says Apollo 11 on it. Next, there's a scene where Danny then walks down the hall and finds an open door to a room.

The room is number 237, which was changed from room 217 in the Stephen King novel. The number 237 is significant because the average orbital distance between the Earth and the Moon is 237,000 miles. Then there's the scene where Jack's wife discovers that he's been typing the same phrase over and over.

The phrase is, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. But the word all isn't A-L-L. It's actually typed out as A-1-1 or Apollo 11. And there are a lot of other claims made by Kubrick's Odyssey, but those are the highlights. And these claims were highly debated and very controversial. What we need is Kubrick admitting he faked the moon landing. We need to hear it from his own mouth. But he never said a word about it. Or did he?

We've been brought in here by Stanley Kubrick to more or less ensure the scientific integrity of the film, to make sure that it's very, very close in reality, but still we want to make certain that it has a base of reality. We're in the final assembly building of the LEM. Stanley Kubrick and I have set ourselves several objectives we hope to convey to the public.

the wonder and beauty and promise of the new age of exploration which is opening up before the human race. Take one. That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. Good evening. I'm sorry not to be able to be with you tonight.

In 2016, an interview with Stanley Kubrick was found. And according to the video, Kubrick had to sign an 88-page nondisclosure agreement that the interview would stay hidden for 15 years. Is everything looking in order regarding our contract and the 15-year agreement and I signed the nondisclosure? Is that all for the legal stuff? Yeah. Yeah.

okay looks good to me all right a documentary filmmaker interviews stanley kubrick about his career as a director and right from the start kubrick interrupts and explains that when he initially considered the project he saw it as just another film when asked which of his movies he's referring to he reveals that he's talking about the moon landing and claims that it was all fake the challenge of of making this

this film and I went into it like it was a regular film, like another production of mine. Not thinking too much about the long term effects, what it would mean to society if it was ever discovered. What are you talking about? You know what you're talking about. You're referring to something... The moon, the fake moon landing.

He says that he was approached by NASA and that they appealed to his sense of duty and patriotism. But Kubrick admitted that the project was about America's public image and upstaging Russia. To fulfill this dream that America has had as a country since the Kennedy years. Okay, so you're saying the motivation was PR? PR, absolutely. Plain and simple, PR.

Then he goes on to confirm that the conspiracy is actually the truth. Faking the exploration of space because there was just no way we could get there. NASA then set up a meeting with Kubrick and President Richard Nixon. Kubrick met with Nixon in the Oval Office and details what Nixon asked him to do, film a fake moon landing. I am convinced and the gentlemen at NASA are also convinced that you can help us

This interview was a bombshell. This was the evidence the world had been waiting for. This was evidence that every allegation made in the documentary Kubrick's Odyssey was true. Millions of people saw this interview and finally felt justified in their suspicion that the moon landing never happened. One small problem. Wasn't Stanley Kubrick. No.

The Stanley Kubrick moon landing confession set the conspiracy side of the internet on fire, but it was a hoax. This is either a filmmaker and an actor, or more likely, two guys goofing around. In the full-length version of the interview, an agitated producer constantly badgers the actor whose real name is Tom. A launch pad accident in 67, which killed...

So Nixon sat me down in the Oval Office and he says to me, "You know that boy just died, I don't think this is how I want you..." "We're never going to kneel..." "Oh, you're telling me that Nixon..." "We're going to kneel, yeah." "The plan, he didn't..." "So he says to me, you don't say he said anything, you say what he says, okay?"

Tom, I'm just giving you an introduction. You want me to say it as him? You don't have to imitate him, but you have to say it. He says, Stanley, we've worked on this movie program. Come on, get with it, Tom. Do your shtick. Do a shtick. Get into the fact that you're writing this, Tom, and not only has it got to be crap, it can be funny in a very subtle way. So you meet with Nixon, and what happened? And action. What they believed was if we could... Nixon sat down.

So Stanley Kubrick had nothing to do with that interview. Not just that, he had nothing to do with the moon landing. In the documentary Kubrick's Odyssey, everything can be explained.

All the photo evidence presented is from extremely low resolution photos, probably grabbed from the web. Now, unfortunately for the documentary, but lucky for us, high resolution photos can be found easily. So when looking at a low resolution photo of the lunar landscape, you can maybe see a separation between the foreground and the supposed backdrop. But in the high res photos, the line isn't there.

All the other claims in the documentary that refer to photos can be explained simply by looking at the originals. As far as the clues left in The Shining, those are nothing but coincidences and stretches of the imagination. The rockets in the tapestry? I don't really see it. The hexagonal rug? Well, the launch pad at Cape Canaveral is not a hexagon. It was roughly 10 sides, but it's not very symmetrical.

Room 237 is just room 237. The moon isn't 237,000 miles away from the Earth. It's closer to 239,000, but very slightly. Danny is indeed wearing an Apollo 11 sweater. But Stanley Kubrick was a space nut. He loved the Apollo program, and he loved sci-fi. And Stanley Kubrick's brother Paul, who is the leader of the Communist Party? Well, that's not true at all. Kubrick didn't

Well, that's true.

The big one is that the shadows should be parallel. Since the shadows are not parallel, there must be other light sources. Except shadows aren't parallel. The direction of shadows depends on the perspective of the viewer. Now here's an example on Earth. These are two pictures of the same woman, taken at different angles. In the first photo, taken from the side, the shadows are parallel. But when we put our back to the sun, the shadows aren't even close to parallel.

In perspective drawing and design, parallel lines converge in what's called a vanishing point. This is typically the horizon line where objects vanish beyond our field of view. Plus, the astronauts used very wide lenses to capture as much terrain as possible. So images are going to be slightly distorted, like a carnival mirror. But even with a flatter lens or the human eye, shadows are not parallel.

Also, multiple light sources would cast multiple shadows, but the objects on the moon cast only one shadow. Yeah, but everything in the shadow is supposed to be black because there's no light getting there. Sure there is. No, there isn't. There is. Agree to disagree. The ambient light, or the fill light, is the moon itself.

The soil on the surface of the moon is full of tiny beads of glass and metal like aluminum and titanium. These are all highly reflective materials. So the moon's soil actually acts like trillions of tiny mirrors, bouncing the light back and filling in the shadows. Eh. Well, ever go skiing on a sunny day? Of course I have. I was an instructor in college. You were... I don't want to get into that now.

Oh.

Meow. Meow.

Okay, there's an atmosphere on the moon, but it's extremely thin compared to the Earth. It's called an exosphere, and it's made up of very small amounts of hydrogen, helium, and a few trace gases. And because there's no atmosphere, there's no haze. We evolved on Earth with a thick atmosphere, and one of the ways we determine distant objects is by how hazy they are. In other words, how much of the atmosphere are we looking through? Now, on the moon, without haze, objects both near and far will feel close. It's an optical illusion. Yeah, but...

Where are the stars? Right. The stars are there, you just can't see them. Yeah, likely story. Well, in order to take pictures of the moon, the camera's iris had to be almost completely closed and shutter speed turned way up. This is to let in as little light as possible. Otherwise, the brightness of the moon would wash everything out. Look how bright a full moon is. On a clear night, a full moon lights up everything, and it's a quarter million miles away. The astronauts are standing on that. It's bright.

Even on Earth, if you're standing under a big spotlight at night, you're not going to see stars. The iris of your eye acts like the iris of a camera. The faint light of the stars just doesn't register. Watch a baseball game played under the lights. You don't see stars.

A lot of moon hoax evidence is cherry-picked, like the lack of a blast crater under the lunar module. There's no crater because the engine was turned off about 10 feet from the surface. The LEM just dropped the rest of the way. And without any wind to disturb, there's just not going to be a lot of dust flying around. And where Apollo 11 touched down, the ground was hard soil. But other Apollo landings, like Apollo 12, were pretty dusty. The lack of wind is also why the American flag doesn't move. Well...

Well, the aluminum rods are pretty springy, so the flag moves for quite a while after it's touched. But when it settles down, it doesn't move an inch. Oh, the camera that recorded the lunar module separating? That was operated remotely. The footprints don't match because the astronauts put on boot covers that have a different tread.

The temperatures are hot on the moon, but without an atmosphere to conduct heat, there is no convection. As long as things are colored bright white, they reflect most of the sun's energy pretty well. Heat wasn't an issue, not for the astronauts and not for the camera film. Now, there are many more examples, but I think you get the idea. Every single one of those pieces of evidence can be explained. But hold on a second. Go on. Two questions. Did NASA put men on the moon? Probably. Is NASA covering something up on the moon?

Definitely. My name is Carl Wolf and I was a precision electronics photographic repairman with a top secret crypto clearance in mid 1965. I was loaned to the Lunar Orbiter Project at NASA on Langley Field. I was taken into the laboratory where the equipment was malfunctioning. I couldn't repair it in the dark. I asked to have it removed.

Airman second class was in the dark room at that time. I was also an airman second class. About 30 minutes into the process he said to me in a very distressed way, "By the way, we've discovered a base on the backside of the moon." And then he proceeded to put photographs down in front of me and clearly in these photographs were structures, mushroom-shaped buildings, spherical buildings, and towers.

And at that point, I was very concerned because I knew we were working on compartmentalized security. He had breached security, and I was actually frightened at that moment. And I did not question him any further. And a few moments later, someone did come into the room.

I worked there for three more days and I remember going home and naively thinking, "I can't wait to hear about this on the evening news." And here it is, more than 30 years later, and I hope we hear about it tonight. And I will testify under oath before Congress that what I'm saying is the truth.

I think the reason we haven't returned to the moon for 50 years is not because of a lack of interest or funding or the Van Allen radiation belts. I think we haven't gone back to the moon because of what was found up there. But that requires its own episode. And if you want to see it, let me know. Whatever is up there has been up there for a long, long time. And I think we can prove it.

Thank you so much for hanging out with me today. My name is AJ. That's Hecklefish. Hello, Gabnett. This has been the Y-Files. If you had fun or learned anything, do us a favor, subscribe, like, comment, share, the buttons, all that stuff. It really does help the channel. And like most topics we cover here, today's was recommended by you. So if there's a story you'd like to see or learn more about, go to the Y-Files.com slash tips.

And if you'd like to join a great community full of thousands of like-minded people who are weird like us, check out the Y-Files Discord. It's free to join and a lot of fun. And special thanks to our patrons who make this channel possible. We could not do this without your support. And if you'd like to support the channel and keep the Y-Files going, become a member on Patreon. For as little as $3 a month, you get all kinds of fun perks, and you get to see the videos early without commercials. Or buy something from the Y-Files store. Get yourself a heck of a...

a hecklefish t-shirt, or a hecklefish coffee mug, or one of these hecklefish talking stuffed animal fish style animals. That's going to do it. Until next time, be safe, be kind, and know that you are appreciated.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

you