Apollo 20. The Disclosure - cover of the book, by Luca Scantamburlo, Jan. 2010,, first edition

Apollo 20. The Disclosure

essay by Luca Scantamburlo,, Jan. 2010

Frame from APOLLO 20 E.B.E. MonaLisa TV unscheduled transmission- uploaded by "retiredafb" on, on April 08, 2008 

Frame from
<<APOLLO 20 E.B.E. MonaLisa TV unscheduled transmission>> , 
posted by "retiredafb" on, on April 2008, in 2008.
Notice the missing legs of the presumed astronaut.

Image credit:

The Cathedral and the wall of the presumed alien base, visible on the lunar horizon, through the LEM triangular window - frame from the footage APOLLO 20 E.B.E. MonaLisa TV unscheduled transmission ,  posted by "retiredafb" on, on April 8,2008

The Cathedral and the wall of the presumed alien base, visible on the lunar horizon, through the LEM triangular window - frame from the footage "APOLLO 20 E.B.E. MonaLisa TV unscheduled transmission",  posted by "retiredafb" on, on April 2008

The Cathedral and the wall of the presumed alien base, visible on the lunar horizon, through the LEM triangular window - frame from the footage "APOLLO 20 E.B.E. MonaLisa TV unscheduled transmission",  posted by "retiredafb" on, on April 2008

Other frames from the same footage

Image credit:

On the lunar horizon are visible the so-called "Cathedral" (on the left) and the dark-grey wall of the
alien base (on the right) ...

A close-up of one the frames of APOLLO 20 footage, filmed inside the LEM Phoenix - posted by "retiredafb" on, April 2008


... according to the insider "moonwalker1966delta"
Moreover, it is visble close to the LEM even what looks like a Soviet lander:
the Lunokhod.
Read the interview with Apollo 19 Commander for the reasons
of  its presence.

Presumed Apollo 20 mission patch, visible as reflection in the footage of EBE Mona Lisa, uploaded by retiredafb - detail of the footage pointed out by an Italian anonymous source

Presumed Apollo 20 mission patch, visible as reflection in the footage of EBE Mona Lisa inside the LEM, uploaded by retiredafb on
- detail of the footage pointed by an Italian anonymous source -


CCCP marking on a Saturn V stage?Video analysis by "a Chinese"

Video analysis by "a Chinese": comparison between lift-off of the a presumed Saturn V launched in 1976, and the first stage, spent and floating in Space

Courtesy "A Chinese"

Frame from the presumed lift-off of Apollo 20 Saturn V, August 197 - video uploaded by "retiredafb" on YouTube

Frame from the presumed lift-off of a Saturn V, August 1976;
video uploaded by "retiredafb" on YouTube, in April 2007

Image Credit:
 "retiredafb", YouTube


Video analysis by "a Chinese": comparison of details visible in the Apollo 19 16 mm footage, and details from offician NASA photos of Apollo spacecraft interior

Video analysis by "a Chinese": comparison of details visible in the Apollo 19 incident footage (a 16 mm), and details from
official NASA photos of Apollo spacecraft interior.

Courtesy "A Chinese"

Frame from the video "Apollo 20 preparing for DPI", uploaded by "moonwalker1966delta" on February 12, 2008, on YouTube

Frame from the video "Apollo 20 preparing for DPI", uploaded by "moonwalker1966delta" on February 12, 2008, on YouTube

Frames from the video
"Apollo 20 preparing for DPI",
uploaded by "moonwalker1966delta" on February 12, 2008,
on YouTube

Image credit:

"moonwalker1966delta", YouTube

AS15-M-1720, NASA photo - Courtesy LPI/NASA

The AS15-M-1720 NASA picture: you can see the Fermi walled plane, the Izsak crater on the left and the
"Izsak D" crater on
the upper right of the picture

- Courtesy NASA/LPI


IzsakD-1720-rotated. AS15-M-1720-Courtesy LPI/NASA

The detail of the NASA picture listed as AS15-M-1720, but rotated of 90° 

- Courtesy NASA/LPI -


The Izsak crater

 IzsakCRATER-1720, Courtesy LPI/NASA

Diameter 30 KM 
it is a detail of the image
AS15-M-1720 taken from an altitude of 114 km (Apollo 15 mission);
Camera Tilt: VERT; Revolution: 44;
Sun Elevation: 20°;
Lens Focal Length: 3 inch 

-Image and data courtesy NASA/LPI-



by Luca Scantamburlo

UPDATING, Jan 31, 2010

  The following discussion and information are not part of my recent book's contents (Apollo 20. The Disclosure, by L. Scantamburlo,, USA, Jan 2010, essay in English language). I have decided - because of help received by anonymous and not anonymous sources - to share with you the main considerations about the video of the E.B.E. "Mona Lisa" inside the LEM, posting them on my website, available for everyone, instead of including them in my book available for those who want to have a right context where to read the story, but with a deep understanding step by step of my long research, begun in May 2007.
  In my book Apollo 20. The Disclosure, the general public can find not only almost all my articles in English language I have written on the issue from 2007 until 2008, but also the possible reasons I have identified for the disclosure and for this controversial strategy chosen by the insiders: of course I mean my own opinion on this unusual disclosure, polluted with some misleading data, and since the very beginning contaminated with the video fake of the so-called "City" (Station one, in the mission targets).
  I guess that everything (and even the video fake) had a meaning but only recently I was able to find a right context for the single puzzle pieces:
in my book the reader will find some revelations made by William Rutledge ("retiredafb") and "moonwalker1966delta", never published before, and the clues I have identified that could be indirect evidence of space history (especially through the memoirs of a former U.S. astronaut, written with his friend, a Soviet cosmonaut) coherent with the testimony granted by Apollo 20 and 19 Commanders.
  The missing legs and torso of the presumed astronaut visible in the footage uploaded by "retiredafb" on, is an evidence of strong contradiction. ATS (AboveTopSecret) users and members discussed the topic of Apollo 19 and 20 case years ago, in a interesting thread of this large and famous Internet community of USA.
  At the time I participated to the discussion as a ATS member, but after a few days I left the on-line debate because of some considerations on me and against my reputation, and expressed on ATS forum by a member of that community. Only months ago I realized the remarkable and right consideration on the missing legs, which I had missed in reading the debate.
  In Italy the same doubts about the missing legs were discussed soon afterwards my interview with the television news Studio Aperto, broadcasted by Italia 1 (Italian television channel), on October 25, 2009, during the television show "Mistero", directed by Enrico Ruggeri. Someone of the tv audience wrote me after my video-interview with the Italian journalist Sabrina Pieragostini, and pointed out to me the above element of contradiction. It seems that the astronaut figure is an element of a video manipulation (see one of the first frames on the right of the report, and you will notice the missing legs). 
  We must pay attention to that and - if we have a honest approach - we cannot deny it. Something is wrong with that footage, the alleged film of Apollo 20 mission, shot at MET 174 (according to the subtitles of introduction).
  At the same time we must recognize the presence of Lunar Module details coherent with the interior parts of a real Lunar Module, and even the presence of what looks like a Soviet lander on the lunar surface: the Lunokhod, the unmanned lunar surface vehicle projected and developed with success by Soviet scientists, during the Space race, and launched since 1970.
  Moreover, we have to recognize several moving shadows in the footage, coherent with the presence of someone inside the Lunar Module. How can we explain this with such a silly video element of contradiction (the missing legs of the presumed astronaut)? We have to remember that - if the footage is authentic - we would have a digital evidence spread on Internet, and coming from an analogic footage recorded in 1976, and later transferred to its digital version. Did someone manipulate the video on purpose, to give less credibility to it?

  The astronaut - who would be William Rutledge, the Apollo 20 Commander, filmed by a presumed Alexei Leonov, the same person who would have made the shot of the E.B.E. Mona Lisa, visible in the footage - wears a typical NASA astronaut white uniform, with a probable blue logo (the meatball?) on the front, the revised version of the first NASA logo. That logo was already used even before 1976, although since 1975 was introduced and used the new logo, the so-called "worm logo", which was replaced in 1992 by the meatball again.


  After to have received comments from my Italian readers who had another point of view on the footage - believed a fake by many individuals because of the missing legs - at the end of November 2009 "moonwalker1966delta" sent me a message where there were similar considerations, and I was very surprised, because I did not write him nothing about my previous contacts with others, not published yet at the time, who had sent me considerations very similar:

  <<[...] In the William's video of the LM's interior the upper tower of the "Cathedral" is visible in the external view frames on upper left side of the crater while on the right upper side is visible the external dark-grey wall of the alien base. Since I know this footage very well I can confirm that the video is authentic and there is no CG involved. Probably the missing William's torso is caused by an error on image data or lost pixels during video copy. If you pay a close attention to the footage you will see William's shadows reflected on the windows and the bars moving accordingly to the zoom in the main footage of the mothership. If you try to concentrate on the reflexes instead of the mothership you will see the window the bars and the white figure of Alex reflected.>>

message to Luca Scantamburlo by "moonwalker1966delta", YouTube's account,
Nov 28, 2009

  This means - if we pay attention to the words written by the Apollo 19 Commander (see above) that A. Leonov occupied the right side (the right station) of the LEM during the flyover of the mothership - on the far side of the Moon - while the Apollo 20 Commander (William Rutledge) occupied the left side of the LEM. Does it make any sense under the technical point of view of Space history?
  The reader of my essay can find more information about it, reading my book and consulting the bibliography I have written. But this was already confirmed by William Rutledge, in the interview granted in 2007, for those who remember what he said.


  In my closing remarks of this updating - not discussed in my book Apollo 20. The Disclosure - I want to give the right acknowledgement for those Italian citizens who wrote me after my video interview with the Italian television (Studio Aperto television news, with the correspondent Sabrina Pieragostini), and who were able to go beyond the simple opposition true-false:

1)  the first individual is the Italian citizen Giuseppe Sabatini, a fond of Space exploration and of UFO phenomenon who gave me his permission to mention him.
  He wrote me in November 2009 because he had had the feeling that the video of the LEM has not been manipolated, in spite of it is true that the astronaut legs are missing. Moreover he pointed the presence of a lunar map inside the LEM, on the panel, a clear sign of the mission targets. A detail very consistent with the testimony spread by the insiders.

2) Another person who wrote me in November and December 2009, concentrated his attention on the reflections visible in the footage, especially on that LM window and on the plastic used by the astronaut (an envelope, a plastic bag?).
, YouTube user,
(, who has posted a video called "Apollo 20 - The invisible man_0001.wmv", result of a his analysis of the video of the Mona Lisa inside the LEM, posted by "retiredafb" on, on April 8, 2008.
  According to my source of information - in contact with me and who prefers to stay behind the scenes - it is possible to see not only the structures on the lunar horizon, but also the signs of the presence of the other astronaut, in front of William Rutlegge.
  At the beginning he was very skeptical about the disclosure discussed by me, but later he changed his opinion because a deep video investigation of the video he has done: there would be another person in front of the astronaut with the white uniform: a Caucasian man, wearing a blue uniform and a white t-shirt, and this man would handle a camera; there would be the reflections of its presence, and of its camera, like a red spot on the LEM triangular window, and even the mission patch of the Apollo 20 mission, probably belonging to the uniform of the astronaut. You can see the detail of the frame he has cut out (figure on the left of the report).
  About the YouTube video of the invisible man of the footage, click the following link:
video about the Apollo 20, the invisible man

© L. Scantamburlo
January 31, 2010

Reproduction is allowed on the Web if accompanied by the statement
©  L. Scantamburlo -
Reproduced by permission


January 19, 2010


  I have decided to present to you not only some video analysis provided by "A Chinese" (a reader of mine who prefers to stay behind the scenes) but also some passages of my unpublished essay, concerning the Apollo 19 and 20 case, which is coming soon. 

  This controversial case - the Apollo 19 and 20 story - contains some kernels of truth, I believe, and this is the only reason I have been working to the best of my knowledge and ability, since May 2007. 

  Many people - from several countries of the world - have been writing me since May 2007. I thank them. I thank above all "retiredafb" and "moonwalker1966delta": they have been disclosing secret pages of space history, in spite of some misleading data and video fakes spread at the beginning. Perhaps, the real reason behind this, is under our eyes...for those who want to see and understand.

  Virgilio, the ancient Latin poet, wrote "Carpent tua poma nepotes" in his "Bucoliche". The Apollo 20 mission patch quotes it. 

  Maybe we are those grandchildren. 


[...]  Other clues on William Rutledge's knowledge of space flight and Apollo procedures, are contained in that message. The discussion is about the contamination of Apollo 20 footage with Apollo 11 footage: audio (which contaminates the presumed lift-off of Apollo 20) and video (frames which pollute the beginning of the presumed LM-15 flyover video, on the Moon). 

  Here you are an excerpt of that, without any correction by me, as usual (part of it already disclosed, and part of it unpublished until the publication of this book):

<<[...] One day, i'll invite a special friend who is well known in space community, it could be a good surprise.
Abut the soundtrack, i think you'r right, ididn't compare the sound, but some tapes are polluted with apollo 11 , sometimes it is a question of one or two frames. A youtube poster showed me frames from the flyover video, i didn't notice that.
One bravo was an abort procedure, we had ONE A B ONE C which allowed us to control thrusters on the LES (escape tower). IMHO, only apollo 12 was effectively using ONE bravo, after being hit by a lightning strike, but Alan Bean commuted from SCE to AUX to override and continue the flight.
Anyway, i have no apollo 11 tapes, i can't compare it about soundtrack, but i'll be more carefull about the title pages. I'll rip off some sound or title pages if necessary.
Honestly, the material has nothing common with apollo 11. On the lift off sequence, the saturn 5 has no markings till the third stage. the S IV b had "CCCP" and "USAF" markings, it was the only part marked, because S IVb never get back to earth, the other stages had to fall into the sea and could'nt were markings. µBecause of this lack of markings, one youtuber told the community he recognize a saturn 1b, which could not be powerfull enough to send LM+CSM to the moon. In vandenberg, the saturn V launch had to be not reconizable, no BW lines or USA marks on the rocket. Only the last ring was black painted, and it could look like an ordinary DElta rocket at 4 miles distance. I know it can be confusing for peoples, [...]>>

June 06, 2007, 01:37 AM, from a "retiredafb's message" to Luca Scantamburlo's YouTube account


  I have always had the impression that – at least part of it (maybe the beginning) - the footage named <<APOLLO 20 launch feed stage 1 and interstaging unit separation>> uploaded in January 2008 by “retiredafb” on, is a computer graphic work, perhaps based on an original Apollo footage (so we could have an editing of a fake and an authentic footage); does it make any sense comparing the film with what Rutledge wrote? No markings until the third stage, he said: but on the presumed first stage we can see what it looks like a marking.  
  Anyway, the altitude of the rocket - when the separation of the first stage takes place - is enough coherent with what “moonwalker1966delta” said in my interview with him. Much higher than previous Apollo missions, and for good reasons as he explains.
  Another thing to point: some and YouTube users – very attentive – has recognized in that footage a landscape which does not look like the American coast, but an African Coast and the Middle East, we can say. They have written their comments on the Web. Could it be in accordance with a possible launch from Diego Garcia Island? I do not know. If these presumed missions did take place indeed, it is possible that after a launch from Vandenberg, in February 1976 (Apollo 19), the following mission (Apollo 20, taken place in August 1976) has been launched from the Diego Garcia Island  - as suggested by John Lear – but, I suppose, maintaining Vandenberg as Mission Control Center. 

  That' s just my opinion. I could be wrong. But what we can watch in the footage – the presumed first stage (S-IC) after the separation from the point of view of a probable camera fixed on the interstage – is not the Saturn V third stage (S-IVB), that was used twice during the launch of an Apollo mission and had a single engine (not 5 engines like the first stage) with restart capability: the first ignition of S-IVB was necessary to inject the Apollo spacecraft into earth orbit; the second ignition was used to set the spacecraft into a translunar trajectory from Earth orbit. According to “retiredafb” only the Saturn V stage S-IVB had markings. So, I do not understand the comment by “retiredafb” on, when he says: 

<<Separation of stage one an interstage unit, the USAF and CCCP markings are slightly visible on some pictures.>> 

  What does it mean? That on the other stages there were writings, but very small compared to the usual markings of a Saturn V (“USA” marking, for example)?
  If we were able to see in the footage the separation of the third stage (SIV-B), that could be the stage marked with the CCCP acronym, and with the last ring black painted, as William Rutledge told me and claimed. This is not the case.  But my knowledge of space flight and space history is not great (I am too young and I am not a specialist), so it is difficult for me to say what the footage represents. But I agree with the opinion expressed by “allojz1986”, YouTube user. The reader should remember who he is: again, he helpes the discussion with comments posted on Web, but not on in this occasion: he explains that the first part of the footage is filmed by the first camera on Saturn V S-II (the second stage), while most of the footage (so it is an editing) shows from the point of view of the second camera, fixed inside the interstage module, floating in Space.


  Before I disclosed this Rutledge's information about possible CCCP and USAF markings only on the last stage of the rocket,1 I had received - in December 2009 – an e-mail from a source of mine (we call him “a Chinese”), in which he attached an analysis of the footage, and telling me what he believed to be the marking of “CCCP” visible on the rocket stage, floating free in Space (snapshot at time: 03'57''). 

  The CCCP is – of course – the well-known acronym used for the USSR. This, in my opinion, would be a strange contradiction if confirmed, which would give less credibility to the William Rutledge's testimony. It seems there is a marking close to the what looks like a black ring on the upper part, but I cannot read it. On the contrary, it is true that the presumed lift-off from Vandenberg AFB, uploaded on YouTube in 2007, showed a very unusual rocket as colours and painting, very different from a normal Saturn V. And this is in accordance with the Rutledge's testimony. A part from the audio, which comes from an Apollo previous mission.


  However the same anonymous source – this Chinese individual – showed me his personal work of image comparison among the frames from the Apollo 19 incident YouTube video (a 16 mm footage), and the interior of the Apollo spacecraft.
 It seems that the details visible in the footage uploaded by “moonwalker1966delta”, are the same details that it is possible to recognize watching carefully the panel instruments of an Apollo spacecraft. Of course, if the Apollo 19 incident footage is an authentic film, it is possible that the crew is not visible because busy on the frontal panel of the spacecraft (in fact, the footage itself shows what it looks like the lateral part of the spacecraft instruments)..



  In December 2009 I asked “moonwalker1966delta” (the Apollo 19 Commander) what DPI means in the context of the footage <<Apollo 20 preparing for DPI>>, uploaded on YouTube by him on February 12, 2008 (see the Appendix IV), and which as introduction has a DoD marking and a warning (“internal use copy” and “not for general...”). The footage seems an editing. In its second part is clearly visible the lunar surface, through the LEM window. The LEM seems in lunar orbit yet.
  The insider (“moonwalker1966delta”) gave me a technical explanation (a little too much for a simple hoaxer, as many individuals claim) that I reproduce as follows:

<<DPI or PDI is nothing then the acronym for Powered Descent Initiation that is the second phase of braking phases on lunar orbit right to the motion surface.
The first is called DOI (Descent Orbit insertion) that is a retrograde manouver that is made in the orbit 180° and called Hohmann type transfer. It is made to reduce the altitude from about 60/70 nautical miles to 50000 feet. At this point DPI initiates and it's devided in 3 phases. The breaking phase to reduce orbit velocity, the approach phase that is controlled visually by pilot and the landing phase made to override automatic guidance for final approach and landing.>>

December 05, 2009, from a moonwalker1966delta's message to Luca Scantamburlo's YouTube account

© L. Scantamburlo
January 19, 2010

Reproduction is allowed on the Web if accompanied by the statement
©  L. Scantamburlo -
Reproduced by permission