APOLLO 19 AND 20:
LIGHTS AND SHADOWS OF A DISCLOSURE
THE CATHEDRAL, THE BASE, AND EVIDENCE AGAINST THE
MISSING LEGS OF THE ASTRONAUT IN THE LEM
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, Lulu.com, 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 Revver.com, 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.
THE
COMMENT OF "MOONWALKER1966DELTA" ON THE LEM VIDEO: THE CATHEDRAL, THE
BASE, THE MOTHERSHIP, AND THE MISSING PART OF THE ASTRONAUT'S BODY
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.
REFLECTIONS INSIDE THE LEM: SIGNS OF THE INVISIBLE ASTRONAUT?
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?).
CHALCEDON67, YouTube user,
(http://www.youtube.com/user/CHALCEDON67), 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 Revver.com, 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 - www.angelismarriti.it
Reproduced by permission
January 19, 2010
INTRODUCTION
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 INFORMATION FROM W. RUTLEDGE'S MESSAGES SENT TO L. SCANTAMBURLO
[...] 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
CCCP AND USAF MARKINGS ON SATURN V STAGES?
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 revver.com, 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
Revver.com 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 revver.com, 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
Revver.com 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.
THE CCCP MARKINGS ON THE S-IVB? THE APOLLO 19 INCIDENT AND ITS FOOTAGE DETAILS
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.
THE APOLLO 19 INCIDENT: THE KEY EVIDENCE
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)..
THE DPI: A TECHNICAL EXPLANATION, EVIDENCE OF AN INSIDER KNOWLEDGE
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 - www.angelismarriti.it
Reproduced by permission
