One thing I am sure about is that there is a very large crashed alien space ship on the far side of the moon. It is bigger than New York City. My guess is that it has been on the moon since man started reading and writing. I know for a fact that it has been on the moon since 1972. The world's leaders tried to conduct a secret salvage operation. It is not clear if it was successful or not. Below is the information that I have been able to find on this joint secret salvage operation.
Luca Scantamburlo, an Italian UFO researcher said “I remember to everybody that the last official landing mission on the Moon was the “Apollo 17” (NASA), which took place in December 1972, and that the Apollo 20 mission was cancelled by NASA in 1970. For sure, if the footage is not a hoax or a fake, the purpose of that mission would have been to shoot close to a mysterious object for understanding its origin. And, maybe, to organize a secret retrieval if possible.”
Luca Scantamburlo, an Italian UFO researcher said “I remember to everybody that the last official landing mission on the Moon was the “Apollo 17” (NASA), which took place in December 1972, and that the Apollo 20 mission was cancelled by NASA in 1970. For sure, if the footage is not a hoax or a fake, the purpose of that mission would have been to shoot close to a mysterious object for understanding its origin. And, maybe, to organize a secret retrieval if possible.”
“Apollo 20 went to the moon august 16 1976. Destination was Iszak D, southwest of Delporte Crater, farside of the moon. The mission was soviet-american. Crew was William Rutledge CDR, former of bell laboratories, Leona Snyder CSP bell laboratories, and Alexei Leonov, soviet cosmonaut former "Apollo Soyouz" (mission one year earlier).”
"The mission was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California."
See the link below:
“A secret joint space mission on the Moon, result of an American-Soviet collaboration taken place in August 1976? Is it possible? Why not, if you consider that the existence of a Federal Agency like NRO (National Reconnaissance Office), and its missions of overhead reconnaissance, “were declassified in September 1992” (according to its official website). And is it really possible that such a collaboration has been prepared to explore a huge alien spaceship found on the backside of the Moon?”
According to his report supported by some outstanding videos uploaded on YouTube since April 2007, after the Apollo 17 (December 1972) and the “Apollo18-Soyuz” mission taken place in July 1975, there were other two missions on the Moon:
1. the Apollo 19 (failed because of "a loss of telemetry, a brutal end of mission without data", see the interview with W.Rutledge)
2. the Apollo 20 (August 1976), which were both classified Space missions launched from the Vandenberg Air Force Base (California)
Luca Scantamburlo, an Italian UFO researcher, has published online an interview he conducted with a whistleblower claiming to be a former astronaut on a secret mission flown by NASA and the Air Force Space Command to the moon in August, 1976. The alleged mission was titled Apollo 20 and was a joint US and Soviet mission that followed by just over a year the joint Apollo-Soyuz 1975 mission. The Apollo 20 mission filmed the dark side of the moon where a very large extraterrestrial vehicle appeared to lie wrecked on the moon's surface.
This 'wreckage' was first captured on film by Apollo 15 in 1971 which shows a moon panorama with what appears to be a large elliptical object on the moon's surface in an official NASA photo.
This 'wreckage' was first captured on film by Apollo 15 in 1971 which shows a moon panorama with what appears to be a large elliptical object on the moon's surface in an official NASA photo.
Michael E. Salla, Ph.D interviewed Luca and said this.
“That led to my re-evaluation of the Apollo 20 mission as most likely a hoax in my last update. I suspect that we are being given an important truth concerning the object in the Apollo 15 & 17 photos that is surrounded by a veil of fabrications. So discernment is necessary. My guess is that a covert mission did occur in 1976 but it probably didn’t use a Saturn V rocket nor was NASA involved. If the USAF has an antigravity fleet of vehicles as many suspect were built through reverse engineering of extraterrestrial technologies in cooperation with certain corporations, why would they use NASA personnel or launch vehicles that use outdated propulsion technologies and navigation principles?”
“That part of Rutledge’s story doesn’t make much sense given what others have said of the antigravity technology covertly developed in the 1950s/1960s and used for the construction of “Alien Reproduction Vehicles”. If a crashed extraterrestrial mother-ship was located on the moon, surely a joint mission would use the most advanced ARVs, rather than Apollo hardware.”
“Finally, I have received information from a source that I can’t confirm that a covert mission did occur to explore the elliptical object/crashed ETV, but it involved a multinational crew of several dozen. If true, that would suggest that the covert mission used antigravity technology capable of transporting such a large mission crew, something not possible with the Saturn V rockets used for the Apollo missions which had crews of three.”
“So the Apollo 20 mission component in Rutledge’s testimony in my view is a fabrication.”
“That does not disqualify all the videos or the information Rutledge is sharing. Some videos of the crashed ETV may be genuine and come from the actual covert mission the details of which we do not have. We can suspect this was a joint US-USSR mission to explore a large crashed ETV on the moon. We have no way of being certain at this stage of how much of Rutledge’s information is accurate so there is plausible deniability for all concerned. Rutledge is likely educating us through a disclosure of genuine facts mixed with fabrications. He may be also seeking to prompt other whistleblowers to come forward to disclose what really happened. “ Click on the link below."
Launching a Saturn V from Vandenberg would require the existence of support facilities for the booster like those at the Kennedy Space Center. The Saturn V was the largest U.S. booster ever built. It stood 364 feet tall, consisted of three stages, and produced 7.5 million pounds of thrust at liftoff. The Saturn V was assembled inside the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB). When the VAB was built in the mid-1960s, it was the largest enclosed space on Earth. Once the Saturn V was assembled, it was moved from the VAB to the launch pad on the crawler-transporter. This vehicle is the size of a baseball infield and moves on eight caterpillar tracks. The launch pad is a large concrete mound rising above the Florida swampland. A large launch control center would be needed, and there would be supplies of liquid oxygen, kerosene, and liquid hydrogen to fuel the booster.
A possible option was that an existing launch pad, used for another large Air Force booster, was modified to support a Saturn V. The Titan IIID was the largest rocket being launched from Vandenberg in 1976. This consisted of a modified Titan II ballistic missile “core stage” with two solid fuel strapon rockets. (These were called “Stage 0″ and were on each side of the core stage.) The two strap-on boosters were ignited at lift-off and produced a total of 2.36 million pounds of thrust. After the stage 0 rockets burned out, the first stage engines ignited in flight. The rocket stood 155 feet tall. The core stage and the strap-on boosters were each ten feet in diameter.
The question then becomes what evidence is available that Saturn V support facilities existed at Vandenberg in the mid-1970s? The Saturn V and the Titan IIID had different configurations. The Saturn V had over three times the Titan IIID’s thrust and was more than twice as tall. The Saturn V’s first stage was also circular, was 33 feet in diameter, and had five F-1 engines. Four of the engines were arranged in a square, with the fifth in the center. All five engines ignited on lift-off. With the Titan IIID, only the two solid boosters are ignited at lift off. Because of the difference in thrust, engine arrangement, size, and other factors, the existing Titan IIID pad would have to have been completely rebuilt for use by a Saturn V booster.
No evidence exists that any facilities ever existed at Vandenberg that could have been used to launch a Saturn V. Such facilities would be distinctive, and their use would be apparent. They would take years to build and check out, and involve a large number of people.
Rutledge also claimed that while the Apollo 19 and 20 launches were seen, witnesses did not realize the boosters were Saturn Vs. For his claim to be valid, there could be no public or press access to Vandenberg, and the site would have needed a sufficient buffer zone so that the facilities, preparations, and launches would be hidden from public view. As a result, while outsiders were aware the launches occurred, they did not understand they were secret Apollo missions, and not regular satellite or ballistic missile test firings.
The evidence is that Vandenberg does not meet the security requirements for the claim to be valid. A public road runs by Vandenberg’s main gate, and the city of Lompoc is nearby. Even in the 1970s, reporters were allowed on the base to cover civilian satellite launches. Finally, a railroad line runs through the base itself and past many of the launch pads. On September 20, 1959, a passenger train carrying Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev passed through Vandenberg during his state visit to the U.S. The three nuclear-armed Atlas ballistic missiles at the base were clearly visible from the train. Given the access to the base, hiding a VAB, launch pad, and Saturn V booster would not have been possible.
Nor is it possible to ‘hide’ a Saturn V launch from Vandenberg. It would have been visible not only from Lompoc and other nearby cities, but throughout central and southern California. The sound of Saturn V launch, which was only exceeded by a nuclear explosion, would have caused Lompoc residents to realize this was not a Titan HID or ballistic missile launch.
Another requirement for Rutledge’s claim to be true would be that the Apollo 20 mission would meet the same requirements and limitations as the earlier flights, and share the same limitations as to hardware, duration, mission plans, and timing of events. The Apollo program completed six successful Moon landings between 1969 and 1972. The Command Module and Lunar Module were proven spacecraft, and there would be little time or need to make major modifications to the booster and spacecraft hardware, or to the Apollo mission profile, for the secret lunar missions.
There is ample evidence available that the Apollo 19 and 20 flights would have required fundamental changes in all aspects of their mission plans, compared to the other Apollo landing missions. The most basic difference is launch direction. The Apollo launches from Florida were to the east, so the rocket could take advantage of the Earth’s rotation to increase its payload. Also, both expended stages and malfunctioning rockets would fall into the Atlantic Ocean.
To avoid such possibilities, launches from Vandenberg are made at azimuths between 158 degrees and 201 degrees (an arc from the south south west to the south west). This avoids passing over land, and results in the satellite entering a polar orbit. (A launch to the north would head toward the USSR.)
While these range limits avoid dropping debris on the American southwest, polar orbits have a payload penalty. The rocket cannot take advantage of the Earth’s easterly rotation. For a Saturn V polar orbit launch from Vandenberg, the maximum payload was calculated to be 40 metric tons. The smallest payload for the early Apollo Moon landings was 44 metric tons. This would rule out a Vandenberg launch. If the Saturn V had been launched due west, an azimuth of 270 degrees (which is outside the range limits), the payload penalty would be 13 metric tons, as the rocket would be going the opposite direction to the Earth’s rotation.
A little rocket science also allowed the landing time of the Apollo 20 LM on the Moon to be calculated. Apollo landings took place soon after sunrise. The low sun angle allowed the crew to spot the long shadows cast by obstacles. Therefore, the timing of all the mission events, from launch to the actual touchdown, was determined by the time the Sun was at the proper elevation at the landing site.
The video of the Apollo 20 launch on August 16, 1976 showed that it took place in daylight. Sunset at Vandenberg AFB on that date occurred at 7:49 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (2:49 a.m. GMT on August 17). The Apollo 12 mission took 110 hours and 32 minutes from liftoff to the landing on the Moon. Using this as the maximum, the Apollo 20 landing at the alien mothership at the Izsak crater would have occurred no later than 5:22 p.m. GMT on August 21, 1976.
Sunrise at Izsak crater was calculated to have occurred at about 2:00 p.m. GMT on August 22; nearly a day after the maximum flight time. [14] This is extremely poor mission planning. Rutledge and Leonov would have had to make a night landing on the Moon, with only starlight to illuminate the surface. (As the landirig site was on the far side of the Moon, there would have been no earthlight to provide illumination.)
If a morning landing was made, the crew would have had to spend a day or more waiting in orbit. This required additional hydrogen and oxygen for the fuel cells to generate electrical power, as well as food and other consumables. The claim that Rutledge and Leonov spent seven days on the lunar surface also required an additional 1,500 pounds of payload for the LM. A Saturn V launched into a polar orbit lacked the payload for even a normal landing mission.
The second hypothesis is that the Apollo 20 story is a hoax. For this to be valid, evidence would have to be found that the claims were false beyond that which could be explained by Rutledge’s age, faulty memory, and simple mistakes. Scantamburlo and Salla both noted various problems with the YouTube videos and images. The Saturn V launch video, for example, was from the Apollo 11 mission, but had been edited so it started with the rocket in flight, rather than lifting off the pad. This hid the views of the Florida swamps. Vandenberg has hilly terrain with brush and grasslands. An audio clip from the Apollo 15 mission was also used. Other video and photos were either faked outright or were altered. This includes the “flyover” video and the Moon ‘city’ photo. The ‘alien mothership’ itself appears to be a natural geological feature, such as a landslide.
Ironically, Salla’s two objections to Rutledge’s claims were flawed. Salla believed the Apollo 20 patch should have read ‘Apollo Soyuz’, to signify a joint mission. (Soyuz was the name of the Soviet spacecraft that the U.S. Apollo 18 docked with on the ASTP mission.) But since Apollo 20 did not involve a Soyuz spacecraft, the word ‘Soyuz’ would not have appeared on the patch. His other objection, that the aliens had forbidden landings on the Moon, has several problems. Using an unproven phenomenon, like remote viewing, as evidence about the reality of a disputed event is not valid.
Apollo 20, Exopolitics, Evidence, and the Question of Belief
In reaching a conclusion as to which of the two hypotheses is valid, one must rely on the available evidence. There is no evidence to support the Apollo 19 and 20 missions as real events. Without Saturn V facilities at Vandenberg, the booster could not be assembled, checked out, fueled, or launched. Without the ability to launch the booster, the whole Apollo 20 story is false on its face. There are also the issues of range safety, lost of payload capability, the landing time vs. sunrise time on the Moon and the added consumables the mission plan entailed. These indicate the claim is false in its details.
In contrast, the hoax hypothesis is supported by the evidence which Rutledge himself offered. The videos and stills were altered or outright forgeries. Assessing the accuracy or falsehood of a controversial theory is based on evidence that can withstand critical examination. In this case, the claims by Rutledge fail the test on numerous levels. This has implications beyond Apollo 20. Ufologists frequently complain that the scientific community is blindly refusing to accept their evidence. The Apollo 20 story implies the problem is not with the scientific community’s outlook, but rather that the UFO evidence lacks sufficient merit to be accepted.
Scantamburlo and Salla made only limited and informal analyses of Rutledge’s claims and evidence. Scantamburlo, for example, pointed to 1960s documents about Air Force interest in the Saturn V as representing “strong circumstantial evidence” that the story was true. These documents are not provided or quoted, nor do they indicate a Saturn V launch capability ever existed at Vandenberg.
The approach taken by both Scantamburlo and Salla in analyzing the Apollo 20 story does not reflect the procedures used by scholars to analyze controversial theories. They accepted the story immediately. In Salla’s case, this was based on his assessment of Scantamburlo’s work. He wrote that it “…demonstrates a sincere effort” to check out the story. Sincerity is not evidence. Both individuals made grandiose predictions that the Apollo 20 story would soon bring about “disclosure.” Very soon, however, they had to backtrack when the flaws, inconsistencies and falsehoods became clear.
Both Scantamburlo and Salla papered over these flaws by claiming they were deliberate falsehoods added to a true story. In short, they claim that obvious falsehoods prove the story is true, rather than a crude hoax. At best, this is wishful thinking. At worse, it is a rejection of the basic tenets of scholarship.
APOLLO 18? YES, IT DID EXIST AND IT DID TAKE PLACE
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment