Did the USA/USSR Fly a Secret Joint Mission to the Moon in 1976
To Investigate a Crashed Extraterrestrial Mothership?
by Michael E. Salla, Ph.D
Kona, Hawaii
June 26, 2007
from
Exopolitics Website
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.
blow up on right of
AS15-P-9630 - original below |
|
|
Apollo Image Atlas
AS15-P-9630
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9630
Image Collection: Panoramic
Mission: 15
Magazine: P
Revolution: 38
Latitude / Longitude: 19° S / 117.5° E
Lens Focal Length: 24 inch
Camera Altitude: 117 km
Sun Elevation: 27°
Stereo Pair: AS15-P-9625
Film Type: 3414
Film Width: 5 inch
Image Width: 45.24 inch
Image Height: 4.5 inch
Film Color: black & white
Index Map
Feature(s): DELPORTE, SOUTHWEST OF
IZSAK, NORTH OF
|
The alleged Apollo 20 mission comprised
three astronauts:
-
William Routledge and
Leona Snyder - both from Bell Laboratories and employed by
the USAF but not officially part of the US astronaut corps
-
Alexei Leonov - first man to
walk in Space and Soviet Commander on the 1975 Apollo/Soyuz
Mission
The mission was launched from Vandenberg
Air Force Base in California. There was an alleged moon landing by
Routledge and Leonov wherein the crashed vehicle was entered and
found to be an ancient mothership. A dead EBE female was also found
who was well preserved in some protected layering.
The whistleblower, "William Routledge", began in April of this year
to upload hours of film footage of the secret Apollo mission on to
YouTube video. Scantamburlo investigated some of the videos and had
them analyzed by Italian film experts who concluded they were
authentic. He then contacted Routledge to conduct an interview by
email correspondence.
Scantamburlo is a well respected writer/journalist in Italy that has
commented on many UFO cases and conducted a number of investigations
that have been published in Italian UFO magazines. My own knowledge
of Scantamburlo is that he is a very competent and thorough UFO
researcher who first came to my attention due to his efforts to
verify the Vatican's involvement in extraterrestrial affairs and
discussions between Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan to form an
alliance against a possible extraterrestrial threat.
Scantamburlo's report on Routledge demonstrates a sincere effort to
verify a number of the details provided by Routledge who supplied
much information about the secret mission and his own background.
Scantamburlo's overall conclusion is that Routledge's testimony and
film footage are genuine, and that a secret Apollo 20 mission did
indeed go to the moon.
I recommend that all take Scantamburlo's analysis and conclusions
very seriously. Scantamburlo's report and interview can be read far
below. I also recommend viewing some of the Youtube videos uploaded
by William Routledge (see below).
The one to begin with is the following:
My own view at the moment is that it is very possible that such a
secret Apollo mission went ahead to explore the wreckage first
discovered in the Apollo 15 wreckage. It would have made sense for
that to be a joint US-USSR mission, that followed the joint 1975
mission. Routledge's account of his background as a Foreign
Technology expert and recruitment by the USAF to fly on the mission
is credible given the Apollo 15 photograph.
It would make sense that
exploration of a crashed ETV would need to be investigated by
someone with expertise in foreign technologies. Routledge has also
given much information about his work background and credentials
online for verification purposes. His background and credentials can
be checked and the other individuals mentioned on the Apollo 20
mission can be interviewed for their responses to his allegations.
There are two inconsistencies I find in Routledge's testimony.
First, the Apollo 20 insignia that is shown in a number of his films
only show the names of the three astronauts (Routledge, Synder and
Leonov) and the name of the Apollo mission. This is inconsistent
with the 1975 insignia of the joint Apollo-Soyuz mission which had
both the 'Apollo' and 'Soyuz', and the names of the three
astronauts/cosmonauts on them (image right).
The second inconsistency concerns what was revealed by another
whistleblower,
Ingo Swann in his book
Penetration. Swann revealed
that he had been secretly recruited by a covert intelligence agency
to remote view artifacts on the dark side of the moon in 1975. He
discovered extraterrestrial artifacts and extraterrestrial entities
on the moon. Swann deduced from what he had been told that there was
a concerted effort to gather intelligence using remote viewing since
physical access to the moon had been curtailed. Presumably, the
extraterrestrials declared that no further moon landings would be
allowed.
This according to Swann (and a number of other
whistleblowers) is
the real reason why the Apollo moon missions were
quietly terminated after the 1971, Apollo 17 mission.
If Swann's experience and conclusions are correct, then this does
appear to be inconsistent with Routledge's testimony that a secret
Apollo 20 mission was allowed to go ahead and land on the moon to
explore an extraterrestrial artifact. Combined with the first
inconsistency, this could lead to the conclusion that Routledge's
testimony and videos are a sophisticated hoax to deceive the public.
On the other hand, if proven to be true, Routledge's video evidence
and testimony may be the final straw that breaks the camel's back
concerning UFO secrecy. His testimony, background and film footage
can be confirmed. The Apollo 15 photograph of the alleged alien
vehicle is genuine and does point to an object that could have been
the focus of a joint US-USSR secret moon mission. The reasons for
Routledge's disclosure may be as he claims that he wants to divulge
the truth for the "wonder of it all".
He also commented that that
UFO sightings will increase dramatically in September 2007 and this
will speed up disclosure efforts considerably. Routledges comments
and revelation suggest that he continues to have access to a benign
faction within the extraterrestrial management system that desires
official disclosure, and that events associated with September 2007
and 2012 will force disclosure.
If Routledge's background, testimony and film footage prove to be
true, and simple answers are found for the two inconsistencies above
and any others found, then this will lead to an escalation of public
disclosures. More officials will recognize that the secrecy system
is imploding and will wish to be on the winning side of history as
that part of the government that played a proactive role in
preparing the public for disclosure of the extraterrestrial
presence.
If Routledge's testimony is proven to be a
sophisticated
hoax, this may nevertheless signify an attempt to raise the public's
awareness of extraterrestrial life through partially valid
information.
I recommend considering Scantamburlo's report due to
the possibility that this is a genuine disclosure of a secret
mission to investigate an ancient extraterrestrial mothership first
identified in a photo taken during the Apollo 15 moon mission.
Back to Contents
Back to
Michael Salla
Update on Secret
Apollo 20 Mission
From: Exopolitics
Date: 06/28/07 10:39:38
To: Exo-Institute-News; Exopolitics Institute; exopolitics@yahoogroups.com;
prepare4contact@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [exopolitics] Update on Secret Apollo 20 Mission
Update to
Exopolitics Comment #51
It appears that William Rutledge (aka retiredafb) has used part
of the audio feed from the Apollo 15 mission for the alleged
Apollo 20 videos he uploaded onto the web. If you listen to the
audio at the start of the following video concerning the ancient
moon city uploaded by Rutledge you will hear the following words:
Presto chango; there's the TV. [Pause] Oh, beautiful, I'm glad to hear that.
These are identical words to part of a dialogue from an actual
Apollo 15 mission. The Apollo 15 audio can be heard
below:
The actual transcript is available
at 'Apollo
15 Lunar Surface Journal - Loading the Rover' (go to:
121:05:30)
It looks as though Rutledge has
simply uploaded some genuine Apollo 15 audio on to his moon city
video. That suggests that his videos and story are part of an
elaborate hoax. For some, this discovery will suffice to dismiss
the whole affair and conclude that the alleged Apollo 20 mission
was entirely contrived. However, this does raise the question of
what the underlying agenda of Rutledge is in performing such an
elaborate deception? Is it merely to disinform the public or to
direct the public's attention to something important?
If we consider the second possibility, then the natural starting
point is the elliptical object found in the Apollo 15 photo
AS15-P-9630 below.
That is a genuine photo and may depict an extraterrestrial
artifact as Rutledge claims.
Another thing to consider is the
alleged date of the Apollo 20 mission in 1976, just one year
after the joint Apollo-Soyuz mission of 1975. I have already
mentioned the insignia problem for a joint US/USSR mission in my
initial commentary that a joint mission insignia was not
correctly depicted in Rutledge's Apollo 20 videos. Rutledge is
probably here suggesting that there may have been joint secret
mission to discover more about the artifact depicted in the
Apollo 15 photo, but its actual name was not Apollo 20 which
would have signified solely a US space mission.
Confidence in the authenticity of the videos uploaded by
Rutledge is significantly eroded by discovery of him using
Apollo 15 audio for his alleged Apollo 20 video. There is
nevertheless a possibility that something important was
discovered during the Apollo 15 mission that justified a joint
secret US/USSR mission to investigate.
Rutledge may be conveying
this information by a combination of genuine information and
deliberate deception.
Michael E. Salla, Ph.D
June 28, 2007
Back to Contents
Further Update on
Apollo 20 Mission
From: Exopolitics
Date: 06/28/07 15:49:58
To: prepare4contact@yahoogroups.com; Exopolitics Institute;
exopolitics@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Exo-Institute-News
Subject: [exopolitics] Further Update on Apollo 20 Mission
Aloha, more information is available concerning the alleged
Apollo 20 mission. I received information that Apollo 17 also
took photos of the elliptical object first depicted in the
Apollo 15 mission that is allegedly a large crashed cylindrical
extraterrestrial vehicle.
You can view these Apollo 17 shots
below:
AS17/M/2805 |
AS17/M/2806 |
A number of Apollo 15 shots of the
same object are available below:
AS15/M/1037 |
AS15/M/1038 |
AS15/M/1333 |
AS15/M/1334 |
AS15/M/1335 |
Furthermore, Luca Scantamburlo has
written an update on his website concerning what he believes is
more confirmation that such an Apollo mission existed. He
believes that the mixing of footage from an Apollo 11 launch for
the Apollo 20 launch is due to Rutledge’s friends mistakenly
uploading the wrong video sequences to YouTube video (see:
New Evidences Provided by William
Rutledge, CDR of The Apollo 20 Crew)
While this is a plausible explanation, it doesn’t satisfactorily
explain how audio from Apollo 15 could be mistakenly added to
Apollo 20 video. Also the flight insignia that Rutledge used was
wrong for a joint US-USSR mission, compare with the Apollo-Soyuz
1975 mission:
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.
Sources for the existence of ARVs include:
-
Mark McCandish who claimed he saw in a secure Air Force facility
at an air-show
-
Gary McKinnon who learned about a Naval space
fleet during his hacking ventures
-
Nick Cook who describes
the covert nature of antigravity research in
The Hunt for Zero
Point
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.
Whatever the underlying agenda,
great caution is needed in evaluating Rutledge’s material.
Michael E. Salla, Ph.D
Back to Contents
|