THE APOLLO 20 CASE: DEBUNKING OR
A TROJAN HORSE FOR THE TRUTH?
"RETIREFADB", ARE YOU AN IMPOSTOR? HERE HIS ANSWER
by Luca Scantamburlo
INTRODUCTION TO THE CONTROVERSIAL APOLLO 20 CASE
Beginning in May 2007, I had many private contacts with a presumed
William Rutledge (YouTube
username, "retiredafb") who
claims to have been a volunteer for MOL-Gemini project (he was not
chosen, according to what he wrote me) and a former civilian test
pilot on various aircrafts. Up to now my last contact with
him, having always taken place by the YouTube General/Messages, was
on July 20, 2007, at 01:39 pm: a message of just three lines.
Is he honest? Is he an agent of discredit? Is he a debunker?
Who is behind him? Was he really a former test pilot who now is
telling us the truth? Or just kernels of truth?
Rutledge could have been a former civilian test pilot on
various aircrafts, born in Belgium in 1930 and employed in the last
century with Avro, Chance Vought and USAF. According to his
testimony granted to me in an interview, his last job before
retiring was working on the KH-11 project.
Since April 2007 W. Rutledge posted on YouTube several video
footages and images which could have come from the documentation
material of a classified mission that took place in August 1976: Apollo 20.
He added 13 different videos; later he removed 4 of them. The
main point of his presumed testimony was the probable space
investigation of a mysterious cigar-shaped object, visible on
official NASA photos taken by Apollo 15 and Apollo 17. The presence
of the huge and mysterious object is a reality, based on fact,
pointed out by Rutledge himself.
Under Natural Law and Natural Reason, mankind had the
duty, as a categorical imperative, to go there and investigate the
mysterious object. You can be sure that it did happen. If it was not
Apollo 20, it was some other secret space mission. And if somebody
is skeptical about it, I invite him/her to read the Brookings'
report, prepared in November 1960 by the Brookings
Institution Washington, D.C.: <<Proposed
on the Implications of Peaceful Activities for Human Affairs>>,
report, prepared for NASA, was introduced to the Committe
on Science and Astronautics by the House of Representatives
of U.S.A. In the documents we can read:
<< [?] Historical
and empirical studies of the behavior of peoples and their leaders
when confronted with dramatic and unfamiliar events or social
pressures. Such studies might help to provide programs for meeting
and adjusting to the implications of such a discovery. Questions
one might wish to answer by such studies would include: How might
such information, under what cirucumstances, be presented or
withheld from the public for what ends? What might be the role of
the discovering scientists and other decisionmakers regarding
release of the fact of discovery?>>
from pag. 216, ibidem
So it is likely that in the past somebody recommended and
encouraged the adoption of several policies and procedures to follow
should the discovery of extraterrestrial artifacts in our Solar
System become a reality; chief among them: withholding or delaying
disclosure of the discovery of such extraterrestrial "artifacts"
from the public.
CONTRADICTIONS AND FAKES. DID
SOMEONE FABRICATE THEM ON PURPOSE TO GIVE US A RIDDLE?
On July 01, 2007, at 01:33 PM, my YouTube account received a
message from Rutledge. In his message the presumed William Rutledge
answered my previous request for clarification. I was very upset
because as time passed, many controversial aspects were coming out.
I have already discussed them. Most of them are audio contaminations
with radio dialogues from former Apollo missions (Apollo 11 and
Apollo 15). Finally somebody (a very clever YouTube user),
discovered that the video of the presumed "City" (named "Station 1"
in the interview) is a fake: if you examine images AS17-134-20437
and AS17-145-22163, found in the Apollo Image Atlas located at the Lunar and Planetary Institute
website, you can see for yourself that the matrix of the lunar
landscape (visible in the lower part of the screen) is a composition
of images taken during the Apollo 17 mission.
Even if the lunar features visible in those images could be
signs of artificial structures, they do not refer to the Izsak's
neighbourhood. They are images taken by the Apollo 17 crew, who
landed on December 11, 1972, on Taurus-Littrow region
(coordinates: 20°9'55" N and 30°45'57" E).
But there is the slight possibility that the fake was
fabricated on purpose to provide us with a clue in investigating a
lunar anomaly: is it possible that the main "rocks" in the image
(i.e., rocks having 90-degree angles) are remains of some artifacts?
Could the lunar hills in the background be pyramid-like structures,
with steps going up the side, like in Mexico City, but partially
obfuscated by a thich layer of dust? The site is obviously very old.
However I am aware that now the contradictions of the Apollo
20 case are too many to be simple mistakes made by inexperienced
helpers who would live in Rwanda (the country that Rutledge has been
claiming as his place of residence).
RETIREDAFB, ARE YOU AN <<
- HERE IS HIS ANSWER
In my quest for answers, I had previously posed the above
question mentioned in the title of the paragraph even before to know
the truth about the "City" footage spread by "retiredafb" (I
received the initial signaling in August, through a gentleman in
Portugal). In my question I used the nasty word "impostor", as a
possibility for explaining this controversial case, which however
gave us the opportunity to discuss the presence of an unknown object
on the far side of the Moon. I had asked him to provide me more
technical and heretofore unknown historical details that could prove
his identity of being a former test pilot and Apollo pilot above all
to face the suspicion which was growing in my mind: the idea that
maybe he were an impostor.
In his answer "retiredafb" mentioned two NASA employees who,
according to him, replied to an e-mail sent them. In this article I
am not going to name them. But they are NASA employees indeed. I
have checked their names; nevertheless, I decided to omit them (see
the dots in brackets) due to the contradictory aspects of the case
and the fact that I have not received enough evidence of the alleged
e-mail exchange yet, and not to mention respect for the privacy
rights of persons in question here. Moreover, the presumed William
Rutledge has never used his e-mail address with me. He contacted me
only through my YouTube Account /General Messages. So that you might
thoroughly examine the issue and draw your own conclusions, I am
incorporating the following excerpt from the original message
(without any kind of correction of possible mistakes) "retiredafb"
sent to my YouTube account:
<< Only [...] and
[...] wrote me. About details confirming the story, i could give
you some things unknown on internet or in books, details that nasa
could confirm, if they still have some people active and with a
good knowledge of apollo program. - The american flag used during
apollo 17 , was the backup flag of the apollo 11 crew. Aldrin and
Amstrong used it on the ground, in the KSC building during EVA
training. This same flag is now on the ground of the moon, stucked
near the steno crater. This old apollo 11 flag is in Taurus
Littrow site, Gene Cernan or Harrisson Schmitt can confirm that,
or Nasa maybe, but it is a detail omitted in space history.
-During Apollo 20, during the REFSMMAT procedure, we used stars
for aligning the LM. Three of them were named REGOR NAVI and
DNOCES. These names are not recognizable on any sky chart, they
were the nicknames of the three astronauts dead during Apollo 1,
but spelled backwards. REGOR was ROGER, "roger Chafee" NAVI was
IGOR "Virgil IVAN Grissom", and DNOCES meaned SECOND for Edward
Higgins White the second. I dont remember what was the number
corresponding during REFSMMAT. >>
from the retiredafb's message to Luca Scantamburlo, July 01, 2007,
at 01:33 PM - Scantamburlo's account /General Messages, YouTube
THE REFSMMAT PROCEDURE AND THE
APOLLO 1 CREW
I did not know what the REFSMMAT
acronym meant. So I checked on some encyclopaedias and I have found
they are initials indicating the procedure used by guidance,
navigation, and control system flight controllers during the Apollo
program. The term stands for: "Reference
Stable Member Matrix". More information is available
on a NASA website:<<[...] a reference orientation which can be
well defined and used by the crew in their platform
On the link you find the "Star Reference ListNumber" and the
Star name which Rutledge is reffering to in his message. Rutledge
does not remember the numbers (of course if he is honest at least on
this issue); they are the following: 03 for "Navi", 17 for "Regor"
and 20 for "Dnoces".
The point is: again we have some very interesting technical
details (not well-known among the general public) provided by
William Rutledge, and again we have a statement by Rutledge which is
not without contradictions: his historical recollection is true, but
is reported by some websites; for example in the following:
On another one we can read: <<[...] the first Apollo
crew used their own names spelled backwards Navi = Ivan Grissom,
Dnoces = Edward White II, and Regor = Roger Chaffee. When they died
in the fire, their unofficial names became used in many different
ways. The October 1994 Sky and Telescope magazine apparently has an
article on this subject.>>
source: <<Are there stars
called Novi, Regor and Dnoces?>>
The Apollo 1 crew died in a tragic accident on January 27,
1967, during a launch pad test of the Apollo/Saturn spacecraft being
prepared for the first piloted flight: the AS-204 mission.
Subsequently the AS-204 mission was redesignated Apollo 1 to
remember the lost space crew.
The three crew members were: Lt. Col. Edward
White II (1930-1967), Lt. Col. Virgil
Ivan "Gus" Grissom (1926-1967) and Lieutenant Commander Roger Chaffee (1935-1967).
About the American flag used during Apollo 17, I could not
find anything to corroborate or to controvert the information given
me by "retiredafb" (William Rutledge). So I think it is necessary to
investigate the presumed historical details provided by William
Rutledge. This is the main goal of SpaceHeroes.org.
One of its team members found out an interesting public document.
THE SATURN V LISTED BY USAF IN
THE ENERGY SPACE ASSETS
The document mentioned above is a .ppt presentation prepared
by Dr. Ron Sega, Under
Secretary of the U.S. Air Force. The date of the document is April
19, 2006, and the title is: <
<Air Force energy
Strategy>>. On Page 16 you have the Energy
and Space Assets prospect: the Saturn V rocket is
mentioned, and there is also the comparison with dates: the year
1970 and the year 2006. The fact that the Apollo 20 would have
been launched from Vandenberg AFB, according to Rutledge's
testimony, is now supported by strong circumstantial evidence.
Moreover, there are official documents (from the '60 years)
which prove that the USAF officials discussed and boosted the use
of the Saturn V rocket. There is a specific point where the
subject is: <<Saturn
V/Apollo Spacecraft Guidance Computer Developments
. Why? It is obvious
that the USAF needed the Saturn V capability in case USSR began
to set up bases on the Moon. This was probably the main
motivation for going to the Moon, and to counter Soviet threat
of going there and exploiting it militarily.
Moreover, there are official documents (from the '60 years) which prove that the USAF officials discussed and boosted the use of the Saturn V rocket. There is a specific point where the subject is: <<Saturn V/Apollo Spacecraft Guidance Computer Developments Programs>>