Nixon's Apollo: Howard Hughes and the Apollo Hoax

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The problem is that this was written in 1968, so we have no way of knowing whether he really said that in 1960, or if he was lying about having said it. Personally, I think Nixon was a liar. What do you think?

I would say he was a great poker player.


Did you see in the Apollo 12 narrative that they left some color film on the moon? Gerry Griffin even mentioned it in November of 1969.
news.google.com...

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Did you see in the Apollo 12 narrative that they left some color film on the moon? Gerry Griffin even mentioned it in November of 1969.
news.google.com...

wow.. thanks for the evidence that they landed on the moon.. evidence that you yourself found of all people..

that pretty much closes the book on your uncertainty about the moon landing hoax.. so thread closed and into hoax bin??

Biggest debunker claim on Moon landing hoax theories was recently quoted by Buzz Aldrin

"If we hadn't have gone to the moon, the Russians would have IMMEDIATELY called us out on it".

Major space race going on at the time. If the Americans made a false claim, the Russians would have raised hell.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Biggest debunker claim on Moon landing hoax theories was recently quoted by Buzz Aldrin

"If we hadn't have gone to the moon, the Russians would have IMMEDIATELY called us out on it".

Major space race going on at the time. If the Americans made a false claim, the Russians would have raised hell.

Wrong. The American government accepted the dubious Russian space claims, such as the actual weight of Sputnik I and II, the orbital trips made by Gagaran and Titov, and Lunik III. The US did not protest these claims because it would be seen, internationally, as "sour grapes".


Source for image news.google.com...

For the exact same reason, the Russians would never protest the Nixon Apollo moon landings, because it would be seen by many, internationally, as "sour grapes". Do you understand the concept?

Nixon's Apollo. It's May 23rd, 1969.

Ted Kennedy, survivor of a 1964 plane crash, after seeing his two brothers be murdered in public, (these are both CIA/mob hits, not lone gunmen, the coverups are extensive and evidence has been destroyed, lost or remains unreleased to the public) is already building himself to be Nixon's new nemesis. Nixon will not tolerate losing the "moon" to the Commies and he will not tolerate another Kennedy mocking his leadership.

He did not even wait for the end of the Apollo 10 moon probe to ask that

"once the lunar landing and exploration are complete"

the Administration divert a

"substantial portion"

of the space budget to the "pressing problems" of poverty, hunger, pollution and housing down here below.

Source for image news.google.com...

Already mentioned in this thread is the convergence of the Apollo 11/Chappaquiddick event on the same weekend. In my opinion, I think Nixon was going for the kill. Kennedy just plain lucked out and Mary Jo was meant to survive. Either way, Richard Nixon forcibly removes the possibility of the third Kennedy brother running against him for president in 1972.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Fulton Lewis Jr. was full of it. The Lunik photos were known to be real because they were released by Jodrell Bank first! The US never challenged Soviet claims because they were all true. US intelligence confirmed them at every step, although that intelligence could not be made public at the time.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Fulton Lewis Jr. was full of it. The Lunik photos were known to be real because they were released by Jodrell Bank first! The US never challenged Soviet claims because they were all true. US intelligence confirmed them at every step, although that intelligence could not be made public at the time.

Indeed, I wonder if he ever retracted his nonsense claim that the images were merely paintings:

mentallandscape.com...

www.svengrahn.pp.se...

It's ironic that he lauds Ranger IV as an example of a US space 'feat' when in fact it was a pretty dismal failure.

Nixons favored catch phrase connecting him to Quakers was “Quaker heritage,” ,,, one he used as a carefully engineered whitewash for political cover

1953 plans for Quakers space flight to the moon..

originally posted by: Misinformation

Nixons favored catch phrase connecting him to Quakers was “Quaker heritage,” ,,, one he used as a carefully engineered whitewash for political cover

1953 plans for Quakers space flight to the moon..

Irony: Just as Nixon had nothing to do with Apollo, Quaker Oats had nothing to do with Quakers. At least one Quaker felt that spending money on space research would be better spent on Earth rather than American vanity projects.

www.friendsjournal.org...

Quaker views on non-violence, humility and honesty are as far removed as you can get from warmongering liar and crook Nixon.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Irony: Just as Nixon had nothing to do with Apollo,

That is just demonstrably false. Please see John M. Logsdon's 2015 "After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American space program". It's a great book and I highly recommend it. www.palgrave.com...

warmongering liar and crook Nixon.

That's true however it doesn't explain Nixon's personal or political motives; it doesn't explain his speedy promotion rates in the Navy (faster than JFK AND GHWB); it doesn't explain Nixon's fast-track political career from Congress (Tricky Dicky) to the Senate (Hiss case) to the Vice Presidency (a heart beat from the presidency!) in six years; it is one objective of the Nixon's Apollo theory to illuminate the pathways that demonstrate Nixon's motives through his relationship with Howard Hughes.

Nixon has been hand-picked to succeed in '46, in '48 (HUAC), in '50 (Pink Lady), in '52 (Checkers) and in '56 (even after the Dump Nixon movement.) But, the irony I see it is, if Nixon wins in 1960... it would look suspiciously like Howard Hughes had bought his way into to the White House through his creature, his own Pinocchio, Richard Nixon. If Nixon wins in 1960, the Hughes loan would be an open book, the tax status of HHMI we be looked at, revealing Nixon's rise to power, his connections to Operation Paperclip, the Miami mob and his major role in the whole Bay of Pigs thing might be revealed, as early as 1961.

In my view, Nixon had to lose. The reason Nixon had to lose 1960 is that he was too closely involved in planning to kill Fidel Castro, invading the Cuban mainland, installing a new regime and settling a long list of outstanding grievances between the government and the mafia. Nixon must lose 1960 so that JFK can be the scape goat for the failed invasion of Cuba, which if successful, would have undoubtedly resulted in the assassination of a foreign leader.

Killing Castro would be a bad thing for a Nixon presidency but it would be a *good thing* for a JFK presidency…. if you are wont to think like Richard Nixon.

Obviously, the Cuba thing didn't work out for JFK, he took the blame. Nixon, who was personally involved with major planning against Cuba, was out of office, blissfully uninvolved. There were a lot of pissed off Cuban exiles, CIA officers, gangsters and industrialists, and bitter political rivals.. all of whom would have liked to see JFK out of the picture before the 1964 election. These people wanted Nixon back in office - but that would have to wait until 1968.

For the sake of plausible deniability, Richard Nixon is removed from political office in January 1961 and denied a re-entry in 1962. This is at the threshold of the space age which is always, always identified with JFK. Nixon was amply provided with money, a senior partnership in a law firm that deals almost exclusively in "international money transactions", fantastic real estate deals in California and Florida, free use of jet airplanes for his world travels, enough to tide himself over until the 1968 comeback.

The comeback happens as if it were scripted, because it was, in coincidence with the departure of LBJ and James Webb from NASA, and coincided with the early manned Apollo "moon" shots, a $24 billion dollar public relations TV spectacular at the cost of the tax payers. In other words, Apollo was a boondoggle. It was the thought of doing the impossible that attracted Howard Hughes to the program.

In my view, those who would have liked to see Nixon's comeback the most already knew that's how the script was written, in Hollywood, by loyalist anti-Communist screen writers, on the payroll of Howard Hughes, hovering like angels over the bullet ridden body of Bobby Kennedy on June 6, 1968.

Man, what a comeback!

If Nixon was a warmonger, it was a role that he played, as Commander-in-Chief. He's an actor under contract for Howard Hughes. The saturation carpet bombing of South East Asia and extension of the war beyond the mandate of Congress was a direct pay off to the military industrialists who made Richard Nixon president. The assassination of Jack and Bobby Kennedy are both to be viewed as casualties in the war between factions of military industrialists, US intelligence agencies, extremist anti-Communists and organized crime elements; a diversity of interests that is blended together into, what conspiracy researcher Mae Brussell referred to as, the Power Control Group.

If Nixon was a "liar and crook", as you said (and I agree with that) then how does a liar and crook get into high office if he is not surrounded by a full legion of loyal liars and crooks? Because Nixon is party to an organization, the Power Control Group, he has a major dramatic role to play, as President, to wit: the main goal "moon" landings were achieved through brute force of television propaganda; the secondary goal is to cover it up with a better TV show, "Watergate".

Richard Nixon fully embraced both roles he was given. First, in the form of a Hollywood leading man, acting as conqueror of space who then falls back to earth, as in Icarus, crashing in to the ground, defeated and disgraced, all bridges burned, fuselage on fire... meanwhile... Howard Hughes was missing in action. There was nobody to pull RN from the burning wreckage of his presidency... HRH was on the run they said… the call from Nixon to Hughes on Christmas eve, 1972 could not be completed. There was even speculation that the mysterious billionaire was dead.

TL;DR Mainstream historians have gone on vacation when it comes the real narrative of HRH, RN and Apollo.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Because Nixon is party to an organization, the Power Control Group, he has a major dramatic role to play, as President,

for a guy who think that Richard Nixon was the man behind the Apollo lunar hoax you sure dont seem convinced by it..

why would you claim that Nixon is a puppet as president when earlier you are claiming that Nixon was the man who orchestrated the Apollo hoax because he likes movies.

originally posted by: Misinformation
Undoubtedly, confabulated apollo defenders & their associates have yet to cognitively reconcile with the quintessential dynamics pertaining too the July Nixon's Apollo status report ...., while simultaneously disseminating superficial matters too avoid the fundamental flaws within the officially sanctioned apollo manifesto ...

you use big words to accomplish a certain goal, but since you get the small words wrong it undermines the time you spent in the thesaurus trying to achieve your goal.

"If we hadn't have gone to the moon, the Russians would have IMMEDIATELY called us out on it"

Russian Official Wants To Investigate The Apollo Missions

technable.net...

Oops. I will laugh my ass off if they find out that it was fake.

originally posted by: CB328

"If we hadn't have gone to the moon, the Russians would have IMMEDIATELY called us out on it"

Russian Official Wants To Investigate The Apollo Missions

technable.net...

Oops. I will laugh my ass off if they find out that it was fake.

think you misinterpreted his intentions because from the very same article you have this quote:

the disappearance of the original footage and 400kg of lunar rocks is suspicious, and worthy of an international investigation.

“We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artifacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened,”
gizmodo.com...

There are some people in the thread who had a hard time understanding the transition of power in American presidential politics. This thread was not intended to be a PhD presentation on that subject but in this case I think it is beneficial to show that PhD history analysis & revision is still taking place every year on what goes on during the transition of power here in the USA.

The 1961 transition from Eisenhower to JFK is brought to life here in this excellent presentation by PhD historian Timothy Naftali back in 2012. Although the topic of his talk is focussed on the Ike/JFK relationship there is also you will find (at the 36:00 minute mark) in this video an historical anecdote of what Ike really thought of JFK's moon speech.

According to Naftali's retelling of the story, this was Ike commenting to some of his confidants and advisors, Ike was ridiculing Kennedy's announcement of the race to the moon, Ike was convinced that Kennedy's moon speech was an attempt to cover up the fiasco at the Bay of Pigs!

A real history lecture brought to you by a very well respected PhD... you will learn some valuable key insights... like how it was Eisenhower's idea to escalate on Cuba as a lame duck president... like how the people around Ike were trying to create a shadow government around the old general... like how JFK thought Ike was, ahem, "a s-h-*-t".



Eisenhower wrote of the moon landings "Of all the silly, immature proposals, this was one of the most stupid and costly one's that quickly comes to mind." But he said nothing publicly.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

That is just demonstrably false. Please see John M. Logsdon's 2015 "After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American space program". It's a great book and I highly recommend it. www.palgrave.com...

Every word in Logsdon's book contradicts your thesis. Do you want me to start quoting it verbatim?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

2 issues -

one you have changed your claims - dont think we didnt notice - we expected it - but hey dishonesty is allways expected

2 timothy naftali does not support any of your contentions either

hint - when are you actually going to make a claim that even ATTEMPTS to falsify the apollo program - or have you given up on that now ????

a reply to: choos

Ike's attitude to Space programs in general were pragmatic, and his view on a lunar landing program are well recorded even when he was in power, never mind afterwards.

I have a PhD. Please accept my analysis that the Apollo landings are historical fact and the the political shenanigans of Nixon, or any other US politician, are an unimportant side-issue.