Nixon's Apollo: Howard Hughes and the Apollo Hoax

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: boohoo
My research is about 50% unfinished I have still dozens of books ahead of me before I can start thinking about creating a standardized version of Nixon's Apollo 1.0. ... we are still in beta version!

Each book I read has brought out new nuances in the storyline, in the script, the characters and the dialogue.

Books are not always using "Peer reviewed" sources and you would need to cite the source they use, not the book they wrote. For this kind of work you are embarking on, books are just the beginning, the "Peer reviewed" journal articles are a requirement for legitimate research papers. Not you hit you below the belt, but I would say citation-wise, you'll be lucky to be 20% done at this stage. May I ask what local library you have access to? Perhaps they have limited access to peer reviewed journal articles. For example my library has access to JSTOR and Gale General One File.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

ORIGINS of NIXON'S APOLLO

Richard Nixon's statements on October 25th 1960, exactly two weeks before Election Day, November 8th. Think about it for a moment, he's the sitting VP and he's running for President. He's making some statements in Cincinnati. You won't find these kind of statements in the NASA abridged history over at nasa.gov.

Dick's playing some high stakes poker and he's proven to be a real good player on the Hughes team. He just stuck the blame for the missile gap on Harry Truman nearly 8 years ago. But this is a big hand (the election) and Dick's got some hot cards up his sleeve that he wants desperately to play against JFK. Missile gap cards.

And then JFK steals the election (That's another thread!). Nixon is greatly pissed off about it and vowed revenge. But the real pisser for Dick is when Jack goes and steals the moon landing idea. Oh, how that must have hurt him even more deeply.

Nixon is going to get revenge on Jack, not once but twice... first in Dallas and then by taking credit for the moon landings!

Nixon never comes out publicly to take credit for the moon landings but he is always there on TV taking credit for the moon landings, pinning medals on astronauts, talking to Neil & Buzz on the "Moon", flying out to see the Apollo 11 crew during splashdown, flying out to Hawaii when the heros of Apollo 13 returned to Earth safely, celebrating the anniversaries, by having astronauts at his home for taco parties, astronaut sleepovers at the White House, appointing certain astronauts to various important conspiracy positions, etc.

Why? Because "# Jack Kennedy" that's why.

courtesy thumbnail


Who is gonna control the payoffs in a missile race to the "moon"? Howard Hughes, via Las Vegas and the Bahamas.

Who is gonna beat the Russkies to the "moon"? Richard Nixon, via satellite television, virtually invented by Howard Hughes.

This is such excellent research SayonoraJupiter, proving that history has been manipulated, covered-up, rewritten - the raison d'etre of ATS, it is a shame it isn't getting much attention here.

a reply to: boohoo

boohoo! We are in the SkunkWorks and those rules don't apply here You are just here for the pretty pictures, aren't you?

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

This is such excellent research SayonoraJupiter, proving that history has been manipulated, covered-up, rewritten - the raison d'etre of ATS, it is a shame it isn't getting much attention here.

There are so many twists and turns to Nixon's Apollo. I just found out recently that some of Nixon's close associates (Maurice Stans for one) were flying in and out of Nicaragua while Howard Hughes was in Managua. Timeframe would be first quarter 1972 (Watergate breakins) until the earthquake, December 23rd, the eve of Christmas Eve, which was, coincidentally, about one week after the splashdown of Apollo 17, the last manned mission to leave low earth orbit.

Nixon in Washington made a call to Howard Hughes in Managua. The call was not completed.

I don't have enough to post on it yet - it's something that I definitely need to chase down. I've been down that road a little and it seems to connect with the narratives of the Ambassador to Nicaragua, Turner B. Shelton. According to some sketchy sources, Shelton knew Hughes from back in the day when Hughes was a mogul in Hollywood. Shelton is one of the few people to met Hughes in the 1970's and described him to be in good health. But was it really Howard Hughes or a double? This is where it gets complicated so I'll skip that.

Howard Hughes escaped the ruins of the Managua devastation and landed in London England on New Year's Eve. If we are to believe certain sources (Jack Real) then Hughes was healthy and secretly test flying British built airplanes in England until he fell and broke his hip. Many of these stories about Hughes come from the few 'reputable' people, ambassadors, presidents of small countries, corporate executives, even doctors (ha ha).

Back in the early 1972 it was a serious question to ask "Is Howard Hughes still alive?" The Nevada Gaming Commission was asking that exact same question. Did the 2.5 hour telephone conference really prove that Hughes was alive? All of the questions asked of Hughes could have been prearranged. Howard's voice could have been pre-recorded. The experts said that the voices matched.

Even if the voices matched perfectly, he (Hughes) could have been pre-recorded on tape, it could have been an old interview that was refashioned to appear like a "live teleconference". 1972 was a really big year for Nixon's Apollo.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
boohoo! We are in the SkunkWorks and those rules don't apply here

You are just here for the pretty pictures, aren't you?

Can you clarify what you meant? I wasn't being condescending, I was trying to steer you into legitimate light weight academic publishing, which can wash away the "conspiracy theory" label, that your work will most certainly receive in its current state.

NICARAGUA '72

1. Notice the catchy headline indicating that the mystery trips had been "uncovered" in 1975 during a routine background check of Turner B. Shelton's conduct as Ambassador of Nicaragua! If you read the article carefully you'll see that it does mention Howard Hughes but doesn't go so far as to state the fact that Howard Hughes was living in the top 2 floors (8 & 9) of the Intercontinental Hotel in downtown Managua. That might explain why all of Nixon's heavies are headed down there.

Also for a *little* perspective, Apollo 16 mission was April 16-27, the Watergate arrests occurred on June 17, Nixon was re-elected in a landslide on November 7th. Apollo 17 mission was December 7-19. December 23rd was the big earthquake in Managua. Howard Hughes had escaped to London England by New Years Eve 1972. A very busy year for Nixon's Apollo.



2. "WASHINGTON (WS)" is the Washington Star. On August 7, 1981, after 128 years, the Washington Star ceased publication and filed for bankruptcy.

3. Ambassador Turner is friends with both Bebe Rebozo AND Howard Hughes.

4. "Stans had met Shelton on a previous trip when he (Stans) was secretary of commerce." According to wikipedia Stans was secretary from January 21, 1969 – February 15, 1972. In mid-February 1972, he resigned as Secretary of Commerce, to chair the finance committee of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP). Source wiki. en.wikipedia.org...

5. "Although the dates of that trip and the one in 1972 were not revealed," Why not? It doesn't say.

6. Hunt is also visiting Nicaragua "before the 1972 election." What this means is before November 7, 1972, which was 1 month before the launch of the last Apollo (17) mission.

7. US officials were not aware of these trips because they were secret "mysterious" trips covered up, but uncovered only in 1975.

8. The trail leads to money laundering/banking fraud in Mexico and Miami courtesy of Bernard Barker. Barker and Hunt reach to the Bay of Pigs and you can figure out that really means JFK.

9. Rep. Jack Brooks is no slouch when it comes to conspiracies. Brooks was in the motorcade in Dallas when the killers struck JFK. He was present when LBJ was sworn in on the plane. Brooks drafted the articles of impeachment on Richard Nixon and Nixon called him his "executioner." Source en.wikipedia.org...(politician)

a reply to: boohoo

Sent you a PM! I'm not really do this for mainstream approval, boohoo. I'm looking to find the fault lines in the official narrative. That means I have to ask abstract questions to get a better, more accurate historical account. It doesn't get into conspiracy territory until we reach the gray areas of the official space narratives which we know already exist. Not surprisingly, there are many gray areas in the HH and RN personal narratives. All of those Fault Lines that I'm talking about... get sorted into this file cabinet that is called Nixon's Apollo.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Sent you a PM! I'm not really do this for mainstream approval, boohoo. I'm looking to find the fault lines in the official narrative. That means I have to ask abstract questions to get a better, more accurate historical account. It doesn't get into conspiracy territory until we reach the gray areas of the official space narratives which we know already exist. Not surprisingly, there are many gray areas in the HH and RN personal narratives. All of those Fault Lines that I'm talking about... get sorted into this file cabinet that is called Nixon's Apollo.

No one can continue your work if you don't start making good citations, connecting the dots in a conventional manner. Your work will die with you, one day, if you don't give a road map TODAY that can be followed by future researchers having the same interests. That road map IS academic citations. Start using Google News less and instead using Google Scholar more. I responded to your PM, the public library system near you does have limited online access to peer reviewed journal articles, I suggest that you start making use of that access.

a reply to: boohoo

Why do I need academic citations? Is John M Logsdon not academic enough for you?



From page 180:

"He had been talked out of canceling Apollo 17 at the end of 1970, but in May 1971 returned to that idea, this time including also canceling Apollo 16. Meeting with Ehrlichman on May 13, Nixon said "I personally think (we should) stop at probably five Apollo, no more... The reason for the space program, the best reason, is not going to the moon but is the fact that we are exploring the unknown. I don't know what the hell is up there. We've got to continue to explore just for the sake of it."

"Later the same day, he told Ehrlichman "the one (part of the NASA program) that seems to me to have the least appeal are more Apollo shots. Why in the hell would they have to go up there and take a look around the damn thing again?"

"On May 18, he asked Ehrlichman "did you get those moon shots knocked off?" Ehrlichman replied "we're working on it." Nixon suggested "do your best."

"Finally, on May 26, Nixon told Ehrlichman "we have got to get a way to get off those damn moon shots... There can't be any after July (the date of the Apollo 15 mission). And we all agree, none after July." Referring to the Apollo 13 mission, he said "I don't want to risk any more."

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: boohoo

Why do I need academic citations? Is John M Logsdon not academic enough for you?

Of course he is not good enough, Logston is a politically appointed administrator, whom happens to hold a PhD and writes pop-science/histroy books. He is NOT a real academic and NONE of his work is peer reviewed by people whom know what he is talking about first hand. I can't find a SINGLE reference to him in a peer-reviewed journal article and from my quick searches he has not published any himself either. People like Logston, as I said, are a good place to get dates, places, names and concepts to elaborate on only. HOWEVER, his pop-science/history books CAN NOT support ANY of your ideas or arguments. Should you cite him in your work? Absolutely! Should he be the ACADEMIC basis of your alternative history theory? Absolutely not!

Go to your public library and use the Academic Journals that are available to you. Based on what you told me in PM, the Public Library system that you have access to is better and has more academic journals available than 90% of Public Library systems in the ENTIRE country. Believe it or not, you have a MAJOR advantage over most independent researchers, based solely on free access to these peer reviewed journals.

Again, I would say at least 100 cited peer-reviewed sources should be your goal. There are a number of books written by professors that mentioning links between Hughes and Nixon, published in the mid-1990's. These will be an excellent source for citations they used, which you will then be able to track down and read yourself. The disciplines that I have seen writing these kinds of articles and not being dismissed as mere "conspiracy theory" are anthropology of mass media, media geography, media studies and film studies. You need to really start buckling down and adopting some of the techniques used by professional academics. It will only make your work BETTER regardless of the end use.

What you have written, so far, AT BEST, in its current state, is considered historical-fiction, UNLESS you GO BACK and start adding citations and footnotes.

Why, you ask? Because you are not conducting an interview of John M Logsdon, nor have you attended a lecture, presentation or performance given by John M Logsdon (i.e. a journalistic article)

Learn how to do something new (i.e. make proper citations to support your ideas), make use of my advice (i.e. based on having personal experience publishing peer-reviewed work in academic journals) and take advantage of that FREE access (i.e. which would normally cost you around $30 per paper to access).

a reply to: boohoo

boohoo, I really appreciate your taking the time to explain the differences between academic peer reviewed material and, as you say "pop- science/history books", like Logsdon has published. Wow. I never thought of it like that. Your comments cut against the ATS mindset.

However, please allow me respond to you by saying that academics have advantages that I don't have access to... like the fact that I have a 40-hr week job that does not revolve around academia plus a 10-hr per week commute tacked on. The most I can do per month is about 20 hours of research, mostly book reading. Book reading is how I have constructed the "skeleton" of my narrative over the last two years. As you can see I started the thread in April of 2013. This thread represents only part time research. Academics have 160+ hours per month advantage in research time.

Obviously, my research is not going to be ready for peer review, and this thread does not meet the standards of academia. I know that already. But this does give me certain advantages, to wit:

As a part time "conspiracy theorist" I am allowed to ask any questions I want and I am not beholden to any institutions or benefactors for my funding. What that means is I CANNOT BE BOUGHT, I have my own agenda and my agenda does not include getting a PhD! The theory marches ever forward as I consume more source materials.

Howard Hughes liked to brag that he could buy anybody, even the president of the United States. The pop-history books all agree that Hughes tried to buy politicians and he succeeded in doing that many times over.

Do you consider Watergate testimony and FBI records as acceptable source material?? Do you consider books by Haldeman, Maheu or Noah Dietrich, Jack Real, as prima facie source material that does not require a second hand, academic, journalistic, peer reviewed references?

I want to throw a strange question at you boohoo. Have you ever looked at the Howard Hughes Telephone conference call which occurred on the weekend of Richard Nixon's birthday, first week of January, 1972? Hughes was forced into calling from the Bahamas to prove that he was alive! No pictures allowed! The Clifford Irving hoax biography scandal was in full swing. How are we to know if this was just some huge fictional fantasy story and has been inserted into the official narratives. Is it a spectacle, it is a distraction, it is a magic trick, was it a hoax?

There are so many problems with the Howard Hughes narratives that I don't believe a peer reviewed journals are able to solve the problem of the 1972 TV teleconference. Everyone accepts it as true, prima facie. I do not see anything from academia that challenges the authenticity of the 1972 TV teleconference.

That says to me that academia has been too weak to ask the hard questions that I proposed in this thread. I don't need academia. Academia doesn't have the balls to ask these questions. Academia needs me to break down the barriers first and then academia can post about it in their peer reviewed journals. This thread stands on it's own merits. My peer review comes from other ATS members, like you boohoo.

Once again, I appreciate your inputs. I think some ATS readers may gain a lot from your insights. I just finished reading

a reply to: boohoo

Again, I would say at least 100 cited peer-reviewed sources should be your goal. There are a number of books written by professors that mentioning links between Hughes and Nixon, published in the mid-1990's.

Once my skeleton narrative for Nixon's Apollo is fully constructed It should be a simple thing to get those citations.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I have to say I read your thread and I find it cool.

Two question:

You seem to imply Howard Hughes is still alive at this time, do you think it's possible? If so what do you think he is doing now?

Also you seem to imply that the space station from the James Bond movie Moon Raker is real. If is real is it still flying around now?

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I have to say I read your thread and I find it cool.

Two question:

You seem to imply Howard Hughes is still alive at this time, do you think it's possible? If so what do you think he is doing now?

Also you seem to imply that the space station from the James Bond movie Moon Raker is real. If is real is it still flying around now?

Hughes created the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in the 1950's. Hughes gained tax exempt status for his research institute located in Florida after he payed off Richard Nixon. You can find the HHMI dvd's on the internet for free. They do a lot of advanced medical research.

the relationship between Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon. Pearson and Anderson discovered that in 1956 the Hughes Tool Company provided a $205,000 loan to Nixon Incorporated, a company run by Richard's brother, Francis Donald Nixon. The money was never paid back. Soon after the money was paid the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reversed a previous decision to grant tax-exempt status to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Source spartacus-educational.com...

Howard Hughes owned his own medical research capacity in Florida! I find it unbelievable that Howard Hughes was eating blue bombers and self injecting codiene when he had the resources in Florida of a medical research institute! Perhaps the whole story is just a fantasy made up to cover up that Hughes was dead by 1971, or 1957. Nobody really knows for sure! The people who say that they know might have all been bought off by Hughes ToolCo, Summa or the CIA.

Hughes could have his body cryogenically frozen in the 1960's or 70's. He had enough money and technology to do that. I can't rule it out. Hughes was clearly ahead of his time in Hollywood and in aerospace and in espionage and in hoaxes, truly in the same league as Orson Welles and Stanley Kubrick.

Space would be the perfect place for Hughes to hide out for 20-30 years while he's in a cryogenic deep sleep. Hughes may be orbiting the earth right now, frozen, waiting to be defrosted! The Hughes narrative is not very good, there are a lot of black holes and gray areas in there. This is due to the well documented connections between the Hughes organization and the Central Intelligence Agency that includes Richard Nixon's rise to power. Hughes could be floating around up there in space right now... planning his next big hoax.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

But if he wake up, wouldn't he be disappointed with the state of our world? (ISIS, Rising China, Decline of the US and other issues?)

I mean I would be disappointed if I were him. I mean I'm ahead of my time only to see the world go a huge step backward.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Wow allready 42 flags...congrats SayonaraJupiter with this thread which brings more truth to real Apollo history !

Respect for your perseverance.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

But if he wake up, wouldn't he be disappointed with the state of our world? (ISIS, Rising China, Decline of the US and other issues?)

I mean I would be disappointed if I were him. I mean I'm ahead of my time only to see the world go a huge step backward.

Go visit this thread for more on the Howard Hughes narratives.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let's take the conversation on Hughes to that thread. Ok?

originally posted by: webstra
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Wow allready 42 flags...congrats SayonaraJupiter with this thread which brings more truth to real Apollo history !

Respect for your perseverance.

I've had this Hughes/Nixon "fever" for about 3 years now. Am I wasting my time reading Haldeman's diaries? I can tell you that within the first 100 pages I had something very good for Nixon's Apollo. Then I put that book down because I had some other "hot leads" on Nixon. My stacks of books are not getting any smaller, webstra! haha

originally posted by: Kaone
reply to post by windslayer

 

Are you serious??? Didnt have the technology to fake the moon landing but had it to land on the moon which is aprox 240 thousand miles away??? no man thus far has traveled that distance in space.

After Chernobyl, just driving through the place caused film to have white radiation lines going through it .So how come the film during the lunar excursions is so pristine. Even astronauts in Low Earth orbit get white dots appearing in their eyes, because of the energised particles. I can believe that Nixon would have looked a complete jerk, if something went wrong with the mission. So it would make sense to make a film of the whole lot, so nothing could go wrong, and prove that American tech, was superior in every way, and America had the higher ground, which would be a deterrent to the Soviets.

courtesy thumbnail

The Nixon quotes at the top of this picture are his remarks about the Apollo 8 mission. According to the Nixon's Apollo theory, Apollo 8 was staged around Howard Hughes' birthday, December 1968.

Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Shakespeare. All three worked on Nixon's '68 winning campaign. Not the money men, they are the media men and power-handlers, loyal only to the President. They were with Nixon all through the first term - the Apollo term.

(The seeds of Watergate were planted in early 1972, i.e. the Howard Hughes hoax, Watergate break-ins)

After the super majority landslide election of '72, with Nixon at his peak, Shakespeare left his post at the USIA (...his job well done) during the week of the last Apollo 17 mission (...and great timing, too!). Haldeman and Ehrlichman, of course, must stay on for the second term - the Watergate term - where they would help to guide the post-Apollo clean-up, typically done through executive branch beheadings, reorganizations, or, when pay-off's were involved, dipping into the deep resources of the Committee to Re-Elect the President.

This theory treats Watergate as the final thrust of the Apollo clean-up operation. Nixon's loyalists, once so vicious they famously created lists of their worst enemies (and went after them!) will finally go down on their swords, some defiantly, others willingly, to save the credibility of the President United States and

Nixon's Apollo.