David Milne wrote an article endorsing Ralph Rene's beliefs that the moon landing was a hoax. Milne lists facts derived from Rene's book, NASA Mooned America , in his article "Did Man Really Walk On The Moon", and clearly is in support of Rene's ideologies. Milne and Rene both share the same purpose, to try and instill a different way of thinking, which breaks the mold of the socio/historical standard. Their acceptance of such radical beliefs, and coinciding boisterous preaching (writing articles, publishing books, etc.) make it seem as if their begging for notoriety amongst the easily influenced, counterculture-crazed, middle-Americans, who adopt any belief that may be deemed as pseudo-"taboo". The audience Milne and Rene are aiming for, are the average people who try to adopt avant-garde beliefs to appear a little less average, so that their coffee conversation may be a little more interesting. One can instantly realize the lack of credibility that Rene has, by that title of his book, NASA Mooned America, where the bogus, "trying-to-hard-to-be-witty" title refutes any validity that could be confined inside of the pages.
One can learn about the meat of Rene's book by reading Milne's article. Milne lists several of Rene's main points (which are all fanatic stretches of Rene's imagination) in his article to try and persuade the audience to believe that man never really landed on the moon. The article not only lists Rene's points, but also seems to cover Rene's tracks, when the Milne matter-of-factly explains away possible doubts in his own voice, for example "But with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a labâ€¦" Milne basically refutes the credibility of physical evidence by inserting a quick quip of his own. The most radical thing about the article, is how it seems to imply that Rene was the first person to formulate the theory that the moon landing was a hoax, when several people before him expressed the question as well. At first I believed the main purpose of the article was a sales pitch for Rene's book, but upon further research, I learned the book was published over a decade before the article was published. Further research also showed what kind of person Rene is, alongside his bogus moon theory, Rene also believes that Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Newton's law of Universal Gravitation, The terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001, and Pi, are all misconstrued and falsified. It seems as if Rene's overall purpose is to try and stir up controversy in pointless conspiracy theories.
One of the reasons that Rene believes the moon landing was a hoax, is the fact that none of the astronauts developed cancer from the high radiation of the Van Allen belt. This element to Rene's theory is easily brushed aside, by the fact that the Apollo spacecraft passed through the Van Allen belt at such a high speed, that the astronauts didn't have time to receive dangerous amounts of radiation. Another element to the article (this one seemingly presented by Milne) is that the moon rocks were easily mocked in a lab. This quick jab that Milne throws into his article (with no evidence) is shot down by the fact that the high level of cosmic rays leave marks on moon rocks, and the marks left are unable to be duplicated on Earth, because humanity does not have that kind of technology. Also, Rene infers that Buzz Aldrin (The second man on the moon) cried at a banquet when asked what it felt like to step on the lunar surface, because he was living a lie. This is a ridiculous allegation, and one can easily see that Aldrin shed tears due to recalling the emotion he experienced from 'actually walking on the moon'. Rene goes on to try and bastardize the death of Virgil Grissom, implying that NASA knew that he was going to die. This is where the fun disappears from Rene's little game and his little theories quit being funny and start becoming disgusting.
The moon hoax article is in no way credible. While some facts presented within the article may make you think "hey, what if this guy's really onto something?" It would have to take a weak mind for the article to shift a person's perception of what's really factual. When Rene starts gripping for the readers conversion by implying that NASA actually killed astronauts, this is where one can easily decipher that the arguments made in the article aren't credible.
The possibility that the moon landing is a hoax is interesting to ponder, yet my mind would never allow me to believe in it. It's along the same line as the Da Vinci Code or 9/11 conspiracy theories for me, interesting to ponder, yet you know what's factual and what's not. I believe that if the moon landing was faked, one of the hundreds or thousands of people involved in NASA would have cracked and spilled the beans by now. I also believe that Russia wouldn't have been so accepting of our achievement if a hoax was even remotely possible.