Talk:Ralph Rene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


Contents

[edit] Is it appropriate to call him a 'physicist' when he holds no such degree?

I have no objection to calling him a 'self-taught expert on the Moon landing' but calling him a 'self-taught Physicist'is quite misleading. This is a guy who holds no degree and we have only is word that he has reached any degree of expertise in anything. He is not a scientist.

I would argue he should be referred to as

'a self-taught inventor who has a side-career as a NASA critic'

I would add further:

"He has been interviewed frequently for television programs that explore his conspiracy theory. He has appeared in shows produced by The History Channel, National Geographic and Showtime."

(Lisa Pollison)


I cleaned up the article and removed the innapropriate use of the label 'physicist', which I changed to "inventor and Small press publisher." I feel that described him better without compromising NPOV. I also added a brief summary of his main 'evidence' of a hoax as ell as the fact of his frequent appearances on shows covering the alleged hoax. I chose not to include any explanations to his assertions at this time. I'm not that experienced here as an editor. Maybe another time.Lisapollison 18:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Gallup poll should be added

I did some searching and found the link to the 1999 Gallup poll on the subject and I feel it should be considered for inclusion since it speaks to the general issue.

It concluded that only 6 % of americans believe NASA faked the moon landings as opposed to the 20% that Ralph Rene and others like him often claim.

199 Gallup Poll - Did Man Really Walk On the Moon? 'In the July 1999 poll, the overwhelming majority of Americans (89%) do not believe the U.S. government staged or faked the Apollo moon landing. Only 6% of the public believes the landing was faked and another 5% have no opinion.' http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1993&pg=1

please discuss this or comment on the appropriateness of including such a link. (Lisa Pollison 1/17/06)

[edit] Be careful about NPOV when referencing his TV Appearances

I made a mnior edit to a recent revision that said "He was mocked by Penn & Teller's Bullshit!" because it seems to advocate a POV that it is not neutral. Yes, Penn & Teller mocked him most mercilessly, choosing to air footage of him swigging from a huge Vodka bottle with a masking tape label that said "Water", but unless you can write that up NPOV, it doesn't belong in the article.

I invite others to edit this article by adding some links to the NASA pages that dispute Rene's main assertions point for point. That would be more helpful.Lisapollison 20:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Describing his appearance on Bullshit as being mocked is not POV. That Penn & Teller made fun of him on premium cable is not a matter of opinion. A POV statement would say something more like "he was deservedly mocked." Stating the POV of other, notable people is not in itself POV... but it may not be encyclopedic. Which is why I'm not changing it back. Penn & Teller are not really encyclopedic sources on space travel. Bgruber 21:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Bgruber, thank you for considering my edit and my reasons for it. I disagree with you on the word 'mocked' but I do see your point. I felt that in the absence of greater discussion of his media appearances, that one comment would have tilted the article towards one particular POV. If we can expand the discussion of his media coverage a bit, your original edit might be worth reverting to. I would very much like to expand this article to include some more of Rene's specific assertions that indicate the alleged hoax while also building in links to the matters he refers to such as I did with the Van Allen Belt. And finally, I'd like to list some of his TV Appearances that people are likely to catch in re-runs on Cable. Any help you can give me with this article would be greatly appreciated. I am still a Wikipedia Noob, but not new to editing in general. I'm still learning how to format things properly. Thank you again for your comments and help with this article.Lisapollison 07:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I have gone over the main article on the Moon Landing Hoax/Conspiracy Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, and I can see now that I need to be careful not to duplicate work that has already been done over there. I'm going to try to keep this mostly about rene himself and his TV Appearances. I added the title of his 9/11 Conspiracy book today and added Fox Tv to the list of his Tv Appearances. Lisapollison 02:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] additions to article

I've tried to spiff this article up as much as possible by adding more depth to it and including some mention of his other major beliefs. My goal was not to make it seem that he's right about all of this but to simply present his views without judgement. The best way to determine his credibility is to simply read his essays. Rene is a major figure in the Moon Hoax community of conspiracists so his article should be more than a stub LiPollis 08:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The article should also mention in the section "Proponent of Apollo moon landing hoax theory" that every single one of Rene's silly claims has been thoroughly discredited, and that lucid explanations have been given by experts in the field. Rene clearly does not have even a basic understanding of radiation, rocketry, heat transfer, photography, etc. As it stands the article gives the impression that Rene's claims have some validity. I am happy to discuss this further, however if there is no feedback soon I will update the article accordingly. Logicman1966 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not substantially change this article. All the material you would want to add is already over in the main article on the Moon Hoax theory and we don't need to repeat ourselves over here. I have tried to keep this article as stricly biographical as possible without making it seem that Rene's theories are accepted by most people. He has his fans to be sure, and in the area of the Moon Landing conspiracy theory, he is prominent. However, to try and respond tit for tat to each of his claims in this article would be wasting time better spent on beefing up the main article which is linked to in the text. Please consider going to THAt article and seeing where you might be able to add some facts, references and quotes. Let's just leave this article and the other biographical articles on the hoax theorists as basic outlines of their beliefs, their lives, their credneitals (if any) and any other notable things they have done or said.LiPollis 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll say it again - as it stands the article gives the impression that Rene's claims have some validity, which is completely wrong. What I want to do is add a sentence to the article, that says something like "every single one of Rene's claims regarding the moon landings has been thoroughly discredited, and logical explanations have been given by experts in the field." Surely there can be no objection to that. I would also like to add a comment on Rene's "expertise", as many of his comments plainly reveal that he has a poor grasp of technical matters - that's what happens when you are self-taught! Would you trust a self-taught doctor? No, I didn't think so.Logicman1966 01:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] picture?

Can we get a picture of him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.132.195 (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)