I think the "Shakespeare hoax" is in a completely different class than the "moon landing hoax". Compared to Shakespeare's contemporaries, we know very little about him. (The movie "Shakespeare in Love" could be accurate, we don't know.) Since so little is known about him, there is "reasonable" room to speculate. These speculations must withstand the rigors of scholarship, of course. I've not read Sobran's book, so I will not comment.

However, the Moon landing is different. Not only is there no evidence to suggest we did not go to the Moon, we can prove that it would have almost impossible, if not down-right impossible, to fake. The HB's must have a religious devotion to their cause because logic and facts have no influence over them.

The JFK conspiracy falls in the middle some place. Again no evidence to suggest Lee Harvey Oswald had an acomplice. But mistakes by the Warren Commission and an overzealous CIA, e.g. the Bay of Pigs, fuels speculation. (Just for the record, I believe LHO acted alone.)