Clavius from the start has been a site that essentially tells both sides of the story. I reproduce the hoax believer arguments as carefully as I can, and then right next to that I give the other side of the story. I let the reader decide which is more plausible. In fact, I originally used the hoax believers' arguments verbatim until I got nervous about copyright issues. You can only quote a certain amount of someone else's writing (for any purpose, including Fair Use) before it infringes on their rights.

The best cure for bad speech is and always has been more speech. Curtailing or abridging speech -- even offensive or absurdly ignorant speech -- is not what this country is about. It's much more effective to pit reason against idiocy than it is to simply remove the idiocy. Else how will people learn the difference?

Only one bit of Sibrel's rhetoric continues to bother me. He says he doesn't present a balanced view of the facts because NASA has had thirty years to present its side of the case. This is irritating because it presumes NASA's activities up until this time have emphasized defending the authenticity of Apollo. In fact NASA's public relations has almost entirely assumed that the authenticity of Apollo was beyond serious disputation. It has documented a series of events generally and correctly assumed to have actually occurred. Thus it is incorrect to believe that a pro-Apollo viewpoint has had some number of years to present its evidence.

Attacks on the authenticity of Apollo focus on topics which, by most conspiracy theorists' estimation, NASA has not yet specifically addressed. And the silence is justified. The hoax arguments have heretofore been confined to the lunatic (pun intended) fringe. NASA simply has not been trying to convince everyone for the past thirty years that Apollo was real; it has simply described a program it assumed everyone believed was real.

Sibrel's attempt at justifying selective presentation of the evidence misses the mark entirely. Nothing compels him legally or even ethically to present both sides of the story. But it is dishonest to present one side of the story while conveying the impression that it's the whole story. Ignoring pertinent facts and failing to consider alternative interpretations and explanations for one's observations does not create confidence in one's conclusions.