I don't know how to unstring the debate. The moon hoax theory is held because it's a necessary part of the larger conspiracist world view. Yet it is presented as if it were the conclusion of a legitimate investigation. Its authors intend it to appeal to the intellect (the less informed intellect, the better). But when the argument is rejected on its merits the authors cling tenaciously to the conclusion, deploying yet more complexity and conjecture to support it.

We spin our wheels in direct rebuttal because direct rebuttal is the honest way. But the hoax believers have an infinite supply of speculative cannon fodder. The debate will obviously never be brought to a conclusion by this method. So long as the hoax believers deny the true basis of their belief, I see no escape from high-tension debate according to merit.

We can, of course, simply abandon the debate. But the prediction that by doing so we will allow it to sink back into obscurity is less credible given the willingness of mainstream media such as Fox Television to exploit the sensationalism for profit and give these ideas a much more normalized exposure. Do you really want your children growing up learning physics from Bart Sibrel and David Percy? That's what's happening.