I guess that the Clyde Lewis article "Good Luck, Mr. Gorsky":

http://clydelewis.com/dis/gorsky/gorsky.html

is pretty well-known by now.

But actually a debunker named Christoph Stappert has written a neat rebuttal - and it´s posted on the Clyde Lewis website !

The rebuttal is posted at:

http://www.clydelewis.com/dis/listen...t/mrlewis.html

Among other things, Mr. Stappert says:

"It’s hardly original to start off with a quote, but this one is short as well as inspiring, and I wanted to get to the point without further ado. Clyde Lewis has invited me to write an article on the current "Did we or did we not land on the Moon?" debate, as I "seem to be the most intelligent of the people posting in the forum on this subject" (under the handle ‘Eisfeld’). While that flattering statement is certainly untrue and reveals more than just a little disregard for a series of other posters, I will pick up the glove in their name.

So who is this guy, anyway? My name is Christoph Stappert, I’m a 24 year-old student from Germany. My main classes at University are philosophy, with accompanying studies in history, psychology, music and literature. As a German, I write this article in a language foreign to me, and will ask your kind forgiveness for any strange vocabulary or grammar I use. My English is pretty fluent, I think, and I’ve been to America a couple of times. I’m sure the style won’t detract from the meaning. Since one aspect of this debate is the political one, regarding the Moon Race between the US and Soviet Russia, some of you might even regard me as kind of neutral."

And a little later, Christoph has this excellent observation on the HBs:

"2. Scepticism: Which brings me to the most potent weapon of the "lunar hoax" crowd, their endless and systematic scepticism. They will look for alternatives to your arguments, however unlikely. For example, the Apollo astronauts brought back some 800 lbs of moon rock. But couldn’t those moon rocks have been faked? Geologists worldwide have examined them for 30 years and say they are real. But couldn’t those geologists be on NASA’s payroll? Even so, we do not have the technology to "fake" a moon rock. How do you know? Maybe NASA has the technology and is keeping it secret. Or maybe the moon rock is real and was brought back by unmanned probes. And how do we know there is 800 lbs in the first place? Have you seen them yourself?,

Let’s follow this kind of scepticism through to the bitter end, for a moment: how can you be completely sure about anything? How do you know that each and everyone you ever met is not lying to you? How do you know there are other people at all? The sensory perceptions of your eyes, ears or your whole body could be wrong. You could be in a coma and hallucinating all these things! Or you could be a supercomputer running some kind of life-simulation! As you see, total scepticism ultimately leads to an abyss of folly. We simply cannot be completely sure about anything.

While not even the "Apollo hoax" theorists are that far removed from reality, their aim is clear: to disprove at all costs, no matter what you say. What they do is take suspicion as if it were evidence. Suspicion is to assume that something could, in theory, be true, however unlikely. Evidence is clear and verifiable proof that indicates something is true. Indicates, not proves! Because ultimately, there is no such thing as irrefutable, impenetrable proof. That doesn’t mean everything is necessarily wrong. We have common sense and experience which tell us that some things are more likely than others. And at some point, we must just decide what we choose to believe and trust. This is how scientific thinking works.

In any way, extraordinary claims – like "the lunar landings were faked" – require extraordinary evidence. The "Apollo hoax" crowd raises countless suspicions, but fails to present substantial evidence (whatever "evidence" they did bring up was debunked by Phil Plait and others). Therefore, I for one choose to believe NASA."

And finally:

"By contrast, Phil Plait and the other "Apollo hoax" debunkers are indeed open-minded in the true sense of the word. Have a look at their sites, and you can read their views as well as the unabridged uncensored claims of the conspiracy theorists. Decide for yourselves.

How very true ! How many HB sites would allow Phil and Jay to air their views side by side with the HB views - and then say to the readers: "Here´s pro and contra - now it´s up to you to decide, who you believe" ?? Would Sibrel ? Would Kaysing ?

http://www.clydelewis.com/dis/listen...t/mrlewis.html


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Peekaboo on 2002-07-09 13:26 ]</font>

To put it bluntly, debunking moon hoax arguments is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. It's not hard to refute arguments that rely on certain obvious facts (e.g., the true behavior of perspective) being kept secret. Those theories are aimed squarely at people the authors know will not go to any great lengths to verify them.

Thanks for that. Very interesting take on the HB crowd. It won't win any converts but may help some truly open minded novice Apollo investigators apply the right kind of analysis to the claims and counter claims.

His assertion that the HBs don't really believe what they espouse fits with my observations, too. That's the only reasonable explanation for people like Cosmic Dave, Percy, Bennett and Kaysing to never retreat from any position proven to be wrong. Gotta protect their investments!

Gotta protect their investments!

For people who have a "following", yes. But the same sentiment occurs in people who have no external vested interests. Some people are simply afraid to say they've changed their minds. They're afraid they'll lose face.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have a great deal of respect for someone who, on the basis of diligent study, changes his mind. I'd rather associate someone who agrees with me because he's verified my argument than with someone who just casually agrees with me.

People like Wade Frazier and Jonathan from "Apollohoax" comes to mind ....

Yes, we know the defining moment for Wade - Armstrong's leap onto the LM ladder, but haven't really been able to have Jonathan identify the point at which he became converted. I do know he paid lots of attention to, and participated in the discussion all along and is now an adamant believer in Apollo.

There is no shame in being wrong. The shame is brought by being wrong, knowing one is wrong and being too proud to admit it.

When I used the term "investment" I didn't just mean financial - which is the issue for the commercial HB's. I was also thinking of the emotional and intellectual investment. Karamoon is probably a better example of that kind of "investor" - and I'm starting to see signs that his resolve is weakening.