Corry, Renn, and Stachel authored a joint reply to Winterberg, which they claimed "Zeitschrift für Naturforschung" refused to publish without "unacceptable" modifications, and unable to find a publisher elsewhere, they made it available on the internet. The reply accused Winterberg of misrepresenting the reason why "Science" would not publish his paper (it had to do with the section of the journal it was scheduled to appear in), and also misrepresenting that the paper published in "Zeitschrift für Naturforschung" was the same paper he had submitted to "Science", and had in fact been "substantially altered" after Winterberg had received their comments on an earlier draft. Actually, Winterberg in his Final Comment had clearly stated that the paper submitted to Science had been a "previous version". They then argue that Winterberg's interpretation of the Hilbert paper was incorrect, that the lost part of the page was unlikely to have been consequential, and that much of Winterberg's reasoning about what could be in the missing piece was incorrect (down to noting Winterberg claims that 1/3 of the page was removed, when actually over half a page is missing total from the two cut off pages) and internally inconsistent. They further argued there was a likely "non-paranoid" explanation for the missing part of the page.