Hamilton Saint

Nice! I teach this stuff to 12 year olds every year. Not too much more advanced for a smart 10 year-old.

The key is equivalent fractions. 1) Equivalent fractions: multiply both terms (numerator and denominator) of the fraction 3/4 by 25 and you get 75/100. [And by the reverse process, divide both terms of the fraction 75/100 by 25 and you get the equivalent fraction of 3/4.] 2) Decimal numbers are decimal fractions; so 0.75 is the same as 75/100. 3) Percentages (by definition) are out of 100; so 75/100 is the same as 75% (75 out of 100).

Well, there you are. Your condescending attitude reflects the fact that NOTHING will convince you. You've already made up your mind. That's the way conspiracy-theorists work. By the way - what was Apollo 13 all about, then?

Check out this website, which has lots of information about third-party (non-NASA, non-US government) evidence of the Apollo missions to the Moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings Key evidence: dating of Moon rocks (via hundreds of independent experiments) puts then 200 million years older than any rocks ever found on Earth; and independent data received from laser light fired at reflectors on the Moon - reflectors that must have been placed there by astronauts.

And did you check out the Bad Astronomy website (Phil Plait)?

Are you aware that there were radio telescopes (independent of NASA) in Australia that tracked Apollo spacecraft flights to the Moon (trans-lunar injections)? Primary evidence from a non-NASA agency.

Spanish - very useful and relatively easy.

Very good!

Like the Hubble Telescope, you mean? Maybe if you contact whomever is in control of it, you can get them to do a photo of the Apollo landing sites? Especially if you tell them that you're a conspiracy theorist! Then again, maybe the Hubble telescope is just too close to the Moon?

Yes, choose the alternative ... if it turns your crank. Detail? Probably not photographed from the top of a ladder, or the top of a tree. My guess is that it was photographed from a satellite in orbit - many kilometers above the surface.

Apollo 11 landing site - photographed this year. Photo at top of page - click to enlarge it. http://www.space.com/17330-neil-armstrong-death-moon-landing-site-preservation.html

For an exhaustive debunking of the conspiracy theory check out Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy" web site. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

First of all, our perception of light, shade and shadows would be very different when standing in an atmosphere-free environment. The astronauts had a hard time judging distances on the Moon, for example. I recall watching a TV programme a while back that specialises in testing empirically commonly-held beliefs. I think it's called Mythbusters. They did several investigations into the main points made by the "moon-landings-were-a-hoax" crowd. They specifically looked at the issue of light seeming to come from more than one direction. I forget the details, but they discovered that the effects noticed in photographs could be explained. The key point is that the light conditions on the Moon are very different to those on Earth.

And why would they fake the moon landings six times? Wasn't once enough?

No. The camera is not as sensitive as the human eye, and it is unable to register such a dim light.

And don't forget those non-stick frying pans. One of the great side-benefits of the space programme!

Same old evidence that is brought up again and again, despite its being discredited scientifically. Just to mention one thing: go outside on a clear night when there is no moon. Do it out in the country where the stars are very visible. Now, take some photographs of the sky. It's guaranteed that there will be no stars appearing in any of those photographs. Now, think about why that is. It's not a conspiracy - science can easily explain it for you.

I think you'll find that there are some despicable things recommended and sanctioned in The Bible, which many people believe is the word of God. Unless you're a fundamentalist, this means interpretation and exegesis is required.

1) Millions of Catholics disagree with the Church's teaching on contraception. That doesn't mean that they ought to leave the Church. 2) It's not the "religion" that is not approving of a way of life - it's the opinion of some of that religion's leaders. Opinions and principles do change. 3) Because you disagree with one particular aspect of your Church's doctrine does not mean you are not following it "correctly". Nor does it mean that you cannot be devout. Last time I checked there were three main divisions in Judaism, two main branches of Islam, two main traditions of Catholicism, and hundreds of different sects of Protestantism. The struggle really is between the notion of a narrow, orthodox view of the faith (whatever it is) and a liberal, compassionate view that embraces everyone. Sometimes the faithful are ahead of their leaders.

Wake up Maggie, I think I got something to say to you ...

One of the first jazz musicians I ever listened to. Loved Take Five, Blue Rondo a la Turk, It's a Raggy Waltz, etc. More formally presented, perhaps, and with less improvisation, but it really did swing!

The error here is mistaking the association of events with a necessary causal connection. Because B often follows A, doesn't mean that A causes B.

My understanding of the term "gateway drug" is that it is used to mean that one's acceptance and pleasure with the drug itself will lead to experiences with other drugs. Rather than the scenario you presented.

That's OK then? Our culture? Not my culture - I don't accept that sort of thing at all.

We? Speak for yourself.