You cannot deny the possibility of X!
(X= Alien Abductions, Ghosts, Daemons, Beanery Fields)
No, it's not impossible that X exists, but it's also possible that right now there are seven portly guys with handlebar mustaches in overalls tap-dancing in my backyard right now while smoking Cuban cigars.   It's not like it couldn't happen, but I don't really have a problem making the assumption that there are not, even without looking back there now myself.   Similarly, there's no reason for me to assume X and it's entirely reasonable for me to assume X does not exist.

I have had a weird experience which has convinced me of the existence of ghosts.  Do you think I'm crazy or a liar?
No.   It's entirely possible that your experience was due to an error, a dream, an inaccurate memory.   I don't know because I was not there, but there have been enough incidents of perfectly sane people thinking they saw something which later turned out to not be the case.    It's a natural part of the human condition, but I'm afraid your anecdote is not something that can really be considered evidence.

I saw a medium after someone close to me died and I swear they were able to speak to them!  How dare you question it?
While I don't want to cause you any more pain over your loss, it's very upsetting for me to think someone could have been making money off of you or others by tapping such emotional and deep subjects.

Have you ever heard of "Cold Reading"?

Every psychic which has actually been investigated turned out to be a fraud, even if they had been believed by many intelligent people, who may have been dealing with an emotional issue.  Do you really think that your example is different than all the others which were believed with equal confidence by so many others?

A psychic was right about X event!  That's vindication!
A broken clock is right twice a day.  If you make enough predictions you will eventually get a few correct just by chance.   But do you realize how bad and how far off the predictions of some of these people, like Sylvia Browne are?   It's ridiculous!

Nostradamus Predicted X!
(x=historical event such as 9/11, World War II, The Asian Tsunami)
He wrote a lot of very vague predictions full of symbolism.  You hear some of them that seem to be accurate from time to time, but few that weren't.

One of Nostradamus's prophesies which is not said to have predicted the September 11th attacks on the US had previously been considered an acurate prediction of the London Blitz.  That's a lot of flexibility if it could predict either one!

Nostradamus (or some other so-called profit) may not have described them explicitly because he could see them but they were beyond his understanding at his time!
I would be entirely willing to admit Nostradamus, or any so-called profit predicted a modern event if their prediction described it explicitly enough.   For example, if a prediction sounded like:

 "There is a guy who has a square mustache and is yelling at a crowed a rea lot and they salute him by raising their right arm and saying 'heil' and he seems to really be passionate but a pretty decent speaker.  He has a red band on his arm with this four-bladed pinwheel-looking thing and he really seems to dislike Jewish people a lot.   Now, I see these heavy metal machines of some type and hey have some really big guns on the front.   And it looks like they're going into France and... well damn... there's stuff falling from weird flying things and blowing up.  This can't be good!"

Psychic predictions cannot be right all the time!  They only see bits and pieces of the future
But how could they miss something so big that it dominates the world for a long period of time?   For example, no psychic ever predicted September 11, but even if they didn't see the event, any view of New York City would see the aftermath for years after.  Terrorism was on the lips of people and the headlines of newspapers for years afterward.   There are many events like this, the Iraq war has been at the top of the news for months on end and influenced many different policies and activities.   How could they miss every clue?  Every Hint?

I could feel it, I could feel the energy or her presence!
What you are describing is arguably the root of most paranormal beliefs around the world.   It's that feeling you get, in a physical way, that a person has warmth or charm or that an area is "creepy" or you have walked into a room fulled with "happiness" or "celebration."  But what you have in fact felt is a subconscious interpretation of many verbal and visual clues which though individually small, add up to present a certain feeling.   You'd be overwhelmed if you had to consciously process them all, so biology has given you this abstraction to make life much easier.  It's called intuition.

Do you ever get that same feeling of dread or sense love or hapiness or unease from a fictional movie?    Obviously it's not real and you're not even there in person.  It's not magic.  It's good acting and scenery!

There are photos of ghosts!  Not just orbs but figures and shapes!
Ok, but isn't it amazing that the ghosts only take the most blurred or non-physical forms when there are good cameras near them and only seem to do explicit full body apparitions when there is no camera present or possibly when the only picture taken is from a distance and badly out of focus, motion blured, underlit or otherwise low quality?

There are a lot of pictures taken in the world.  There are a lot of film process errors, corrupted files, objects out of focus.   Some look like bunny rabbits.  Some look like boots.  A few even look like ghosts.   What's your point?

There's photos which clearly show a face on mars!  (or Jesus on a piece of toast or on a stain under an overpass)
Okay, so there is a feature on surface of mars which, under certain lighting conditions, does kinda sorta look like a face, although not quite symmetrical or in proportions - I'm willing to concede that, but what is your point?   There surface or mars is larger than the exposed land area of earth and there's no shortage of natural features on earth that look like something, just by pure chance.   For example "The Old Man in The Mountain." Which was in New Hampshire until it fell down.

The human mind looks for patterns.  If you spend your day looking at clouds you'll see socks, and trucks and bunny rabbits.  It's the same thing with any stain or mark that resembles a face or Jesus.  If you look at enough stains, scuffs or marks you'll eventually find one that looks like something.   If your qualifications for what Jesus looked like are general enough, you won't have too much trouble finding one.

No proof will ever be enough for the skeptic!
Any actual proof will be enough.   However I guess you'll just have to take my word on that, just because "proof" has never actually been presented.  Maybe if someone could ever come up with proof, then we could put your claim to the test.

Skeptics reject claims that just do not jive with logic or established principals of science, when the evidence is flimsy or non-existent.   Carl Segan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."   If you are going to claim something that goes beyond logic or is just strange, you had better back it up with something substantive.   Is that really that high a standard?

They found evidence on this show I saw!  They investigated and found some weird things and emf readings and energies!
Interesting that no matter how many investigations they do, they never seem to have actually conclusive evidence!  The best that they can seem to do is end up saying "This is still open," based on some very vague measurements, subjective feelings or other very flimsy evidence.   They never get anything substnative!

Many ships and planes have gone missing in the Bermuda Triangle area!  Many were mysteriously never found!
There have been a lot of ships and planes lost in that area.  There are a lot of ships and planes which fly or sail in that area.  But proportionately, no more losses than other parts of the world.  If it seems "mysterious" it's because often no wreckage is ever found.   Not surprising when you consider that the ocean is big and stuff has a tendency to sink.

Science refuses to research of acknowledge the paranormal!
It didn't always.  When radio and electricity were not entirely understood, the idea that the dead could be contacted by electrical means did not seem that outlandish.   At one time, mediums and psychics and ghost pictures were considered possibly credible.   However, after enough studies and experiments were done and all turned out to show no evidence of the paranormal, the mainstream scientific community pretty much closed the issue in the early part of the 20th century.  Others continued to do research, but considering the lack of any substantive results, it's pretty much agreed upon that such research is, at best, a waste of money that could be spent on something much more useful, and at worst a complete farce.

General Purpose Psycics:

How can a psychic possibly miss a future event as big 9/11 or World War II or the fall of the Soviet Union?   These events were so huge, that even if they only could get glimpses of the future, their effect lasted and they were talked about for years after.  And yet nothing like this has been explicitly predicted in advance?

B) What do you call someone who claims to have visions of a crime scene or the location of a victims body, which nobody else can know?    A)The prime suspect

How many times does a psychic have to be really really wrong before people stop listening?    Apparently a real lot.

Have you ever noticed that just about all the "correct predictions" are really general but never one that gives a first and last name, date or anything really precise like that?   Is it just that psychics can see things, but only if they don't have legible words or numbers?

Why is it that ghosts can do things like send names or individual letters to a medium, but they can't send a whole string of them?  Like their last name or something verifiable?  It always seems to be very general.  Wouldn't they EVER get a direct hit?


General Purpose Ghosts:

Have you ever noticed that the quality of ghost citing are inversely proportional to the number of people who see something?   One person sees a full body appreciation, two people see a figure in the distance, a small group sees something move out of the corner of their eye, and a large group with video cameras and

So apparently there is some rule that ghosts are only allowed to appear in the dark?  or when few people are around?    You'd really think that at least one would break ranks and just show up at the 50 yard line of the Superbowl.   That would pretty much close the case on whether they exist, wouldn't it?

Why is it that ghosts never seem to move things or break plates when there are cameras around?  And why do they seem to move stuff when nobody is around at all?

There's really not a lot of consistency on ghosts.  Do any of the ghost "researchers" really agree on that stuff?  Are ghosts memories from a past time?  Are they aware of their surroundings?  Can they be gotten rid of?  Can they come back after "crossing over" and what the hell is "crossing over" anyway?   Can they communicate with all people or just mediums?   Ask five ghost "researchers" and you'll get five answers.   They can't all be right.   But they can all be wrong!

General Purpose Skeptism:

You know, if you're going to believe in the paranormal, you have to be pretty selective.   The US Air Force does not work with aliens and also try to research these unknown UFO's.  We did not fake the moon landing and encounter aliens during the Apollo program.   Ghosts cannot be both unaware of their surroundings and capable of playing jokes on the living.

"If a haunted, radioactive, black helicopter piloted by bigfoot colides with a flying saucer from the center of the hallow, flat earth, while flying over the Bermuda Triangle, are his crash injuries best treated with homopathy or acupuncture?   And if he dies, does his ghost haunt the area of the crash or his home in Pacific North West?"

Funny that all skeptics get criticized, they don't ever seem to be proven wrong.

James Randi is an angry man with a grudge against the paranormal and psychics!
You have obviously never met the man, as he is not only an approachable, likeable person of principal, but he also works very hard for a cause he believes in.

He's outraged by conartists?  He's driven to expose liars and frauds?   HOW DARE HE!

People like Randi assume that all the claims they hear are right from the getgo!
And yet he has never been proven wrong on shooting down a paranormal claim, has he?

Considering every single one which is thoroughly investigated turns out to be false.   After enough of them are shot down, it seems it would be a good assumption.

The fact that nobody has ever won James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge is proof that it is rigged.  Randi would never give up the money!
Wow.   You really know nothing about the history of the prize or just how hard his foundation members have honestly tried to find someone creditable to take it!

You do know that there has never even been a creditable attempt at the prize that made it to Randi, having passed the most preliminary qualifications, right?    You also know that no highly publicized celebrity psychic or other paranormalist, such as John Edward, Sylvia Browne or Uri Gellar has ever stepped up to the challenge, even if Sylvia Browne did once agree to take it.

Why should someone who has psycic powers bother taking Randi's challenge?   They don't need the money and he is so hostile!
Well it would sure as hell shut him up and put him in his place IF they could actually pass it, wouldn't it?  It would probably shut most of the critics up and get them universal respect... IF they could pass the test.

A million dollars could do a lot of good in the world.   Don't you think it's a bit selfish of them to not bother when they could feed so many poor Africans?

It would also legitimize the paranormal research projects, extend science and make science have to reevaluate all that is considered accurate and true.

Why do you attack someone like Sylvia Brown?
For the same reason that someone who's never been to medical school should be prosecuted for setting up shop as a surgeon.  People like Browne have offered to "help" in matters of life or death and only served to turn searchers in the wrong direction.

Because when you can look into the eyes of a grieving parent, take their money and tell them something about their lost child that you have just made up, I simply cannot feel any compassion for you or see anything but evil in that.

Because she isn't what she says she is and it wouldn't really take that much research to figure that out.

How do you know Sylvia Browne is a fraud?  She can't be right all the time!
Perhaps not, but how do you reconcile how very very wrong she is?   Take Shawn Hornbeck.  She said he was dead and graphically described his burial place and his killer.  It turns out he was alive for the whole time and his kidnapper looked nothing like her description.   How do you explain that kind of confidence if what she saw was so wrong?  It's not a cloudy or unclear picture.   She did not say she saw an apple when it was an orange.   She said it was a Red 1973 Cadillac Deville with a white leather Interior and chrome hubcaps  and a dent in the left side of the hood when it was an orange.   That's how far off she was!   And no... she never did explain it.

Why would you go after Uri Gellar?  What's wrong with someone like him showing such powers?
Do you know anything about Gellar?   His scams are so bad and blatant they're like an invitation to debunk and laugh at him.   Also, he's spreading a lot of disinformation and making money without having to actually work.

His professional life is not just a shame.  He, personally, is a complete douchebag.   If you do much research you'll find it out pretty fast.

I know what is true.  I have faith.  You cannot argue with all the millions who believe in my religion.  The fact that we are so committed and sure is proof in itsself!
And yet, many many religions have followers with absolute faith and devotion who have no doubt of it's validity.  Egyptians worked themselves to death to build monuments because they believed their pharaoh was a god.  Muslims commit suicide because they are so sure Allah will reward them.  Buddhists deny themselves normal lives in the hopes of becoming more spiritually pure.   They cannot all be right.  But they can all be wrong.

Religion has inspired great things!  It brings people comfort and teaches forgiveness.  Why take that away from them?
I never said that it didn't have good sides.  Of course it has bad sides too, but that's not the point.   If the foundation and the core belief is not true, why should people be taught a fantasy?  Isn't it more important that we live with balanced minds so we can see the world for what it is?   It pains me to see children being taught lies in the name of faith.

Prayer is powerful!  Prayer works!
Do you honestly believe that someone would die, arrive at the pearly gates and be told "You're lucky.   You were just a hair over the limit to get in but your grandkids prayed enough that we'll write off a few sins"   Do you honestly think that god would say "You know, I was going to end his life, but since the family prayed enough.... I'll grant a spontaneous remission" or even "Wow, they were close to a spontaneous remission, but one rosaries too few.  Oh well"

While it's somewhat understandable to talk to God directly, if you believe in him, exactly what does chanting prewritten words repeatedly do?   God just likes to know that you spent hours doing stuff that was really boring and non-productive?

So with prayers, someone may get better from, for example, an illness, they may even have an unusually swift and dramatic recovery.  Of course, they may also die.   How is this different from not praying?   There's never been a hint of evidence it increases the odds.

Miricals happen!  This person survived a horrible disease or accident!  This person was rescued when the odds were very slim!
So them god loved them more than all the others who died despite prayers and begging for healing?   Wow, god sounds like a real douchebag to do that to a few people, granting all the others hope only to not answer their prayers.

You do realize that if a condition has a 99% chance of death and 10,000 people have the condition, there are going to be a good 100 or so, by chance alone who recover.  It might seem miraculous, but it's simple statistics.  Spontaneous remissions of cancer, unusually rapid recoveries from injuries, escapes from extremely high fatality events are well known and documented.  They happen, just not too often.   What about all those who didn't make it?   God didn't feel like it?

General purpose:

Have you ever really red the bible?   Do you realize how outlandish some of the laws and claims are?

Are you even aware that the Rapture is not in the bible?  Or that Christmas is never said to be in December?  Or even that the bible doesn't say what Jesus looked like?

Why would I want to worship a God who demands my praise and beliefs or will cast me into fire?   I'm sorry, but even if I believed in such a being, I just cannot honestly say I could ever feel like praising him were anything more than lying to try to brownnose my way out of hell.

In so far as "Why do bat things happen to good people" and "Sometimes things don't go as we hope."   Have you ever considered that rather than it being part of a mystery we cannot understand or that there is some great plan for more good in the long run, that you might want to run this by Captain Obvious?

Why is it that when something good happens after being prayed for, that prayer has worked, but when the opposite happens, nobody says prayer has failed?

Claim X was made by Dr. Such-and-Such, who has worked in the field for years and was educated at Oxford, Harvard and Yale!  Who are you to write it off?
(X = Questionable scientific claim)
Good credentials one paper do not make one infallible.   While I would be more apt to trust the results from someone with a strong background, it's really the claims and not the author that matter.  
Also, George W. Bush went to Yale and was an officer and pilot in the Air National Guard.

It's entirely possible they know what they are talking about.   Perhaps they are simply lying/

There is one factor that pretty much trumps everything.  No matter how honorable or knowledgeable the person is I don't accept stuff that is just plain absurd.

X has been validated by scientists, scholars and other highly respected individuals!  Who are you to put it down?
(X = Uri Gellar, Sylvia Browne or some other well known fraud)
It's not as hard as you might think to fool otherwise intelligent people.   Many scientists and others are simply not accustomed to dealing with the possibility that their observations and data may be tampered with for the express purpose of deceiving them.   It's really more a question of trickery and illusion than it is of physics of biology.

If that's the case, James Randi has a million dollars for you.  Just prove it to him.   Shouldn't be too hard if it's real, right?

How do you know X is not true or valid?   You’re not a doctor!  You’re not a scientist!
While it’s true that it may require doctor to say if something is medically valid.   It doesn't always take a doctor to know when something is completely medically *invalid*.  Most people with absolutely no medical training could make a good judgment about the value of preventing a heart attach by filling your left boot with coleslaw and burring it in your yard under a square stone on a moonless night

I can read.   And I put a lot more faith in the sources which are not buying it than those which are making the claim.

Science cannot prove or acknowledge something that cannot be predicted, reproduced in controlled conditions or is not always reliable! This is why the paranormal is not provable!
I'm sorry to hear that your definition of science is so narrow and inaccurate.  Of course, science can research and document rare and unpredictable events, such as gamma ray bursts or other rare phenomena.  It's simply an issue of documenting when they do occur, and if it's ambiguous if the influence is simply due to chance, that is where statistics and probabilities come in.  Considering how much energy has been put into documenting paranormal events, one would have to conclude that either they don't exist or that they are so extremely rare that they effectively never be expected to happen.   And yet, it is claimed that they are common enough to affect people's everyday lives.   How does this make sense?  Has science just been so unlucky to never capture it?   That seems pretty far fetched.

Why would you oppose research on X?   Don’t you want to find out if it causes problems?
(X = depleted uranium, vaccines and autism, electromagnetic radiation)
All current research indicated that it would not cause the alleged health effects and our best data indicates it is highly unlikely to be the culprit in causing such problems.  Considering all the other factors which seem much more likely to be cause serious health and environmental problems, focusing on something like that will divert attention and funding from more important research.

So then how do you know you are right now?  Why won’t you accept other ideas?
Because of all the observations and data which support the conclusion.   If you can present more compelling evidence which proves another version of things and explains why my observations were misinterpreted, I will be more than happy to change my mind.   But, you are going to need some VERY COMPELLING evidence.

You say that conventional wisdom is usually correct and that alternative ideas are wrong.  So does that mean you would have believed the world was flat even after it was proven wrong?
The idea that the world is flat was an understandable assumption based on incomplete observations and knowledge of gravity, space and geometry.   Those who would refute such a notion would be required to present some very compelling evidence.   They did!  And the consensus changed!   Likewise, if someone wants to demonstrate that another reasonable and logical assumption is false, then they will have to provide some good evidence of it.

Why do you have faith in science?
I don't consider it faith.   I accept it because it is logical and it works!

If science has been wrong in the past, how do you know it is right?  Doesn't it accept that things are never 100% assured?
That is true.  Conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong, but some things are so thoroughly investigated and tested that you can effectively guarantee them.  There comes a point where you have so much evidence and no evidence to suggest otherwise where you can close the book.   It can be reopened if someone provides EXTREMELY compelling evidence, but that is rare.

Don't theories change?   How can you ever say one is true if it's subject to change?   Isn't the theory of evolution different than it was?
Yes, theories are extended to more accurately explain things, but accepted theories are rarely overturned.  The basics of the Theory of Evolution are still the same, however new incite shows that there can be periods of relatively rapid change, when the environment or other factors change and understanding of genetics has enhanced the ability to understand the underlying mechanism.  But the theory has not been rejected, only extended.

Do you trust scientists?  Do you think that they are infallible?
I don't have infinite trust in any person.   It's the information more than the author.  I evaluate whether it is logical, based on good observations and well documented.  I will trust those with high credentials more, but not infinately.

Science is elitist and people who are not "in" cannot get recognized for their ideas!
It's the idea that is important, not the person who it came from.   Results speak for themselves.  If you have no education no prior experience and no recognition, but you can build and demonstrate a fusion reactor that produces energy, you will get noticed.

If you can show your idea works, people will listen.   It's the results that matter.

There once was a lowly patent Clerk who had taken time off from graduate school, which he was barely passing, to try to make some money.   Most dismissed him as not that bright.   Then he created the theory of Special Relativity and then General Relativity.  His name was Albert Einstein.   People listened because the theory made sense and worked!

Are you saying education doesn't matter?
Certainly Not!   An education is a means, but not an end.  It is how you gain the knowledge necessary to achieve great things.   It's not impossible to achieve great things without an education, but it's much much more difficult and the chances are very slim, though not non-existent.

Nobody is going to argue with you that there are some people who discovered great things without a formal education.   Nor would anyone argue with you that there are many times more who have discovered great things with an education, and even more who have discovered nothing with no education.

Science isn't useful to non-scientists.   I'm an accountant so when would I ever use this?
Science is not simply for the laboratory or for pure research.  A basic understanding of scientific principals can be useful in all kinds of ways.  For example, lets say you have a clogged drain and you use a lye-based drain cleaner to try to clear it.  It doesn't work and now have to reach into the drain or to start opening the pipes.  A very rudimentary understanding of chemistry would let you know that something like vinegar would be perfectly suited to neutralize the caustic effects of the drain cleaner.   There are enumerable examples!

I have always had this theory or idea for....But I really don't know because I'm not a professional and I don't know much about it..
That great!  You can learn the theory and practical matters, but the enthusiasm and creativity is something you already have and that can be the hardest thing to get.   Have you read up on the subject?  Courses at a local community college?   You know if you contact some actual people in the field, you'll be surprised how approachable and helpful they can really be.   Go for it!

What is so great about encouraging amateurs to build crap in their garage?  Or to buy a telescope? Or get a ham radio license?
Well, it's fun.   Can you think of a better pursuit for nights and weekends that actually accomplishes something?

They might change the world.   Granted, the chances are low, but it happens. But if enough people can be encouraged to explore, discover and invent, the cumulative chances will go up quite a bit.

If they do not change the world themselves, they may very well inspire the kid down the street who comes by to see their Tesla coil to.  Or they might discover their own love for it and go make a life and career out of it.

Your average Joe cannot understand astrophysics or the concepts of biochemistry!
Do scientists research the origins of the universe to simply tell other scientists?  No.  They do so because it is relevant to everyone.  With all the money and resources being spent from taxes and grants to discover new and wondrous things, everyone is entitled to the understanding it brings!  You don't need to know all the math to be in true awe of some of the discoveries which have been made.

It's not fair for "Intelligent Design" to not be taught in schools alongside Evolution!  Why is this theory discriminated against and oppressed?
It would be to teach it if it were accurately described as "Intelligent Design is an idea which refutes evolution and which is considered ridiculous by the scientific community collectively and by all but a very few fringe professionals individually.  It's not supported by any actual evidence but some people find that it's necessary to believe it is true in order for their belief system to not fall apart"

What would you teach about "Intelligent Design?"  Would you teach of the evidence that supports it?  or how it was postulated?  Or how it was tested over the years and possibly amended?  No, you can't teach any of that, because it has none of that.  All you can say is that it was made up to create a scientific-sounding idea that fit the biblical accounts of how the world was created

It's not accepted by scientists because it simply is not supported by evidence and observation or testable and does not meet the qualifications for a scientific theory.  If people want to believe in it, that is there business.  They can learn about it in Sunday school, but not science class!

How can science be fun?
Have you ever seen Mythbusters?  Have you ever tried fun science?

Yeah, but that's not "real science."   (the stuff on Mythbusters etc)
Why not?   Because it does not have the most precise measurements and well documented writeups?   It might not make the cut for a peer reviewed journal, but it can still be more than adequate for a proof of concept, demonstration or just for fun.   And there's no reason why simple experiments, such as opinion surveys or basic measurements cannot be made without any specialized facilities or equipment.

Science does not need to be perfectly controlled and documented to be fun or simply useful for every day tasks.

Why is it so important to refute myths and superstitions in the public and amongst those who aren't in any scientific pursuit?
Because the general public votes.   And if bad information is used to influence public policies then bad policies will result.

Because if general public buys a product then that product will succeed.  It's a basic principal of capitalism.  If people spend their money on astrology counselors and homeopathic remedies, then the conartists behind them will profit and you may find that your local pharmacy has reduced their stock of antibiotics to make room for a shelf of homeophatic products, because hey, the public demands it!

Because every time Peter Popoff or another conman like him takes an old woman's pension check, people need to be outraged, regardless of what they do.

Because people who govern their lives based on ignorance can hurt us all.   They don't know how to properly take antibiotics and therefore they cause resistant bacteria or they lack the understanding of the environment and throw away an old air conditioner, contributing to the ozone problems.

Because the world is wondrous and elegant and amazing for what it is and every person should have the opportunity to see it for what it is.  It is superstitions and inaccurate information which cloud the truth, muddy the waters and confuse people.   They ultimately hold humanity back as our society moves forward to a more enlightened future where people can appreciate and understand the world and use this knowledge to achieve great things!

The US never actually went to the moon!
Have you considered how difficult it would be to fake a moon landing?  There's more than just the TV pictures.  There were also transmissions from the moon, tracked my amateurs and radio telescopes, the rocket could be optically tracked.   They would have needed remote probes, spoofed transmissions, a robotic mission to place a laser mirror on the moon.   It'd be easier to just go

Have you ever considered who might have the means and motive to disprove the moon landing?    The Soviet Union was in direct competition with the US.  They had space flight experience, had sent probes to the moon and had some of the best minds in spaceflight.  Furthermore, they had the means to track the missions optically, by radar and listen in on communications.  They were keenly interested in US space and missile technology and would certainly have analyzed all the available information.   Do you really think the US could have fooled them but not a few Conspiracy-Theorists?  If anything had been found to indicate the landings were faked the USSR would have had a field day mocking the dishonesty and technological inferiority of the Capitalist System.

Have you ever actually researched this?  I mean seriously.  There is no single claim of conspiracy evidence that has not been debunked.  Do you want me to go get Dr. Plait to lay the smack down on you?  Because could I swear I saw a can of whoopass in his cupboard.

The US Government Is working with the aliens or has recovered and reverse-engineered alien spacecraft!
Amazing, isn't it, that they continue to spend billions of dollars on gas-turbine based aircraft and chemical rockets like the Space Shuttle when they have anti-gravity, warp-drive and all the other exotic technologies one would find in a machine that could travel across interstellar space and cruise around the human atmosphere.

Chemtrails man!
To be absolutely honest, this is so thoroughly debunked and so freakin wacky that I don't even know where to begin to address this.  I... just... don't know... what to say to you.   I hope your family is okay though.

General Purpose Conspiracy Theory:
Conspiracies do happen, even at the top levels of government.  However, none of those which are known (such as Watergate) ever turn out to be as interesting or extreme as those which are just speculation (such as Roswell)