You misunderstand the basic principle of the Moon landing hoax conspiracy. At first, prima causa, is the premise that the Moon landings didn't happen. Everything else has to fit this. There are pictures of the landings? The pictures are fake. There are people working at the Moon landings project? The people are liars. There are contemporary reports of the Moon landings? They are fabricated by a concerted propaganda blitz etc.pp.

The idea that you can topple the prima causa by attacking the conclusions is naive. The premise is all that's about it. The Moon landings have to be fake. Everything else is just a corollary.

Science works without even the existance of ultimate causes and absolute truth. They are nice projections of the expected direction research will go, but there is no reason for them to actually exist. Some famous scientists even voiced amazement about the apparent universal validity of their theories.

We do experiments with the Sun everyday. For instance we put up calendars and models of the movement of Sun and Earth, which predict that Sun and Earth tonight will be in such a position that the day-night-terminator will cross San Francisco, CA at 6.06 pm. It's a valid prediction, which can be tested very easily for people being in San Francisco tonight.

You can by adding a random salt. If the scheme warrants that the spaces of possible private keys of two sources don't overlap, then you can have secure private keys which are not recreatable from the publicly known source, but which still can be attributed to it.

The Planetary Society also has decent in-depth coverage of (usually unmanned) spaceflight.

For space tourism flights to the International Space Station, they're regarded as spaceflight participants rather than 'proper' astronauts (or cosmonauts).

Having seen quite how much training fully qualified astronauts and cosmonauts have to go through, I wouldn't be surprised if they become some vaguely protected terms in the not-so-far future...

Bullshit. You try to read something wrong into the study to make it sound false, but all the falsehoods are just of your making.

They define "assault" very clearly, and they make clear, that it includes rape, but does not solely mean rape. It's you who equals sexual assault and rape. If you can't make a difference between the whole and a part of the whole, then go to Reading of Scientific Texts 101.

(Or are you one of the people who also equal crime and murder and chastize people who got beaten up that nothing happened because they still are alive?)

Unfortunately, some people have gotten it into their head, that all their behaviour is ok as long as they can wiggle out of any actual criminal law suit. A clear abuse of the word ok, if I've ever seen any.

According to my sources (e.g. the german version of Wikipedia), the first sources of an indoeuropean language date much later, between 3000 and 2500 BC.

Look at the time frames! The article talks about the genetic influences until 7000 years ago, while the spread of the indo-european tribes started about 5000 years ago. So we are talking about populations in different times eras. And then it's quite sure that the spread of the Indo-Europeans was not so much a complete elimination of the old Europeans but rather an assimilation. The Indo-Europeans came with new social structures and technologies, intermixing with the local population and assimilated them into their indo-european clans and tribes. Thus the local languages died out, but the genetic traits were preserved in their descendants.

Farmers are more productive, given a certain amount of land, as they exclusively breed those plants and animals they are actually using, and throw everything else out. Hunterer and gatherers need much more vast lands to get the same amount of food. (As an example: The territory of the indigenous Yamomami in South America is comparable to Austria and Switzerland in size, but only about 25,000 persons live there, compared with the several millions living in Austria or Switzerland.)

First: Romanians are not Croats. While the Croats live in Croatia, a mainly catholic country with a slavic speaking population, the Romanians live in Romania, a mainly orthodox country with a roman language (and with considerable hungarian and german minorities). Romania doesn't even border to Croatia, they are separated by the Serbian Vojvodina.

Supposedly, the popularity of the cravat soared after a parade of a Croatian cavalry regiment in France in 1663. The Croatian cavalry was part of the Wallenstein troups which quite successfully fought in the Thirty Years war, and where the Croatian tie was part of the uniform, as you can see here. Ties were in fact part of many military coats, partly to protect the neck, partly to have a flexible way to close the shirt around the next. The croatian tie gained popularity especially because of the special tie knot.

Supposed to be surprising is that there is a third component, people from the Northeast, who are directly related to Native Americans.

Luckily, most US-Americans are in one way or another descendants of the Euros, thus they fall in the same categories.

Ok, I'll bite. The necktie is also called cravat in Englisch, cravate in French, krawaat in Dutch and Krawatte German. This is derived from "Croat" or "hrvat" (as the croatic word for Croat). See Wiktionary: cravat.