Rocky

Cool beans.

Great insight at that link. Thanks Bolshevik, I just now read it. It gots into the psychology of conspiracy theories. That's insightful.

LOL! Why would anyone in their right mind want to volunteer with that cult anyway? Otherwise, your restatement of the question seems quite reasonable. Of course, "emeritus" status doesn't automatically or contractually confer on anyone anything other than what they get when their hair turns gray. But I suspect Skyrider linked the expression with retiring with dignity for a reason. I would think that the exodus of this particular group in 2017, after many of them had spent a 40 year career with the cult, might have been motivated somewhat by a desire for finding a funding stream for retirement pay. Then again, that's only speculation on my part.

That's been the focus of one line of reasoning to debunk bull$hit like what Mr. Goldstar is trying to hoist onto what he hopes are gullible GSC readers. While I generally abhor declarations of what people are thinking (including "hoping") and prefer sticking to addressing what they write in posts, weeks ago I caught some contradictions on Mr. GS's posts. He tried to explain them away, IIRC. However, I just caught another one. He started this thread to bait people into debating details of what he claims is a non-existent space program operated by the US government. But he also posted about Elon Musk's launch of a Tesla automobile, mocking the miscalculated trajectory BUT NOT claiming the event never happened. We've had people act like that before here at GSC... The bottom line is that it's getting more and more difficult to take Goldstar seriously. Where's that scripture that addresses vain babblings? Please don't take his bait.

Again, that's arguing semantics. Discovery relates to human learning.

And on the topic of whether or not there has been manned (and womanned) space flight, moon landings, Mars rover landings, exploration of distant planets and other wondrous things, I disagree with your entire concept that NASA has been staging huge deceptions. Further, I find your claims in that regard so absurd that I have no intention of addressing the minutia. Your inference, "too much good, hard evidence... etc." Only reflects how you see the situation and bears no relation to how I view any of it.

May I offer you this insight. You can only control you. If you have something you believe you don't want to read, your only socially responsible recourse is to ignore it. This is but I offer it to you in a spirit of cooperation, in hopes that you might find it helpful.

That's essentially what the About the Way forum is for. It's not the only place, but that's perhaps the best place.

Well, I guess if we wanted, we could argue semantics till the cows come home. I will simply say this, I essentially disagree with your interpretation of the concept of discovery. Further, sociology is not necessarily limited to studying what's currently happening. Perhaps drawing from interdisciplinary cooperation, sociologists research past and present.

Granted that natural, physical laws already exist and to our knowledge do not change. However, it seems to me that you may not be using the word "discover" according to its dictionary definition/meaning. Some definitions include: n. a productive insight n. something that is discovered n. the act of discovering something n. (law) compulsory pretrial disclosure of documents relevant to a case; enables one side in a litigation to elicit information from the other side concerning the facts in the case A productive insight. To the person who obtains that productive insight, they come to know something they didn't know before. There's a helluva lot of that that's been going on in the history of the human species. The entire set of knowledge known to mankind, at least about how time and space and matter work, has been gained after the fact. After those laws were put into operation. However, discovery of human culture not only is evolving, but so is the human culture that can be subject to discovery. Wouldn't you agree? True science? Anthropology, archeology and sociology are true sciences. But they're not in the same category as astrophysics or organic chemistry or geology.

I also forgot to mention that my stepson earned his bachelor's degree in optical science and master's degree in systems engineering and spent a couple of years working for a space contractor in DC, after getting his start as an engineer at a defense contractor in Tucson. In other words, he's a rocket scientist. I just think the whole subject of NASA staging the moon landing in a TV studio is an incredible con. If a person dares to consider the exploration drive that's embedded in human DNA, it's not difficult to scoff at those conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, one still must develop a critical basis for understanding how and why genuine space exploration is unavoidable.

I guess if you're more interested in talk radio and conspiracy theorists rather than academic research, conspiracy theories might make sense. But if you spend time thinking about and looking into the big questions that mankind can't help but explore, not so much. ASU's School of Earth and Space Exploration is walking distance from my house. Real astronauts hang out there. A good friend of mine married a female astronaut about two years ago. By any chance, have you read Sapiens yet?

Yes, I saw it. At best, I would agree with HapE4Me. I don't see it as credible evidence of any such thing. I do see that we are ALL gullible and subject to being deceived (and conned), especially those of us who bought into Wierwille's fundamentalist bull$hit. But I try to be more skeptical since I left wayworld more than 30 years ago.

Evidence? Seriously? Sorry if I was being to harsh for you.

Winter Park resident escaped fundamentalist cult!

The topic is communalism, not socialism. I could easily rebut your editorial comments on economics but that wouldn't be proper for this website.

The only person I ever heard say it was Loy C Martindale. And he most definitely seemed outright malicious when he said it. Otherwise, I agree with your comment.

Btw, thanks for asking.

Well, for one, Hollywood isn't quite as closed of a society/subculture even though it may be reasonable to cite some strong common bonds between many people who would be considered part of Hollywood. In twi, I never saw or heard anyone voicing strong feelings about political views contrary to group norms. In Hollywood, while it may be commonly understood that most of "them" are politically liberal, you still have the James Woods and Jon Voights and (before he passed) Charleton Heston. Who speak/spoke out boldly and emphatically with starkly contrasting views and values. There's no question that the Branch Davidians were a cult. The Turpins (the 13 kids severely abused) are an extreme example of a closed social group and how tragic it can be. Also in contrast, the ISS (International Space Station) of course had/has the potential but it's not a closed social group. By virtue of the nature of "international" it has to have openness and communications norms (unwritten rules) and written rules to safeguard both the scientific work and the cooperation between nations. Back in the 1980s, when I was going to college, I learned in communications classes about group dynamics, specifically that groups small and large go through stages: Forming, storming, norming, performing. Groups start for a reason. There develops or exists common interests and goals. But before the group can accomplish its intended purpose, there will be conflict. Among those who stay in the group, they figure out what rules (written or not) that they can live with. Not everyone who's there at the beginning, stays through this stage, but for those who do, they then can accomplish their common objectives and goals. Unintended consequence comes in when there's no leadership that can wisely guide the group through those stages. Leadership in this context is an intangible concept, not necessarily always provided in the same way in all groups. Of course there's more to it, but that's the gist.

But tangible, undeniable consequence nevertheless... though I don't agree with all of the analogues you cited being legitimately comparable.

Excellent point.

Were they ever known to make wise decisions when it came to money?

Sin is sin. Yours is almost certainly not any worse than mine. There are only degrees in human perception thereof. From that perspective, Graham was a sinner, so are you and I.

Two very poignant questions.

Sound logic? Really?? It's not so easy to prove a negative. And I don't see where you did so.