Martin Luther

Commenting on Scientology, Inside and Outside the Church

Independent Field Blogs/Sites

Below is a list of some of the blogs and sites in the Independent Field, and my evaluation of them. “My evaluation” is my opinions. You may or may not agree with my opinions, but hopefully this will serve as a handy guide for those who wish to pursue the continuing stories of the Church of Scientology and the Independent Field. The list isn’t in any particular order, nor is it exhaustive.

  • Marty Rathbun’s Blog. This is probably the most popular of the Independent Field sites, with near daily postings. Marty was, at one time, the number two person in the Church of Scientology, after David Miscavige. The blog is run solely by Marty, who is generally the only poster to the blog (though he includes other people’s stories from time to time). It typically consists of four types of content. First, the “I’m out, and here’s my story” posting by someone freshly “out” of the Church. Second, the “Church of Scientology/Miscavige are bad and here’s another reason why” posting. Third, the “former insider revealing secrets” post. And fourth, Marty’s analysis of this or that part of Scientology or the Church. Marty also uses this blog to promote his book, What is Wrong with Scientology?, and to a lesser extent, the services he delivers at his home in South Texas. The comments accompanying Marty’s posts are generally sycophantic. Dissent usually only comes from non-Scientologists. Marty does a fairly good job of trying to keep people from smearing LRH. However, a word of warning: Marty believes that LRH was misguided in his targetting of “psychs”, and that Scientology should be integrated with psychology and sociology, among other things. If you disagree loudly enough with this premise, be prepared to be blocked from commenting on his blog, and being called a “flat-earther“. As Marty’s following grows, he shows himself to be more critic/spectator and less defender and practitioner of Standard Technology. As an example, in a recent post (19 August 2012), Marty published an essay which he gives to those who do TRs at his house. The essay is written by him and wanders into quantum physics and eastern philosophy as an introduction to TRs. No mention of the cycle of communication and no credit given to LRH’s more-than-adequate introductions to the Training Routines. While Marty explains that the essay is an attempt to give the TRs some “context” in modern thought, its language and tenor appear to be designed to impress the reader with his wide-ranging intellect. Instead, it mainly obfuscates the subject, and makes you wonder if perhaps Marty needs Remedies A and B. Another recent blog post (23 August 2012) carefully details an inherent “fraud” in Scientology itself. If you agree that Keeping Scientology Working and Safeguarding Technology should be the first and second HCOPLs on every checksheet, Marty’s blog probably isn’t for you, except as a way to keep track of “who’s out” stories. UPDATE: Marty’s blog has recently (March 2013) moved solidly in the direction of expounding on his philosophical musings, and away from the “who’s out”, “Miscavige/Church is bad”, and “insider reveals secrets” postings. For this latter type of content, see Mike Rinder’s new blog, mentioned later in this essay.
  • Mike Rinder’s blog. This blog was only recently started (March 2013) and takes up where Marty Rathbun’s blog used to go. It is supposed to feature the three types of content Marty has seemingly abandoned: 1) I’m out and here’s my story; 2) The Church/Miscavige is bad and here’s why; and 3) Insider exits Church and reveals secrets. Fair warning: Rinder and Rathbun are best friends and Mike defends Marty’s stances on a variety of subjects, including Marty’s desire to “integrate” Scientology with psychology. But as long as he holds to the above three types of content, his blog should be interesting reading, if you haven’t already been beat to death by stories in the above three categories.
  • Dave Fagen’s Blog. This site is little-known, but one of the most fair-minded and even-handed in its analysis of the current Church of Scientology. Dave was a staff member at Chicago Org for 25 years. He will readily admit (as do I) when he has not witnessed events which others in the Independent Field testify to. And he tells you to decide for yourself. I highly recommend this site for its fairness and objectivity.
  • iScientology. This is a site from Steve Hall, a former high level marketing executive in the Church, who posts to other blogs (and his own) under the moniker “Thoughtful”. Steve actually has a whole “suite” of sites, and this is his latest (as of this date). It not only serves as a gateway to his other sites, but as a repository of content on its own. It answers many questions about the Independent Field movement, and your possible place in it as a Scientologist. It also serves to market Steve himself, as a “bright light” (my words not his) in the Field. This makes sense, since Steve is a marketing guy. It is an attractive and well-organized site. Recommended.
  • Scientology-Cult. Scary name. Good site. (The name is a product of marketing; Steve Hall found that “Scientology cult” was the number two search term with respect to Scientology.) Primarily this is the home of Steve Hall’s blog, but there are many other authors on the site. Steve was a senior marketing executive for the Church for many years before he left the Church. The site is similar to Marty’s in the sense that there a lot of “I’m out” and “The Church is bad” postings. New postings are rare. The site is also home to the Indie 500, a list of the first 500 people who have resigned the Church and are willing to do so with their real names publicly. It generally promotes standard Scientology.
  • Rediscover Scientology. This is another Steve Hall site. In his words: “…a light version of Scientology-cult for those with an ingrained aversion to the word ‘cult'”. This site is very similar to scientology-cult.com, and has some identical content, though far less of it.
  • Friends of LRH. This site is hard to characterize. It’s very plain. It’s not a blog. It’s a site that contrasts LRH with David Miscavige, and asks what happened to training in the Church. It advertises upcoming content but is rarely updated. It’s not clear who the site belongs to, but it includes a lot of LRH quotes. The site is worth bookmarking.
  • Wise Old Goat. This is actually the site of a Michel Snoeck. I don’t know who this is. I’m guessing he was at one time a Scientologist. The specific link I give here is to the part of the site where he spends considerable effort detailing research he’s done into various aspects of Scientology and the Church. There are sections on all kinds of subjects, like how the Grade Chart changed over time, how fast flow training came about, you name it. He’s probably done some research on it. Very thorough. If you’re doing research on something regarding Scientology, this is an excellent place to go, because Michel has done some quite thorough research.
  • Oasis for Personal Freedom. This is the blog site of Ingrid Smith, a 40-year trained OT in Southern California. It appears that she practices standard Scientology, and uses the site to promote her services, among other things. The articles are infrequent, but uplifting. If you need a pick-me-up, her site may provide it.
  • The Association of Professional Independent Scientologists. This is a website which promotes a loosely affiliated group of standard-Scientology practitioners (individuals and groups) who have left the Church. You pay an inexpensive yearly fee to this group, depending on the type of member you are. There’s a constitution, and the purpose of the group apparently is to promote standard Scientology and provide an umbrella organization for Field practitioners (to resolve disputes, etc.). One odd thing, though: the guy who started this, one Michael Moore, is apparently president of this group for life. Make of that what you will.
  • Possibly Helpful Advice. This is a blog by two auditors, David St. Lawrence and someone going by the moniker “Plain Old Thetan” (he also posts on various blogs under this nickname). Here are three quotes from David St. Lawrence:

    This website represents my effort to contribute to the reformation of the Church of Scientology and to improving the workability of the technology assembled by Ron Hubbard.

    My goal is to help create a stable future for the development of workable technology and a network for the delivery of that technology.

    I deliver auditing over the Internet.

    Apparently, Mr. St. Lawrence doesn’t understand that the existing technology by Ron is workable, or believes he is qualified to improve upon it. And that you can deliver auditing over the internet. This is rightfully called squirrelling. Visit this site at your own risk.

    Revised: David St. Lawrence apparently objects to my viewpoint. See his comment(s) below.

  • Scientology Lies. This is a site by a person who “dabbled” in Scientology at one point for about a month. She is extremely critical of Scientology. I include it here because it may be cited elsewhere as a place to go for information.
  • Standard Tech Academy. You’d think this site would be advertising for some group which delivers training, but no. Apparently, whoever this is intends to come out with Scientology radio programs, and redo the tech films (which of course are not available in the Field), starting with one on floating needles. But as of this date (21 August 2012) there is nothing complete. There are some links to some news stories on the site, but that’s about it. It might be worth bookmarking this site, just to see where it goes, and if it ultimately delivers on Standard Tech e-meter films. Update (10 Nov 2012): This site appears to be down.
  • The Pro-LRH Tech Community. This is a site of forums and ads for people who are “out”. Not very active, and it has obnoxious pop-up ads for 000webhost.com which appear every time you open a different page.
  • Leaving Scientology. This is the website of Jeff Hawkins, a former high-ranking marketing guy in the Church for decades. It has ads for some expose-type books on the Church, Jeff’s blog entries (rarely added to these days), and other assorted content. It also contains advice on how to leave the Church or the Sea Org. As the site is seldom updated, it may not be worth bookmarking.
  • Pierre Ethier’s site. This fellow is one of a few Class XIIs who is “out” and the site is a sort of rough compendium of notes he has compiled on various subjects. Pierre travels the world delivering auditing and talks. He claims to be the only Field auditor in the world who has the full materials for the L Rundowns (recovered from his incredible memory), which he has decided he will not release until he is good and ready. Pierre is very impressed with himself and brags quite a bit about his abilities and accomplishments. He claims to know a great deal more about the upper Bridge (OT VIII and beyond) than anyone else I’ve ever encountered. I’m personally skeptical about a lot of his claims. And I personally doubt he’s as good as he thinks he is. For you to decide. Interesting site, though. Rarely updated.
  • Save Scientology. This site claims to be run by some individuals who are in good standing with the Church. It has the occasional blog entry critical of the Church. But what’s most interesting about it is that it pulls back the curtain from the corporate structures and safeguards LRH left behind to protect the Church from the destruction which has now taken place to those very safeguards. Unless you were a very high ranking Church official, you have never read about or heard of this material before. I can’t vouch for its veracity, as I was never high ranking. But it’s worth reading about. You’ll have to decide for yourself whether it’s all true or not. Very interesting reading.
  • Free And Able. This is another of the Steve Hall suite of websites. It is a lot like “Craig’s List” for people who are “out”. In fact, some of the verbiage is lifted directly from Craig’s List. You can buy, sell, trade or whatever. The listings appear to be a little sparse, and I’m not sure how popular the site is. But it’s probably worth bookmarking, so you can find it later if you want to advertise on it, or find something or someone.
  • Ex Scn. It’s hard to characterize this site. It’s a collection of articles and a forum for people who are “out”. But it also appears to have garnered a significant number of members who were never “in”. And the tone is generally negative, not only about the Church but about Scientology itself. There are a lot of stories here about how Ron was really a bad guy, and how a lot of the stuff he did was wrong, etc. If you consider yourself a real Scientologist (regardless of your position on the Church), I would avoid this site, except to note its existence. By the way, when you see the abbreviation “ESMB” out in the Field, this is the site they’re talking about. ESMB stands for Ex-Scientologist Message Board, the forum on this site.
  • Idle Orgs. This site attempts to document, through the occasional blog entry, the “big lie” about Ideal Orgs– the fact that they are actually scams perpetrated by the Church and/or David Miscavige. Through photos, news stories and personal eyewitness accounts, the site seeks to make clear that most or all Ideal Orgs are in fact, Idle Orgs. If this is an issue you’re interested in, this is a good site to bookmark.
  • Ron’s Org. Let’s be clear: these people are squirrels. At one time there was a high-ranking officer in the Sea Org known as “Cap’n Bill” (Bill Robertson) who worked off and on with LRH, but left in the early 1980s when Ron came off of direct management lines. Bill subsequently opened his own field practice(s) and proceeded to do his own research into the OT levels, eschewing Ron’s OT levels in favor of his own. Bill died some years ago, but various field practices adhering to his doctrines still exist, all of them in Europe and former Soviet Union countries. This site is the umbrella site (in English) for those entities. It is worth knowing what “Ron’s Org” means in this context, but not worth spending any time on this site, unless you want to verify what I’ve just written about.
  • True Source Scientology Foundation. Another odd site. These people appear to want to preserve the materials of Scientology, as written/spoken by LRH for the world to use. There is some discussion on the main site about the actual status of the LRH copyrights, but to gain any significant use from the site (or the group), you must register with them. As I have not done so, I cannot determine what materials they have available or in what state they are. I can say, though, that on their forum page (one entry there), they provide links to Ron’s Org (see above). So I suppose that covers all you need to know.
  • Scientilopedia. This site appears to be primarily a “wiki” to tell stories about the history of Scientology, Ron, the Church, and discuss various aspects of Scientology. The problem with this concept is the same one Wikipedia suffers from: some people tell the truth and some people don’t. And sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference. Some of the entries in this wiki are fairly entertaining. Whether their recountings of historical events are true or not is another matter.
  • Reform Scientology. The author of this site (whoever it is) has done my job for me. A quote from its home page:

    This site is a collection of stuff I found whilst spending much time researching possible reasons why my religion was not expanding fast enough.

    And that’s pretty much the case. It’s a selection of posts and articles from other Independent Field blogs. Not updated often.

  • Independents Connections. This is a small site seeking to connect up people regarding housing, jobs, romance, friendship, or stuff to buy/sell. Not much here. It appears to be the creation of one Sylvia Kusada, a Class VI field auditor.
  • Independent Checksheet Foundation. This is truly a worthwhile site. Two trained Scientologists are doing the research to put together checksheets for various courses, like the HQS and Solo I. The problem with Church checksheets is two-fold:
    1. They can’t be purchased by Independent Field members from Pubs orgs, and they can’t be copied without running into copyright restrictions.
    2. In their current state, they contain a lot of Golden Age of Tech garbage and possibly other alterations.

    So these two fellows are doing the hard job of finding the proper references from before the original checksheets for these courses were altered by the Church, adding the proper drills, demos and such, based on older checksheets, and then rewriting them so that the copyright does not rest with the Church. These would be the first Independent Field checksheets which would hopefully conform to what LRH intended for these courses. The checksheets are downloadable for free. Well worth a look and a bookmark. And kudos to those doing the research.

  • Life Enhancement Center of Coeur d’Alene. This appears to be the site of a field practice in Idaho. However, among the statements they make on their home page is this:

    In their counseling, they often use pastoral counseling techniques developed by L. Ron Hubbard.

    This makes one wonder what other techniques they use. Are they mixing practices? I do not know. If you have direct knowledge, feel free to let me know. In any case, they appear to have a small staff which delivers training and auditing.

  • Independent Scientology Community. This appears to be a portal to connecting with others in the Field, via forums, blog posts and a want-ads area.
  • Pierre Ethier’s Blog. Pierre is mentioned earlier in this post. This is his blog site.
  • Super Power Fraud. This site is dedicated to detailing the fraud that is the Super Power building project.
  • Spargo Story Blog. This is Steve Spargo’s Blog. He is an ANZO Scientologist who publicly resigned from the Church on 10 September 2012. His blog is the result of his detailed observations of the Church, and his evaluations of where it has violated LRH ethics, tech and admin. He includes references and his observations appear to be first-hand. If you have someone “on the fence” who needs to complete his or her Doubt formula on the Church, I would suggest Dave Fagen’s blog (above) and Steve Spargo’s. Both are thorough and generally free of HE&R.
  • Xenu.net. This is the original and number one site of Scientology critics everywhere. I believe it contains all the OT materials and probably every lie ever told about Scientology, as well as some truths. I include it here so that you’re aware of it when it comes up in your travels. But I do not recommend it. If you are not OT III, I recommend you avoid it completely, since its owners are quite casual about this material where it appears on their site.
  • From Ashes Born. This is my wife’s blog on the subject of Scientology. She is very smart and highly admin trained. We mostly agree on things, but not always. So don’t expect an echo of what you see here. She has her own unique perspective and voice. Highly recommended, obviously.
  • Scientology Reviews. This is a brand new site (November 2012) by Steve Hall which is a one-stop-shop for reviews on all things Scientology. From Orgs and management units within the Church of Scientology to field auditors and groups. Even specific books and services can be reviewed. Although moderated, it accepts both positive and negative (unbiased) reviews on any of the above. If you were going to buy something, wouldn’t you want to know what others who have bought it think of it? That’s the idea here. Highly recommended.

There are likely other sites I’ve missed. If you can think of some worthy of mention, please let me know. There are probably blog sites for any number of other active Field practitioners. I don’t have much interest in these, though you may. There are lots of websites critical of Scientology which were put up by non-Scientologists and outright critics. For the most part, they aren’t worth mentioning and I won’t put them with this collection. They aren’t worth visiting. If you are a non-Scientologist and want content with that slant, use Google. Also note that the Church has been very busy putting up anti-Marty-Rathbun and anti-high-level-ex-Scientologist sites all over the internet. These are not to be confused with the real sites by the real ex-Scientologists. If you want to know what someone thinks, just go to their site, not to some site the Church has put up to smear them. Most of the people who are “out” are not the SPs the Church claims they are, and the lies the Church tells mostly dead-agent the Church.

Single Post Navigation

11 thoughts on “Independent Field Blogs/Sites

  1. An otherwise excellent site is marred by the fact that you adhere to corporate Scientology think and call everything you are unfamiliar with a “squirrel” action. When you have had time to shed your indoctrination, you may wish to investigate the earlier writings of LRH and acquaint yourself with the many gems of wisdom that never made it on to the current bridge.

    When KSW #1 changed the applied philosophy of Scientology to a rigid dogma that must be obeyed or else and put a paramilitary group of non-technical people in charge of the greatest technology the world had known, the slide of corporate Scientology into the gutter of oblivion was initiated.

    If you actually understood the tech instead of pontificatig about it, you would see that extrapolating from Ron’s original work was encouraged in his early days. Many of the advances he claimed as his own like study tech and corrections lists and Search and Discovery were researched by others and are just a few of the contributions made by others who support the idea of setting man free from the confusions of life.

    I have based all of my delivery on Ron’s early writings and my results confirm the validity of following his early advice. If you wish to stick to your version of “standard tech” be careful which version you choose. Is it the 1950s version, 1960 version. 1980 version, or the infamous GAT versions?

    Look a little deeper and you might end up with a different perspective on how to use the tech.

    • Thanks for commenting. I understand what you’re saying. I’ve studied the Basics, and heard Ron, on tape, encouraging students to extend his work. In fact, I knew Ron and was there last lifetime for part of that early period.

      However, by 1965, the Bridge had been essentially built and published, and Ron wrote KSW and Safeguarding Technology to solidify what was now “Standard Technology”. That “Standard Technology” was the guarantor of workability Ron talks about in those issues.

      You’re welcome to alter or “extend” the Tech as you like. At that point, per the above issues, it is no longer “Standard Technology” and becomes “squirrel”. It is no longer covered by the guarantee that “Standard Technology” = “workable”, even though it may, in fact, be efficacious and beneficial to the PC. These are the rules of the game as laid out by Ron. I didn’t make them up, but I prefer to follow them, insofar as is practicable.

      In the interest of fairness, I’ve revised my original post to refer readers to your comment.

  2. Roadrunner on said:

    Obviously this listing is missing the various sites of Andreas Grosz about the matter.

    ‘Freie Scientologen’
    http://de.freiescientologen.de/text/Hauptseite
    It carries an English section

    Then are missing:

    ‘Another look at Scientology’
    http://bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm

    Robert Dam on the Church of Scientology (CoS)’
    http://www.robertdam-cos.dk/

    Church of Spiritual Technology
    http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.com

  3. Thanks for adding my new blog.

  4. Ron Bible on said:

    I should not say anything but it seems I must. Paul you and your wife are so full of selfrighteous indignation (in Scientology terms ser facs) that it has the potential of harming others that are reaching for the tech. My brother had a friend good guy just full of shit, his favorit saying was “don’t confuse me with the facts my mind is made up” that reminds me of you. You said the bridge was complete by 1965, Not’s came out in 1978. BTW I am a CLVI ASHO/D, and Solo Nots completion. I too knew LRH and talked with him three times. I do think with the tech and I think 1) you still work for DM and are posting this crap just to confuse others 2) you drink too much kool-aid and are in need of some serious auditing.

    In either case you need more data because it seems you stopped at 1965. There is so much more case above that level of 65 data it would behoove one to learn about it instead of attempting to unmock thoes that have.

    I suggest you get in comm with someone that is willing to assist you in filling in the gaps in you knowledge.

    Peace Love & Harmony

    Ron Bible CLVI OT VII+

    • Please let me know where I said that the Bridge was “complete” in 1965. I’ll be glad to correct that statement so long as it fits the context in which I made the statement. I’m well aware that the whole Bridge was not “complete” until some time in the early 80s. Nineteen sixty-five was the year KSW and Safeguarding Technology came out, and made clear what was and wasn’t considered “Standard Technology” and why.

      By the way, if I was working for Miscavige, I’d be driving a whole lot better car and living in a whole lot better house than I do, that’s for sure. ;-}

  5. Roadrunner on said:

    Ah, I guess we all missed:

    “So technical progress has been:

    CLASS VIII – 1968.

    COMPLETE DIANETICS – 1969.

    COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY – 1970.

    This is quite an achievement.” LRH
    (from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)

    Standard Tech was not established until Class VIII, thus in 1968, and not 1965.

    Roadrunner

    • Clearly, the wrap-up of major technology is a matter of opinion. I’d peg it at some time after 1978’s release of NOTs and OT VIII. Over the next few years, the “Sweat Program” became the “Purification Rundown”, NOTs gave way to audited and Solo NOTs. There were various other refinements, up to the point where someone (I don’t believe it was LRH) removed the “original” OT levels (V, VI and VII) from the top of the Bridge. And yes, the Class VIII course certificate was something along the lines of “Hubbard Specialist of Standard Tech (HSST)”, inaugurated in 1968. Its purpose was to make auditors who knew the basics cold, could think with the data, audit flublessly, and would be ruthless in holding the line on the Technology.

      We can quibble on where Ron actually used the phrase “Standard Technology” and when he used it. And yes, what was considered “Standard Technology” changed over the years, as LRH refined, undercut and finalized pieces of the Bridge. However, HCOPL “Keeping Scientology Working” was the most prominent benchmark proclaiming the ten points which, if kept in, would assure that Scientology’s technology would remain “workable”. It was considered so important by LRH that it was ultimately made part of virtually every checksheet. And as he says in KSW, “WHAT I SAY IN THESE PAGES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, IT HOLDS TRUE TODAY, IT WILL STILL HOLD TRUE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO HOLD TRUE FROM THERE ON OUT.”

      • Roadrunner on said:

        It is not a mattor of opinion to us. These subjects have been worked upon by L. Ron Hubbard sicne 1932. Are you telling here that he didn’t mean what he wrote in LRH ED 117? Did he made a mistake? Wasn’t it done? He would thus not have been able to establish that after 38 YEARS of research???

        Historically NOT’s is not a refinement. Rather a downgrade, in particularly when we regard all that came along with it: (1) wiping out Standard Dianetics and the higher grades V-VII; (2) new definition of Clear (wiping out the Scn Clear). And who presented NOT’s? L. Ron Hubbard was no where to be seen; (3) forbidden to run Dianetics on Clears (which previously was never a problem).

        Bib, big error, Standard Tech never changed over the years. Anything that ever got published on tapes of writing could be standard tech.

        Where did you get the data from that L. Ron Hubbard put the requirement of KSW #1 HCO PL to be added to every checksheet? Let me help you, it was the year 1977.

        You do say in regards to the original OT levels that someone other than L. Ron Hubbard had removed them. Now why do you assume that this L. Ron Hubbard would have been responsible for all the rest like NOT’s, abolishing StDn, you may also agree with that it was him that moved Dianetics to be received after the Grades. (in fact, this first to issue something about that was David Mayo). By the way NOT’s was introduced as a repair action, it actually only later on turned to be a mandatory OT level, and therewith abolishing some of the original OT levels.

        You should do some research on this.

        Roadrunner

  6. Re your paragraph #1, of course LRH meant what he said in LRH ED 117. Then he continued his research and the Tech continued to evolve. See 1978’s “Tech Correction Round-up”, for example. Other items were added, parts of the Tech were replaced. At some point, LRH ceased doing extensive technical research and moved on to writing fiction, filming movies, etc., towards the end of his life.

    Re your paragraph #2, NOTs didn’t wipe out Standard Dianetics; NED did. And since NED produced results more quickly and easily (according to claims made at the time), I wouldn’t consider it a downgrade. I’m not sure who “presented” NOTs or what you mean by that. At first, NOTs was an additional requirement for OT VIII. See LRH ED 301 Int. The original OT levels were left in place and NOTs was added to them. Nowhere in that issue does Ron refer to NOTs as a repair action, nor does he mention the idea of NOTs replacing the original OT levels. The “new “definition of Clear did not wipe out older definitions. As LRH has pointed out, earlier definitions of Clear were also valid. Clear is a definite state, which can be defined in a variety of ways but is still the same state. I don’t know that running Dianetics on a Clear was never a problem before. I suspect it was, but the problem was never noticed before. LRH doesn’t specifically say this, but he does say that efforts to run Dianetics on Clears/OTs revealed it as a problem, which led to the creation of NOTs.

    Re your paragraph #3, let me be more precise. In the early 1950s, the “accepted” technology was changing almost weekly, and often changed over the span of a lecture series (see the PDC series for example). However, at that time, LRH encouraged experimentation and alteration by auditors to develop better processes. By the early 1960s and the creation of the official Bridge, Ron came to discourage or forbid alteration of what was then considered “official” Scientology in Orgs. This ultimately resulted in a variety of outcomes, one of which was the issuance of KSW and HCOPL Safeguarding Technology in 1965.

    Re your paragraph #4, I never said anything about LRH requiring KSW on every checksheet. I said that it WAS on virtually every checksheet in Scientology. I never commented on how that came about. If you say it was an LRH requirement enacted in 1977, I’m willing to take your word for it. I’m not sure how it matters when that requirement came about.

    Re your paragraph #5, I never expressed that the removal of the original OT levels being someone else’s doing was a fact. I expressed an *opinion* that it wasn’t LRH. Part of that is based on the aforementioned LRH ED 301 Int, which laid out the changes in the Bridge, including NOTs, and left the existing “original” OT levels in place. It was during this time period that LRH went into “hiding” and David Miscavige came to be the conduit for his communication to the outside world. At that point, aspects of the Tech began changing, some of which I believe were attributable to Miscavige (opinion). I never heard of NOTs as a repair action, and have no reference to hand which states this. Though I can hardly imagine why it matters one way or another.

    Re your paragraph #6, I actually have done a fair amount of research on these matters. However, I do not necessarily accept internet stories as research material in this context. Most of what I use for research is in the official LRH issues and the lectures I’ve listened to from the early 1950s.

    • Roadrunner on said:

      Quotes in
      A. = answer

      A. Done is done. You contradict yourself and invalidated L. Ron Hubbard. The consequence of you saying that is that he didn’t know.

      A. Ah, and you think L. Ron Hubbard wrote that?
      http://wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo2_tech-correction-roundup.html
      Ever heard of KSW #1?

      A. Of course he ceased, he was done!

      A. I wrote: “when we regard all that came along with it”. See, it is all in the very same time frame. The year is 1978! The 2 are 2 months apart! Get it now?

      A. You don’t consider that because you bought the PR.
      http://wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo2_lost-bridge.html


      A. David Mayo did, both for NOT’s (1978) and Solo NOT’s (1980).

      A. Your reference is: HCOB 15 Sept 78 I, NED for OTs Series 1. It states it very, very clearly.

      A. He doesn’t have to, fact is that they took the place of the original OT V and VI.

      A. It abolished the Scientology Clear, i.e. when it wiped out Grades V-VII. You should have a listen to the GNC special lecture from 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard.


      A. It still isn’t, you just acknowledge the state.
      http://wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_story_of_mayo2_soed_nots.html#notscontradicted

      A. 1950’s is not 1970, when he announced it was completed.

      A. Excuse me, you wrote: “It was considered so important by LRH that it was ultimately made part of virtually every checksheet. “.

      A. L. Ron Hubbard was already in hiding since the end of 1972. And the tech ultimately was completely turned around during 1978-82. Miscavige turned up basically in 1982 when the RTC was created. The tech was already changed by then.

      Please, do some better research.

      I will not follow up on this anymore. Just don’t believe what you’re told or assume stuff. It’s up to you to see or not see…

      Roadrunner

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: