The Strange Case of Biggi Reichert: Suicide... with burn marks on the scalp?

[HelluvaHoax!]

...

Wait, didn't Scientologists roar approval with standing ovations when it was announced that L. Ron Hubbard causatively "shed his encumbrance"?

Nice euphemism there Scientology. (Helpful Tip: Wogs call it suicide)

Things would be so cool if.....

DAVID MISCAVICH
He has now moved on to the next level of OT research. It's a level
beyond anything any of us ever imagined. This level is in fact done
in an exterior state. Meaning that it is done completely exterior from
the body. At this level of OT, the body is nothing more than in impediment
and encumbrance to any further gain as an OT. Thus at 2000 hours, the
24th of January, AD36,t L. Ron Hubbard discarded the body he had used
in this life time for 74 years 10 months and 11 days. He thought it was
important that Scientologists be the first to become aware of this fact.
The body is a physical object. It is not the being himself. The being we
know as L. Ron Hubbard still exists; however, the body could no longer
serve his purposes. His decision was made at complete cause. He has
simply moved on to his next step. LRH, in fact, used this lifetime in the
body we knew, to accomplish what no man has ever accomplished.
He unlocked the mysteries of life, and gave us the tools so we could free
ourselves and our fellow man. L. Ron Hubbard completed everything he
set out to do and more. The fact that he causatively, willingly discarded
the body, after it was no longer useful to him, signifies his ultimate success
--the conquest of life that he embarked upon half a century ago.

SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE
Wait a minute! Go back. What was that bit
about shedding an encumbrance?

DAVID MISCAVIGE
Yeah, okay. Just to make sure that you don't get an MU on
this let me give you the exact time, place, form and event.
The motherfucking founder killed himself you cocksucker! ​

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Well, if the cult says something then Mark says the same thing, we can then and only then say that Mark is furthering the cult's line. Until then, we can't cuz they haven't said jackshit and we don't know what they're gonna say.

I'm really tired of the screams of OSA against long time contributors just cuz they don't agree with people on one subject.

Mark's written plenty of critical posts. Again, I disagree with him on this issue, but I don't see any hallmarks of OSA therein, though I suppose time will tell. So I find comments like that not only distasteful but irrational.

(Of course, we could also say that OSA Int personnel and Mark all also breathe oxygen, thus making Mark's intake of oxygen an OSA line. Particularly if he dares to go public with such a thing. )

Good Claire! - Are you happy now?

Oh. I'm sure that if Mr.Baker would happen to further the cults PR line, it would be purely coincidental...

Hmm.. On reflection.. It's true that the OP in this thread did not contain a Scientology Shore Story (BTW: Is a shore store made of tinfoil? - Nah, made of Bullshit..) - However a shore story was most certainly told to police, family, freinds and fellow scientologists.

Maybe not police. If they didn't realize the Scientology connection... Need I say that OSA would have worked furiously to MAKE the Police miss the Scientology Connection!

Whatever.. What we have here is reports of yet another suspicious death in Scientology.

I suggest that we foil OSA's attemps at labelling our speculation tinfoil!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Good Claire! - Are you happy now?

Oh. I'm sure that if Mr.Baker would happen to further the cults PR line, it would be purely coincidental...

What church pr line, S? As panda pointed out their story is that of 'sudden heart attack'.

You're confusing your own paranoid fantasies with reality again, S. The sad thing is you are using the tragic instance of the death of a woman to advocate this ludicrously paranoid doctrine. Nor are you alone in this ghoulish practice.

Not everything bad that happens to a scientologist is necessarily the result of their involvement with scientology. Scientology is not the root of all evils, albeit the functionaries of the church are responsible for a great many. Too many people on this board & elsewhere, simply can't admit the obvious truth of that statement, nor the degree of their own actual lack of knowledge.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

-snip-

Too many people on this board & elsewhere, simply can't admit the obvious truth of that statement, nor the degree of their own actual lack of knowledge.


Mark A. Baker

From your posts it appears that you do not like the human race, and you do not like ESMB, but you're a big fan of Scientology tech and the Freezone.

Could it be that you're on the wrong planet, and also on the wrong Message Board?

As the world's smartest Scientologist, it can't be easy for you to be on Earth and on the Ex Scientologists Message Board at the same time.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

From your posts it appears that you do not like the human race, and you do not like ESMB, but you're a big fan of Scientology tech and the Freezone. ...

Wrong conclusions, V. No doubt predicated on your own faulty assumptions.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Auditor's Toad]

From your posts it appears that you do not like the human race, and you do not like ESMB, but you're a big fan of Scientology tech and the Freezone.

Could it be that you're on the wrong planet, and also on the wrong Message Board?

As the world's smartest Scientologist, it can't be easy for you to be on Earth and on the Ex Scientologists Message Board at the same time.

^^^^ That !

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Oh, who was circulating the story she had a heart attack.....some Christian Minister that wandered by?

 

[Auditor's Toad]

<snip>
Not everything bad that happens to a scientologist is necessarily the result of their involvement with scientology.

Scientology is not the root of all evils,

albeit the functionaries of the church are responsible for a great many.


Too many people on this board & elsewhere, simply can't admit the obvious truth of that statement, nor the degree of their own actual lack of knowledge.
Mark A. Baker

I just love whitewashing !

 

[Gadfly]

Not everything bad that happens to a scientologist is necessarily the result of their involvement with scientology. Scientology is not the root of all evils, albeit the functionaries of the church are responsible for a great many.

Too many people on this board & elsewhere, simply can't admit the obvious truth of that statement, nor the degree of their own actual lack of knowledge.


Mark A. Baker

I just love whitewashing !

It is not "whitewashing" at all. Sadly, Mark is correct in his statement.

The Church IS responsible for a great many bad things that happen to people, just as Mark states. Who here disagrees with THAT statement? I don't.

Mark also says, "Not everything bad that happens to a scientologist is necessarily the result of their involvement with scientology." THAT is also a true statement.

I know Mark can serve as a convenient scapegoat and target to some, but please, attack and pile on him WHEN it is actually deserved (which, as I see it, is FAR less than I see on this board as far as WHAT he says).

Yes, he does showcase, even "flaunt" his "erudition" at times. He does get attacked for THAT, even when his point is valid. I can understand how some get annoyed or even irritated when Mark brings up "knowledgable tidbits" that are at times NOT quite pertinent. As a key component of ARC, Mark should realize that communicating in such a fashion actually INHIBITS the acceptance of his communciations at times. If he cared more about getting the message across, instead of hearing himself talk, he might try to change that some. I could be wrong about that. I like what Mark often has to say, but in fact, his MANNER and WAY he goes about communicating at times BLOCKS his message. That's too bad (to me).

For instance, I live in rural Tennessee. I interact at times with REAL "hillbillies". It serves me NO purpose to flaunt my knoweldge, vocabulary or "city persona". In a sense I use (select, pick) words and terms, and even stick to subjects that are "real to them", because to do otherwise just pisses them off, or results in them "not liking me". I need to get along with my neighbors, so I "plan" my communications accordingly. And, I generally get what I want by "making it real".

I know a great many more words than I use here, and I purposely DON'T use them, because my aim is to BE UNDERSTOOD, and not to be a show-off. Maybe Mark should consider that. I think it is a valid suggestion based on how I see some others "respond" to his "high use of words", and somewhat extraneous "information" at times.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... If he cared more about getting the message across, ...

Never been one of my great 'strengths' ...

... as you have so clearly observed.


I do it when I feel the need. Frankly, it is one of the areas in which I found scientology to be tremendously helpful. You should have known me before my involvement with scientology.


Mark A. Baker

 

[secretiveoldfag]

I think you missed a lot. It's probably time to newly document it.

There is a relatively new list here:

http://theyshouldnothavedied.wordpress.com/

 

[Auditor's Toad]

It is not "whitewashing" at all. Sadly, Mark is correct in his statement.

The Church IS responsible for a great many bad things that happen to people, just as Mark states. Who here disagrees with THAT statement? I don't.

Mark also says, "Not everything bad that happens to a scientologist is necessarily the result of their involvement with scientology." THAT is also a true statement.

I know Mark can serve as a convenient scapegoat and target to some, but please, attack and pile on him WHEN it is actually deserved (which, as I see it, is FAR less than I see on this board as far as WHAT he says).

Yes, he does showcase, even "flaunt" his "erudition" at times. He does get attacked for THAT, even when his point is valid. I can understand how some get annoyed or even irritated when Mark brings up "knowledgable tidbits" that are at times NOT quite pertinent. As a key component of ARC, Mark should realize that communicating in such a fashion actually INHIBITS the acceptance of his communciations at times. If he cared more about getting the message across, instead of hearing himself talk, he might try to change that some. I could be wrong about that. I like what Mark often has to say, but in fact, his MANNER and WAY he goes about communicating at times BLOCKS his message. That's too bad (to me).

For instance, I live in rural Tennessee. I interact at times with REAL "hillbillies". It serves me NO purpose to flaunt my knoweldge, vocabulary or "city persona". In a sense I use (select, pick) words and terms, and even stick to subjects that are "real to them", because to do otherwise just pisses them off, or results in them "not liking me". I need to get along with my neighbors, so I "plan" my communications accordingly. And, I generally get what I want by "making it real".

I know a great many more words than I use here, and I purposely DON'T use them, because my aim is to BE UNDERSTOOD, and not to be a show-off. Maybe Mark should consider that. I think it is a valid suggestion based on how I see some others "respond" to his "high use of words", and somewhat extraneous "information" at times.

Gadfly from your post it would seem there are things you feel deserve a comment from you and , obviously some others do not deserve a commenr from you.

Being you seem to have that position of deciding what you do and do not comment on where you feel it is deserved, well, surely you are not suggesting other posters do not have the same right to make their own decision as to what they feek merits comment or no comment.

Jus askin

 

[Veda]

According to Hubbard, bad things happen to those who attempt to invalidate, make wrong, oppose, or try to "enturbulate" Scientology.

In 1959, Hubbard wrote in the 'HCO Manual of Justice':

"Dianetics and Scientology are self-protecting sciences. If one attacks them one attacks all the know-how of the mind. It caves in the bank. It's gruesome sometimes.

"At this instance there are men hiding in terror on Earth because they found out what they were attacking. There are men dead because they attacked us - for instance Dr. Joe Winter [wrote Introduction to 'DMSMH', and the book, 'A Doctor's Report on Dianetics' with an Introduction by Fritz Perls]. He simply realized what he did and died. There are men bankrupt because they attacked us - [Don] Purcell, Ridgeway, [publisher of 'DMSMH'] Ceppos."

But Hubbard wasn't done with former 'DMSMH' publisher Arthur Ceppos yet, and made another reference to the publisher - and also a reference to 2nd wife Sara - in a 1969 "Scientology Intelligence Tech" issue, 'Intelligence Actions - Covert Intelligence Data Collection':

"The objective of the enemy is to discredit... Their first blast was from the San Francisco papers, Sept. 1950, quoting the publisher (of Book One) Ceppos being critical of me (he was a communist) followed by the LA papers, pushed then by Sara Komkovadamanov (alias Northrup) 'divorce' actions, followed by attempted kidnapping of myself. Other details were pushed into it including the murder of four and so on. This was a full complete covert operation. At the back of it was Miles Hollister (psychology student), Sara Komkovadamanov (housekeeper at the place nuclear physicists stayed near Caltech), Gene Benton and his wife - president of the Young Communists League... This was a full war against Dianetics."

While providing humanitarian service to all Mankind, Scientologists were told, Hubbard was continually fending off attacks from wogs, SPs, psychs, commies, and the 12 bankers and, after 1971, when it was no longer fashionable to blame the "commies," the Nazis. Nowadays, "haters" and "terrorists" are the preferred "buttons" for influencing public opinion, although "Nazis" is still used.

Apparently, Hubbard believed that he had been attacked by orders of John F. Kennedy.

In the early 1960s, Hubbard had come to regard John F. Kennedy as an enemy. He blamed Kennedy for the American FDA/e-meter troubles and referenced his assassination of 28 months earlier in the broadly publicized 1966 PR piece, 'What is Greatness?'. 'What is Greatness?', meant for a broad "wog" audience, extolled "love and forgiveness," and was published around the same time that the (non-remimeo/later 'confidential') 'Fair Game Law'-applying Guardian's Office was quietly established (see bottom of this post for a look at the original Fair game Law). Even in this PR piece, meant to identify Scientology with "love," Hubbard couldn't resist gloating over the assassination of John F. Kennedy:

"Were you to approach many ruling heads of state in the world and offer to set them free (as only a Scientologist can) they would go berserk, cry up their private police and generally cause unpleasantness. Indeed, one did - he was later assassinated by no desire of ours but because of the incompetence of his own followers about him. He could have tried to use Scientology. Instead, he promptly tried to shoot it down by ordering raids and various berserk actions on Scientology organizations. That he was then shot had nothing to do with us, but only demonstrated how incompetent and how mortal he really was."

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Never been one of my great 'strengths' ...

... as you have so clearly observed.


I do it when I feel the need. Frankly, it is one of the areas in which I found scientology to be tremendously helpful. You should have known me before my involvement with scientology.


Mark A. Baker

I was thinking it might be nice to know him AFTER his involvement with scientology.

But, then, I realized none of us are going to live that long. Oh, well.

 

[Gadfly]

Gadfly from your post it would seem there are things you feel deserve a comment from you and , obviously some others do not deserve a commenr from you.

Being you seem to have that position of deciding what you do and do not comment on where you feel it is deserved, well, surely you are not suggesting other posters do not have the same right to make their own decision as to what they feek merits comment or no comment.

Jus askin

People can say/post whatever they choose. I am a "freedom of speecher" to the max, and when and if I don't like or desire to listen to what certain people have to say I either "turn the station" or walk away.

Well, EVERYONE is in the position to "decide what they do and do not comment on where they feel it is deserved".

I don't get many of the "battles" that Mark gets into with others, and that others get into with Mark. For the most part they seem pointless to me. I am exercising my right to call them as I see them. Others may disagree. I don't give a shit - just as you don't give a shit if people disagree with you.

Mark left the Church in the early 1980s (as I recall). From what he has posted, and he doesn't hide this, he found very LITTLE positive, useful or desirable about the Church of Scientology. What is it, 35 YEARS since he was involved with any aspect of the C of S? He hasn't hid the fact that Hubbard is the SOURCE of the policies, bulletins, and lectures that a great deal of the insanity is based upon. He doesn't defend Hubbard, and has spoken quite critically of him. Mark's main "fault", if you want to call it that, is that he seems to occassionally waste time on minor points, and turn them into "big deals" when they are not.

So, I really don't get WHY these contentious posts between him and others exist.

I DO understand that his "manner" can be "put-off-ish". I understand that. I see it happen here. He seems to be at least partially aware of it. He seems not to really care. That's HIS right and choice, I suppose. Some call him something like, "the smartest Scientologist on ESMB", and it is never a compliment, and although it recognizes that he IS "intelligent", it is used as a "swipe" at him, because some have the veiw that he 1) often introduces not-quite-germane information and petty details that could be interpreted as "overly-academic", even tedious, pretentious and condescending, and 2) often uses 10 million dollar words to express his ideas. I never give a shit or take it personally, but it seems some do. And, it DOES have something to do with the content and manner of how Mark posts.

Now, I don't know if he intends to come across as a "pedantic" (o.e. "ostentatious in one's learning"), but that he does to some people is obvious. Personally, since I have the opinion that Mark COULD be a more valuable contributor to ESMB, if he managed his approach more, I am saying this.

From what I can gather, he uses some small bits of Scientology, within a larger framework involving a much wider range and knowledge of spiritual theories and practices, and he is NOT a Scientology apologist. So, with all that said, I don't grasp the continual bantering from both sides. I do get that he can have a tendency to push certain buttons on people, and the word usage can cause "low affinity" from readers.

I get it all. I wish he would, because if he took his bright mind, and took some time to enter into discussions that bring out some interesting and fresh aspect to the Scientology "problem", it would be nice. But, he seems to enjoy the "jousting", as do some others. I think that the kick of that is exaggerated and useless, but, whatever.

I am simply describing what I observe here. That's all.

Anyway, enough of that. Mark is Mark, and he will probably continue along as he has for the past many years. I feel that I am talking fairly and NOT "attacking him". :confused2:

But, Mark, previous communist regimes did eradicate the "intelligentsia" (intellectual class) for a reason, and the majority of the people didn't mind so much. Why? Because the "intellectuals" tend to come across as pompous pretentious condescending asses (whether they are or are not).

I post here mostly to communicate a "view" or a possible way to look at something. I don't do it to "get a personal kick", "laugh loudly at my own jokes", show off my extensive knowledge, or "create an effect". Truthfully, I am sincere and honest as best I can be, without pretense or added bullshit. Yes, I enjoy it, but I DO take the readers into account, and other than as a way to organize my observations, I am not writing for my benefit - but for theirs. I feel that Mark and ESMB might benefit if he took some of this to heart.

It is like the 10th grade school teacher who lectures the class using words and ideas that are "above their heads". It serves NO purpose. The kids learn nothing. The teacher's manner actually prevents communciation and learning. Not to say this is why Mark does it, but for this teacher, it is an "ego" thing.

I like Mark, just as he is. But, I understand why some others don't.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Never been one of my great 'strengths' ...

... as you have so clearly observed.


I do it when I feel the need. Frankly, it is one of the areas in which I found scientology to be tremendously helpful. You should have known me before my involvement with scientology.


Mark A. Baker

Well I've always liked you (you crabby old git) and I probably always will ... despite your best efforts to persuade otherwise.

​

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Gadfly, it just seems to me that MAB on threads like this one seems to do his best to get it off topic and into anything else.

No shit dude, that looks - and smells - like a rotting fish.

How many times does it have to happen before it ceases to look like a pendatic arsehole just 'doing his thing' ?

What if nobody asked questions about Lisa McPherson ? Would MAB have been happier with that ?

C'mon.

 

[Gadfly]

Gadfly, it just seems to me that MAB on threads like this one seems to do his best to get it off topic and into anything else.

No shit dude, that looks - and smells - like a rotting fish.

How many times does it have to happen before it ceases to look like a pendatic arsehole just 'doing his thing' ?

What if nobody asked questions about Lisa McPherson ? Would MAB have been happier with that ?

C'mon.

I am not going to talk about this poster anymore. Or try to assume what is going on with him (or anyone else).

Back to just talking the talk - about Scientology and Hubbard, and how those two things REALLY fuck people up. With all the details, how to and how comes.

Mark can answer about Lisa - if he wants. Now me, I don't know where you even come off asking that question. It makes no sense to me in this context. :confused2:

But, I have trouble grasping some things. I look at some things and they just don't make sense (to me). [Geez, maybe I need to "pull the string" on these "things that don't make sense", and find the "Sherman Tank"] [kidding]

I give up on this. I am not a referee, and I don't want the job.

Where's Pip? I need somebody to yell at!

 

[Auditor's Toad]

I am not going to talk about this poster anymore. Or try to assume what is going on with him (or anyone else).

Back to just talking the talk - about Scientology and Hubbard, and how those two things REALLY fuck people up. With all the details, how to and how comes.

Mark can answer about Lisa - if he wants. Now me, I don't know where you even come off asking that question. It makes no sense to me in this context. :confused2:

But, I have trouble grasping some things. I look at some things and they just don't make sense (to me). [Geez, maybe I need to "pull the string" on these "things that don't make sense", and find the "Sherman Tank"] [kidding]

I give up on this. I am not a referee, and I don't want the job.

Where's Pip? I need somebody to yell at!

Bolded above : MAB seems to want steer off anything about this German gal - had the same been done with Lisa McPherson then no one would have ever known what really happened.

Makes me sick.

Yeah, I've reached the point with MAB I think my only reply is " Talk to the hand ".

 

[Veda]

-snip-

But, Mark, previous communist regimes did eradicate the "intelligentsia" (intellectual class) for a reason, and the majority of the people didn't mind so much. Why? Because the "intellectuals" tend to come across as pompous pretentious condescending asses (whether they are or are not).

-snip-

Baker is not an intellectual; he's a faux intellectual, a poser, a person who works very hard at being noticed and regarded as an "intellectual." His acceptable-truth-padded Scientology-PR-damage-control posts - now complicated by his participation in a Freezone vs Marty Rathbun feud - sometimes annoy people. I'm tempted to post some old threads where he did such things as present convoluted arguments asserting, for example, that Hubbard really didn't lie about being a nuclear physicist.

But it's too absurd to dwell upon, and it would be a thread derail.