What's new

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I liked the Starline convertible. That wheelbarrow is a convertible too! Very handy.:yes:

Good comments Hats. On that wheelbarrow, how about that being the first Smart car ever produced, of course it's body style would also make it the first convertible as well.

Lakey
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I believe in two concepts of time.

One is the idea of before and after. This is universal and inescapable; with knowledge of two events one can always say which came before and which came after.

I don't agree that one can ALWAYS say which came before or after. This is often the case but in real life it isn't always true. For example, say you look at two photos taken 20 years ago. one shows you standing with a friend near the front of your car and the other show you standing with a friend near the back of your car. Most people would not know which was taken first.

The other is the idea of how much time from one event to another. This requires the concept of how fast time flows. I believe there are particles that "count cadence" and therefore establish the flow rate of time.

I believe that time is quantized, i.e., it is not smoothly flowing. One time quanta would be one unit of time. Probably these quanta flow at a consistent rate and that would correspond to the "count cadence" which you hypothesize These quanta may react to the presence of a gravity field. Thus in the vicinity of a large chunk of matter, such as a star, spacetime bends due to the gravitational force of the star. This bending could cause light to travel a longer path than if no matter was present in the vicinity. Traveling a longer path takes more time so the longer path gives the apparency that light in slowing down. Actually, light in a vacuum always goes at the same velocity but the bending of space sometimes lengthens the path which the light must traverse. Similarly, If light encounters matter, such as a light beam going through water, once again the water molecules have mass and bend the space making it appear that the light is slowing down when the reality is that the light is just traveling a longer path.

Why is this important when talking about time? The reason is that in spacetime, the velocity of light appears as a constant in all equations which define spacetime.


I also believe that time travel (like going into the past) is not possible, although there are several phenomena that make it seem that it is possible.

Helena

I share your belief that time travel, as depicted in sci-fi movies is not possible. There are several artifices which can be constructed which would make some form of time travel possible.

One type of time travel which is possible is depicted in relativity theory by the "Twin Paradox". In this paradox, two twins, say 20 years old, are working for NASA as astronauts. It is agreed that one twin stay home while the other takes a trip to a star system, 4 light years from Earth. The astronaut twin has to accelerate from 0 to say .95 C, then travel for 4.2 years then make a huge U turn in space, and travel back to Earth at .95C and then decelerate from .95 C back to 0. Let's say, it takes the astronaut on the space ship 10 years to make such a journey. He leaves in 2015 and returns in 2025. now 31 years old. To his surprise, 400 years have passed on Earth, it is now 2415 and his twin brother and everyone else he knew on Earth died hundreds of years ago. This limited type of time travel is the only type which can theoretically take place in relativity theory.

It is the periods of acceleration and deceleration plus making the huge U turn needed for the return trip where all the extra time is added. The ship and its pilot are subjected to enormous gravitational forces and these forces account for all the extra years passing on Earth.

The only other type of time travel which might work is to find a wormhole which connects two distant points of the universe by means of a corridor which is in a different dimension than our spacetime. If a spaceship could find and pass through such a worm hole and keep the gravitational forces low enough for the human body to survive, then distances of many light years could theoretically by traversed in just a manner of minutes or seconds.
Lakey
 
Last edited:

Leon-2

Patron Meritorious
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Interesting to read that Studebaker was first a brand of wheelbarrows. In the UK today there is a maker of earthmoving equipment - loaders and so on - called JCB, which wags tell you stands for Just Continuous Breakdowns but they don't deserve that title, they are not at all bad products. Anyway - the founder of that company also started off as a wheelbarrow maker.

My dad had a Studebaker Commander which was good. Later Studs got a name for having bad gearboxes - not sure how justified this was.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Interesting to read that Studebaker was first a brand of wheelbarrows. In the UK today there is a maker of earthmoving equipment - loaders and so on - called JCB, which wags tell you stands for Just Continuous Breakdowns but they don't deserve that title, they are not at all bad products. Anyway - the founder of that company also started off as a wheelbarrow maker.

My dad had a Studebaker Commander which was good. Later Studs got a name for having bad gearboxes - not sure how justified this was.

That's a shame. The Avanti was a very cool-looking car;

http://www.scienceillustratedmagazine.com/q/Studebaker_Avanti?tab=images
 

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I share your belief that time travel, as depicted in sci-fi movies is not possible. There are several artifices which can be constructed which would make some form of time travel possible.

One type of time travel which is possible is depicted in relativity theory by the "Twin Paradox". In this paradox, two twins, say 20 years old, are working for NASA as astronauts. It is agreed that one twin stay home while the other takes a trip to a star system, 4 light years from Earth. The astronaut twin has to accelerate from 0 to say .95 C, then travel for 4.2 years then make a huge U turn in space, and travel back to Earth at .95C and then decelerate from .95 C back to 0. Let's say, it takes the astronaut on the space ship 10 years to make such a journey. He leaves in 2015 and returns in 2025. now 31 years old. To his surprise, 400 years have passed on Earth, it is now 2415 and his twin brother and everyone else he knew on Earth died hundreds of years ago. This limited type of time travel is the only type which can theoretically take place in relativity theory.

It is the periods of acceleration and deceleration plus making the huge U turn needed for the return trip where all the extra time is added. The ship and its pilot are subjected to enormous gravitational forces and these forces account for all the extra years passing on Earth.

The only other type of time travel which might work is to find a worm hole which connects two distant points of the universe by mean of a corridor which is in a different dimension than our spacetime. If a space ship could find and pass through such a worm hole and keep the gravitational forces low enough for the human body to survive, then distances of many light years could theoreticall by traversed in just a manner of minutes or seconds.
Lakey

Ghee, Lakey, what makes you think that someone, who can't even hold up himself in a stupid A=432Hz discussion, has a word in anything?

Sorry, but I just had to ask. :)
 

Leon-2

Patron Meritorious
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

As regards time travel. Those of you who are familiar with the TROM materials will know of Dennis Stevens' assertion that anything that has ever been knowable in this universe can be known by anyone today. BTW I agree with Dennis on what he writes.

Everything in the universe was first, at its moment of inception, presented as a creation for which its creator wanted some form of admiration. Those creations which were applauded as-ised, the rest is still with us today, with their creators asserting the creation forevermore untll the goal is achieved.

So what is time? It is a postulate of stuckness. That what has been created will remain created until it is as-ised. In other words - as Hubbard said - it is a postulate that things will persist. In early tapes he suggests, well no, he never "suggested" anything, he asserted as factual fact, that reality and time is brought about by us regularly as-ising the whole universe and recreating it in a different way in that same moment. It's an interesting idea but does require one to assume the answer as being true even before he gives his answer. Begging the Question - that's what it is.

I think the statement that is is simple "a postulate that things will persist" is the best answer anyone has come up with yet. Time is simply a postulate that Time is. That's all there is to it.

There is a "before time" which has in it a higher harmonic of time - as people familiar with Robert Ducharme's work may know - and there is a state of timeless void in which 'no thing' does exist. I have been there. It is impossible to itsa.

cheers


Leon
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

As regards time travel. Those of you who are familiar with the TROM materials will know of Dennis Stevens' assertion that anything that has ever been knowable in this universe can be known by anyone today. BTW I agree with Dennis on what he writes.

I would buy into that statement if it means exactly what it says. It makes comments about things that have been knowable in the past, basically stating that they can be known be anyone today. Well, I take it back but only because of the word "anyone". For example, I don't think the assertion applies to newborn babies or toddlers, etc. and I don't agree that it applies to the "village idiot" types. For adults of at least average intelligence, it only says that it can be known be them, presumably meaning that it is possible. Really, then it is a very weak assertion which may be true.

It doesn't apply at all to things which have never been known and it only says that it can be know but doesn't say that it will be known. Just look at what it says and it doesn't say much.


Everything in the universe was first, at its moment of inception, presented as a creation for which its creator wanted some form of admiration. Those creations which were applauded as-ised, the rest is still with us today, with their creators asserting the creation forevermore untll the goal is achieved.

I don't agree on this item. It is just Hubbard speak and Hubbard is no longer an authority figure for me. It is predicated upon Hubbard's datum that it is admiration alone which permits persistence. That may be Hubbard's opinion but there is not one iota of scientific evidence to support his claim. It is just pie in the sky. It sounds good and when first heard, it makes most people feel good, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support Hubbard's claim. I remember when I first heard this datum, at a staff meeting or some such at CCLA. Yvonne Jentzsch said this to the staff. I remember the reaction. We Ronbots all went, "Oh, wow, yeah, that really makes sense. Wow, what an OT statement and Yvonne is OT 7, Class VIII and i'm only on ARC straightwire and the HQS course so she knows tons more than I do. Who am I to question Yvonne Jentzsch and L Ron Hubbard? Yeah, it is such a beautiful statement, what an awesom truth. That was the prevalent feeling in the room, held by all of us and all of us were robots, believing anything and everything which LRH and Yvonne said was true.

So what is time? It is a postulate of stuckness. That what has been created will remain created until it is as-ised. In other words - as Hubbard said - it is a postulate that things will persist. In early tapes he suggests, well no, he never "suggested" anything, he asserted as factual fact, that reality and time is brought about by us regularly as-ising the whole universe and recreating it in a different way in that same moment. It's an interesting idea but does require one to assume the answer as being true even before he gives his answer. Begging the Question - that's what it is.

Where do you come up with stuckness? Time has to do with vibrations and flowing. Those are the adjectives used to describe time. Stuckness is exactly what time isn't. Things persisting is a component of time but persistence alone is not enough. Let's say you have a room full of furnishings and artwork and it exists untouched for 1000 years. You would be very hard pressed to prove that a 1000 years went buy. Persistence alone doesn't do the trick, there has to be motion and the position of objects changing relative to other objects to establish time.

Per relativity theory, it is things containing mass moving with respect to each other which creates gravity. it is gravity which bends space and helps to create time. Good luck with persistence alone constituting time.


I think the statement that is simple "a postulate that things will persist" is the best answer anyone has come up with yet. Time is simply a postulate that Time is. That's all there is to it.

It is the simplest statement anyone has come up with yet to describe time. However, time is more complex than just simple persistence so while the definition is simple, it is also inadequate to accurately and fully describe time. Using Hubbard's definition will not lead to any advances in aeronautics, going to the Moon, interplanetary travel, etc. What has enabled mankind to give daily weather reports from Mars and pick up stones from Mar's surface and analyze them is not Hubbard's definition of time. It is Newtonian physics definition of time, fleshed out with relativity concepts as developed by Einstein and one of his teachers, Minkowski, that has furthered mankind's increased understanding of what time is.

I think Hubbard's best definition in this area is, "Space is a viewpoint of dimension" That one seems to work for me and seems to be a big improvement over dictionary definitions.


There is a "before time" which has in it a higher harmonic of time - as people familiar with Robert Ducharme's work may know - and there is a state of timeless void in which 'no thing' does exist. I have been there. It is impossible to itsa.

cheers


Leon

In closing, we finally agree on something, i.e., "There is a "before time". On the state of a timeless void, I have no opinion other than the various Hindu writings which Vinaire posted on ESMB in his Oh God! thread over 5 years ago.

I thank you for your post Leon. I no longer have the faith I once had that what Hubbard says is true. You seem to still have a lot of faith in the things that Hubbard was teaching. I am actually glad that you are posting Hubbard's views on this thread. We want all sides of the spectrum well represented on this thread. Thank you for your efforts to present the views of Hubbard and others in your posts.
Lakey
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Ghee, Lakey, what makes you think that someone, who can't even hold up himself in a stupid A=432Hz discussion, has a word in anything?

Sorry, but I just had to ask. :)

Here is Pachelbell's Cannon in d in 432 megahertz:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJsPmOMaiVc

Here is Pachelbell's Cannon in d in 440 megahertz:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Af372EQLck

Take a test drive and see what you think. To me, the difference in sound is like night and day. In the 432 Hz version, every chord of the music penetrates deeply into my psyche, I am almost trembling with every note.

The 440 Hz, calibrated with middle C vibrating at its modern standard frequency of 440 Hz for me, packs about half the beauty and half the emotional impact.

There were several on this thread attacking me visciously for voicing my personal observations and opinions. I have an extremely keen ear for music and I sense an enormous difference in the two performances. You wouldn't believe what lengths these jerks went to try and insist that the two performances were identical and there was no perceivable difference between them. Maybe that was true for them but they went all out to enforce their views on me.
Lakey
 
Last edited:

In present time

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It is a great ability to be able to have the confidence to be silent and be unconcerned of what others think. To act freely. To not live in an emotional economy of guilt and debt, the over-reliance on rules.

I know many need the order that all this brings. That everything will be explained, make sense, be fair.

These are illusions, better to skip explanations. I assume the last two posts won't make me popular....shucks.

Yeah, the old "Do as thou wilt" trick:/
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973


The Avanti was a last ditch effort by Studebakers CEO to produce a dream car with fantastic design and performance so as to save Studebaker. The CEO, I believe his name was Sherwood Egbert, returned to Raymond Loewy's design studios for the last big push to save the company. Loewy had been the design firm which designed all of Studebaker's previous milestone cars, starting back with the 1940 Champion. The other milestones were the 1947 models, the first cars to have an envelope body so that the fenders were integrated into the body and not bolted on. Then the 1950 bullet nose, then the low slung 1953 models, then the 1956 Hawk series, another gorgeous line of cars which had fantastic styling plus powerful performance.

Check out this link to pictures of the 1956 Golden Hawk: https://www.google.com/search?q=195...0s-cars%2F1956_studebaker_golden_hawk;550;368

Loewy used existing bodies as the basis for the Avanti to save money but came up with another timeless and beautiful design. When the Avanti appeared, it caused enormous interest and thousands of eager potential customer ordered an Avanti. The problem was that Studebaker's board of directors decided they wanted to get out of the automobiles business and they weren't willing to borrow heavily from banks and commit themselves to Avanti production. Egbert fought hard and was able to finally bring the Avanti to market but by the time it began being produced, most of the early orders had been cancelled.

The real problems with Studebaker stemmed with their merger with Packard, the old line luxury car maker, sort of an American version of Mercedes. George Mason, of Nash realized around 1953 that the Independent auto makers, Nash, Hudson, Studebaker and Packard just weren't big enough to compete with the huge auto giants, General Motors, Ford and to a lesser extant Chrysler Corporation. Mason decided that his company Nash, merge with Hudson. Meanwhile Studebaker would merge with Packard and then all four makes would have merged into another large auto conglomerate called American Motors.

First Nash merged with Hudson in 1954, forming American Motors. Suddenly, out of nowhere George Mason died of a heart attack. Meanwhile, Studebaker merged with Packard. When Mason died suddenly, George Romney, Mitt Romney's father took over American Motors and Romney did not want to merge with Studebaker-Packard. He did not honor Mason's previous agreements to do so. Romney forged ahead with great success by getting rid of the Nash and Hudson brands and concentrating on the economical and very reliable Rambler line of compact cars.

Studebaker and Packard had merged. Studebaker was the larger of the two car companies but Packard was in much better shape financially Studebaker was bleeding. They were operating not in Detroit but in South Bend. Indiana in an antiquated plant. They were paying the highest wages in the industry. Ford and Chevy were waging an enormous battle to be the number one seller. Chevy had taken number #1 from Ford around 1931 and now that Henry Ford had died, his grandson, Henry Ford III wanted the number #1 title back so he cut prices to the bone, powerful GM cut their Chevy prices in retaliation. AMC was able to handle this because they now offered only compact cars, cars which other makers were not making. Studebaker however, simply could not compete with Ford and Chevy. For that matter, Chrysler Corporation was having trouble competing as well. The Ford versus Chevy battle dragged on for years. Ford never quite passed Chevy in the 1950's although they came very close a couple of times. Chrysler was big enough to secure financing and revamp their entire line up in both 1955 and again in 1957. They survived but over at Studebaker Packard, they could simply not compete with Ford and Chevy. A Ford or Chevy that could be sold for $1,900 would require Studebaker to answer with a car having to sell for about $2,300.

Once financially rich Packard was being dragged down by its partner Studebaker. Studebaker tried to stop the bleeding by doing what AMC had done under Romney, They brought out the compact Lark for 1959. The Lark sold in impressive numbers and gave Studebaker a reprieve for 2 years but then the Larks had to face new competition as GM, Ford and Chrysler finally brought out their compact cars in 1961, the Corvair, the Falcon and the Valiant. The Lark and the Rambler both needed to redesign and retool to counter the new compacts coming from the large companies. AMC, now rich and successful did just that but Studebaker was too weak financially to respond. At this point, Studebaker brought in a new CEO Brook Stevens. Management had decided to quit the car business and they wanted Stevens to simply wind down automobile operations. Stevens however, still wanted to fight to save the Studebaker automobile He razzle dazzled management with pictures of the Avanti and a new and advanced line up for the 1966 and 67 model years. Management was leery but voted Egbert a small budget to proceed with the Avanti.

The Avanti premiered in 1962 and racked up thousands of customer placed advance orders. Hitches arose in converting the factory to Avanti production. There was an almost one year delay before the Avanti was able to be delivered to customers. By then, most of the advance orders had been cancelled. The new Avanti finally arrived and got a lot of good press and some satisfied customers. The Avanti may not have been too little but it was definitely too late. Studebaker's board of directors had enough and finally cut off all auto operations including the Avanti. Brooks Stevens was forced out and Studebaker started pursuing real estate and other venues.

A group of Avanti admirers loved the Avanti so much, they bought the rights to the Avanti name and the remaining Avanti production equipment at South Bend. They began selling an Avanti II. It looked almost exactly like the original Avanti but it was fitted with a General Motors high performance V8 engine. In the early 1980's, Avanti II was being marketed aggressively for about $30,000. They were selling about 1000 units a year and were making a profit. The company changed hands many times in the late 80's and 90's under 5 or 6 owners until the company ended up in Mexico in 2006. In that year Avanti II did its swan song and went out of business for good. It is amazing but the Avanti and Avanti II had a run of about 45 years after the Studebaker factory in South Bend, Ind. closed down. Why did it last so long? The main thing seems to be the styling. The Raymond Loewy studios endowed the Avanti with timeless styling.

Here is a link to the Avani II - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avanti_(car)

Raymond Loewy was French born and lived to the ripe old age of 93, dying in Monte Carlo in 1986: here is a link to Raymond Loewy: https://www.google.com/webhp?source...45US445&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=raymond+loewy

Of all the independent automakers Studebaker definitely had the most panache. They featured beautifully styled cars which were also well built and reliable. They prospered in the late 1940's and early 1950's. Their cars got even better in the mid 50's but the Ford versus Chevy sales blitz simply decimated Studebaker. Studebaker did not have the financial reserves to fight it out with Ford and Chevy. Also, due to their antiquated factory and limited amount of cash, they could not match Ford and Chevy in price. Financially strong Packard merged with them and the merger took down both companies.

Both Studebaker and Packard had built incredible cars since the early 1900's. By 1958, the Packard marque was gone while Studebaker held on through 1966 when they finally shut down. There are still plenty of Studebakers on the road. You see them frequently at auto shows and every now and then you will see one on the road. They made a good product, often leading the industry in styling and in features. The company became undercapitalized and their management simply was not strong enough to steer them through the Ford versus Chevy sales battles of the 1950's.
Lakey
 
Last edited:

Terril park

Sponsor
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The Avanti was a last ditch effort by Studebakers CEO to produce a dream car with fantastic design and performance so as to save Studebaker. The CEO, I believe his name was Sherwood Egbert, returned to Raymond Loewy's design studios for the last big push to save the company. Loewy had been the design firm which designed all of Studebaker's previous milestone cars, starting back with the 1940 Champion. The other milestones were the 1947 models, the first cars to have an envelope body so that the fenders were integrated into the body and not bolted on. Then the 1950 bullet nose, then the low slung 1953 models, then the 1956 Hawk series, another gorgeous line of cars which had fantastic styling plus powerful performance.

Check out this link to pictures of the 1956 Golden Hawk: https://www.google.com/search?q=195...0s-cars%2F1956_studebaker_golden_hawk;550;368

Loewy used existing bodies as the basis for the Avanti to save money but came up with another timeless and beautiful design. When the Avanti appeared, it caused enormous interest and thousands of eager potential customer ordered an Avanti. The problem was that Studebaker's board of directors decided they wanted to get out of the automobiles business and they weren't willing to borrow heavily from banks and commit themselves to Avanti production. Egbert fought hard and was able to finally bring the Avanti to market but by the time it began being produced, most of the early orders had been cancelled.

The real problems with Studebaker stemmed with their merger with Packard, the old line luxury car maker, sort of an American version of Mercedes. George Mason, of Nash realized around 1953 that the Independent auto makers, Nash, Hudson, Studebaker and Packard just weren't big enough to compete with the huge auto giants, General Motors, Ford and to a lesser extant Chrysler Corporation. Mason decided that his company Nash, merge with Hudson. Meanwhile Studebaker would merge with Packard and then all four makes would have merged into another large auto conglomerate called American Motors.

First Nash merged with Hudson in 1954, forming American Motors. Suddenly, out of nowhere George Mason died of a heart attack. Meanwhile, Studebaker merged with Packard. When Mason died suddenly, George Romney, Mitt Romney's father took over American Motors and Romney did not want to merge with Studebaker-Packard. He did not honor Mason's previous agreements to do so. Romney forged ahead with great success by getting rid of the Nash and Hudson brands and concentrating on the economical and very reliable Rambler line of compact cars.

Studebaker and Packard had merged. Studebaker was the larger of the two car companies but Packard was in much better shape financially Studebaker was bleeding. They were operating not in Detroit but in South Bend. Indiana in an antiquated plant. They were paying the highest wages in the industry. Ford and Chevy were waging an enormous battle to be the number one seller. Chevy had taken number #1 from Ford around 1931 and now that Henry Ford had died, his grandson, Henry Ford III wanted the number #1 title back so he cut prices to the bone, powerful GM cut their Chevy prices in retaliation. AMC was able to handle this because they now offered only compact cars, cars which other makers were not making. Studebaker however, simply could not compete with Ford and Chevy. For that matter, Chrysler Corporation was having trouble competing as well. The Ford versus Chevy battle dragged on for years. Ford never quite passed Chevy in the 1950's although they came very close a couple of times. Chrysler was big enough to secure financing and revamp their entire line up in both 1955 and again in 1957. They survived but over at Studebaker Packard, they could simply not compete with Ford and Chevy. A Ford or Chevy that could be sold for $1,900 would require Studebaker to answer with a car having to sell for about $2,300.

Once financially rich Packard was being dragged down by its partner Studebaker. Studebaker tried to stop the bleeding by doing what AMC had done under Romney, They brought out the compact Lark for 1959. The Lark sold in impressive numbers and gave Studebaker a reprieve for 2 years but then the Larks had to face new competition as GM, Ford and Chrysler finally brought out their compact cars in 1961, the Corvair, the Falcon and the Valiant. The Lark and the Rambler both needed to redesign and retool to counter the new compacts coming from the large companies. AMC, now rich and successful did just that but Studebaker was too weak financially to respond. At this point, Studebaker brought in a new CEO Brook Stevens. Management had decided to quit the car business and they wanted Stevens to simply wind down automobile operations. Stevens however, still wanted to fight to save the Studebaker automobile He razzle dazzled management with pictures of the Avanti and a new and advanced line up for the 1966 and 67 model years. Management was leery but voted Egbert a small budget to proceed with the Avanti.

The Avanti premiered in 1962 and racked up thousands of customer placed advance orders. Hitches arose in converting the factory to Avanti production. There was an almost one year delay before the Avanti was able to be delivered to customers. By then, most of the advance orders had been cancelled. The new Avanti finally arrived and got a lot of good press and some satisfied customer. The Avanti may not have been too little but it was definitely too late. Studebaker's board of directors had enough and finally cut off all auto operations including the Avanti. Brooks Stevens was forced out and Studebaker started pursuing real estate and other venues.

A group of Avanti admirers love the Avanti so much, the bought the rights to the Avanti name and the remaining Avanti production equipment at South Bend. They began selling an Avanti II. It looked almost exactly like the original Avanti but it was fitted with a General Motors high performance V8 engine. In the early 1980's, Avanti II was being marketed aggressively for about $30,000. They were selling about 1000 units a year and were making a profit. The company changed hands many times in the late 80's and 90's under 5 or 6 owners until the company ended up in Mexico in 2006. In that year Avanti II did its swan song and went out of business for good. It is amazing but the Avanti and Avanti II had a run of about 45 years after the Studebaker factory in South Bend, Ind. closed down. Why did it last so long? The main thing seems to be the styling. The Raymond Lowey studios endowed the Avanti with timeesll styling.

Here is a link to the Avani II - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avanti_(car)

Raymond Loewy was French born and lived to the ripe old age of 93, dying in Monte Carlo in 1986: here is a link to Raymond Loewy: https://www.google.com/webhp?source...45US445&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=raymond+loewy

Of all the independent automakers Studebaker definitely had the most panache. They featured beautifully styled cars which were also well built and reliable. They prospered in the late 1940's and early 1950's. There cars got even better in the mid 50's but the Ford versus Chevy sales blitz simply decimated Studebaker. Studebaker did not have the financial reserves to fight it out with Ford and Chevy. Also, due to their antiquated factory and limited amount of cash, they could not match Ford and Chevy in price. Financially strong Packard merged with them and the merger took down both companies.

Both Studebaker and Packard had built incredible cars since the early 1900's. By 1958, the Packard marque was gone while Studebaker held on through 1966 when they finally shut down. There are still plenty of Studebakers on the road. You see them frequently at auto shows and every now and then you will see one on the road. They made a good product, often leading the industry in styling and in features. The company became undercapitalized and their management simply was not strong enough to steer them through the Ford versus Chevy sales battles of the 1950's.
Lakey

Don't forget the Studillac beloved by James Bond.

http://flemingsbond.com/studillac/
 

Maria Cuervo

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I can't think of anything I'd add here about time. As long as we think and speak through that structure time will make sense; and of course time is a structure that has always been part of men's thinking, embedded and learned for so many centuries it would be cruel to suddenly give the concept up. And giving it up would not be healthy. Maybe even thinking otherwise than via time is unhealthy. The thing with thought experiments is that one really has to do the experiment; in this one I try not to fall back into time-thinking since that nulls the whole effort. Obviously I did not pull off the idea. Anyway, next time........
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I can't think of anything I'd add here about time. As long as we think and speak through that structure time will make sense; and of course time is a structure that has always been part of men's thinking, embedded and learned for so many centuries it would be cruel to suddenly give the concept up. And giving it up would not be healthy. Maybe even thinking otherwise than via time is unhealthy. The thing with thought experiments is that one really has to do the experiment; in this one I try not to fall back into time-thinking since that nulls the whole effort. Obviously I did not pull off the idea. Anyway, next time........

I think you did fine in pulling off the concept of no time. It took me awhile but I finally got what you were saying. Some other members seemed to know what you were talking about the whole time and some didn't.

Just as an aside, which might aid you if you tackle that topic again, either here or somewhere else. The thing that finally got me to get at least some inkling of what you were talking about, was your comment that from your approach as a philosopher you were not result driven or solutions driven. What drove you was pondering and thinking about a philosophical concept such as no time. As a philosopher, you had very little interest, if any, in solving some sort of math or physics problem. You were more interest in being able to think about it and decide the truth of it. I hope that i am correct with that little summary.

Once I got that gist of what you were saying, then I saw that approaching a subject from a philosophical point of view and a physics point of view were two completely different activities. I learned something new there, and for me at least, that made me glad that you brought up the no time subject.

As to being unhealthy, I don't see how thinking about that topic from a philosophical point of few would be unhealthy. After I mentally wrestle with it from a physics and solutions point of view, I always feel that by doing so, I improve my mental health rather than harm it. Approaching it from a physics view, the idea seems to be to think outside of the box, i.e., move your mind off to the side a bit from conventional human thinking . Doing that seems to be therapeutic. I don't see that doing it from a philosophical point of view would be any less therapeutic. If anything, it might be even more therapeutic because it seems to me that philosophers have more license to think further outside the box than a physicist does.

That's just my opinion based more on gut instinct than any deep thinking on the subject. Please take it for what it is worth. If you don't agree, please let me know.
Lakey
 

looker

Patron Meritorious
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

As regards time travel. Those of you who are familiar with the TROM materials will know of Dennis Stevens' assertion that anything that has ever been knowable in this universe can be known by anyone today. BTW I agree with Dennis on what he writes.

Everything in the universe was first, at its moment of inception, presented as a creation for which its creator wanted some form of admiration. Those creations which were applauded as-ised, the rest is still with us today, with their creators asserting the creation forevermore untll the goal is achieved.

So what is time? It is a postulate of stuckness. That what has been created will remain created until it is as-ised. In other words - as Hubbard said - it is a postulate that things will persist. In early tapes he suggests, well no, he never "suggested" anything, he asserted as factual fact, that reality and time is brought about by us regularly as-ising the whole universe and recreating it in a different way in that same moment. It's an interesting idea but does require one to assume the answer as being true even before he gives his answer. Begging the Question - that's what it is.

I think the statement that is is simple "a postulate that things will persist" is the best answer anyone has come up with yet. Time is simply a postulate that Time is. That's all there is to it.

There is a "before time" which has in it a higher harmonic of time - as people familiar with Robert Ducharme's work may know - and there is a state of timeless void in which 'no thing' does exist. I have been there. It is impossible to itsa.

cheers


Leon

AlphOhm once said to his auditor, Time is that which keeps everything from happening all at once. :hysterical:

He said his Auditor just smiled wryly.
 

Leon-2

Patron Meritorious
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I'm with you on the Pachelbel. The first version resonates in my spine and goes deep. It's awe inspiring.

The second is nice music.
 

Leon-2

Patron Meritorious
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I no longer have the faith I once had that what Hubbard says is true. You seem to still have a lot of faith in the things that Hubbard was teaching.
Lakey


I don't have any "faith" in Hubbard either. But I do find a lot of his stuff very workable and until I find something better to replace it I will continue to use it.

The faults of the man himself are of no consequence to me at all.
 

looker

Patron Meritorious
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Back in the early 70s I had a friend (Spanky) in the Sea Org who worked at CCLA with the celebs. She said some of the public OTs would be talking about races of thetans such as Insects lizards fat guys dolphins, cherubs in the clouds etc.

I thought Ha. WTF STAR WARS had just come out in 1973 Who were they kidding. If they were talking their own track then it was most likely made up from watching Star Trek and Star Wars and the hubbard space opera BS in his HCOBs about races of thetans and evil character types.

More BS Egobloat? Or just playful teasing the uninitiated.

She said one young brash guy (David Stokes?) on the OT levels had said one of the staff a tall slender attractive gal, was dramatizing a Preying Mantis. They both laughed, but, every time my friend looked at this gal, she smiled at what the guy said, but, was puzzled at what he knew since she was not an OT yet.

Was it
A. an unkind remark?
B. A game being played?
C. a mystery sandwich joke,
D. an implant being layed in
E. All of the above.

Who Knows. I thought it was a very crafty joke being played on my awe struck friend. :) Kind of as if he were saying: look at what you have to look forward to kid (teasing grin). Or Its all bullshit, nothing matters, so just keep smiling and chugging along.


Also one time we went to the home of The head of Drug Rehabilitation for Mexico. He was on OT3. Scientology was heavily lobbying him to get NARCONON started in Mexico. She was very reverent and in Awe of all the heavy weights at CCLA she was familiar with.

We sat on the couch while he and a man and another woman were going over some plans near the dining room. .

He was speaking to a another man in Spanish. My friend spoke Spanish and her eyes got big while listening. I asked what did he say. She said that picture on the wall was painted for him by an OT artist. It was him in one of his past lives. I looked at the picture and about choked. It was a print of a Rembrandt "The Golden Helmet". Very common at Pier One Import stores.

I instantly liked the guy because he was a bullshitter. But, no one said anything as though they didn't want to invalidate his reality or his win.

Bwahahaha :hysterical:

Now those were the good old days when we were young and having fun. :biggrin:

Wasn't David Stokes an auditor at CCLA looked a lot like Sean Cassidy in the Partridge Family TV show.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I'm with you on the Pachelbel. The first version resonates in my spine and goes deep. It's awe inspiring.

The second is nice music.

Exactly what I feel, only you say it in fewer words and more to the point. Thanks for responding to this Leon, I really appreciate it. BTW, quite a few well known pieces of music are on youtube in 432 hz format. There is a lot of jazz and some popular besides just classical.

See how penetrating something like Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony #6 is in 432 Hz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YACLtp0TLs

How about John Lenon's song "Imagine":https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EybeUeyfaUI

How about some modern popular music, Life is Beautiful by Gary B: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qh7e8WYrkE
I chose this because Gary B. is part of my name but unfortunately, I did not write this.
Lakey
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Back in the early 70s I had a friend (Spanky) in the Sea Org who worked at CCLA with the celebs. She said some of the public OTs would be talking about races of thetans such as Insects lizards fat guys dolphins, cherubs in the clouds etc.

I thought Ha. WTF STAR WARS had just come out in 1973 Who were they kidding. If they were talking their own track then it was most likely made up from watching Star Trek and Star Wars and the hubbard space opera BS in his HCOBs about races of thetans and evil character types.

More BS Egobloat? Or just playful teasing the uninitiated.

She said one young brash guy (David Stokes?) on the OT levels had said one of the staff a tall slender attractive gal, was dramatizing a Preying Mantis. They both laughed, but, every time my friend looked at this gal, she smiled at what the guy said, but, was puzzled at what he knew since she was not an OT yet.

Was it
A. an unkind remark?
B. A game being played?
C. a mystery sandwich joke,
D. an implant being layed in
E. All of the above.

Who Knows. I thought it was a very crafty joke being played on my awe struck friend. :) Kind of as if he were saying: look at what you have to look forward to kid (teasing grin). Or Its all bullshit, nothing matters, so just keep smiling and chugging along.


Also one time we went to the home of The head of Drug Rehabilitation for Mexico. He was on OT3. Scientology was heavily lobbying him to get NARCONON started in Mexico. She was very reverent and in Awe of all the heavy weights at CCLA she was familiar with.

We sat on the couch while he and a man and another woman were going over some plans near the dining room. .

He was speaking to a another man in Spanish. My friend spoke Spanish and her eyes got big while listening. I asked what did he say. She said that picture on the wall was painted for him by an OT artist. It was him in one of his past lives. I looked at the picture and about choked. It was a print of a Rembrandt "The Golden Helmet". Very common at Pier One Import stores.

I instantly liked the guy because he was a bullshitter. But, no one said anything as though they didn't want to invalidate his reality or his win.

Bwahahaha :hysterical:

Now those were the good old days when we were young and having fun. :biggrin:

Wasn't David Stokes an auditor at CCLA looked a lot like Sean Cassidy in the Partridge Family TV show.

Looker, the first Star Wars came out in 1977 not 1973. Yes, in those days of the early 70's there was a little coffee shop auditing still going on but a lot of coffee shop discussions about "whole track" stuff. Based on the book, "A History of Man", we did speak of thetan races of various animals and insects, also robot bodies and doll bodies. When the first Star Wars movie appeared in 1977, it was amazingly close to Hubbard's descriptions of whole track in many ways.

I knew Spanky back then. She was in a sub group of CCLA, called Axioms Productions, run by a guy named Dale Benson. I hadn't seen Spanky for 40 years until I just ran into her recently in Hollywood when I went to see Alex Gibney's new movie, 'Going Clear'. She was quite friendly and her appearance has not changed all that much.

I think I remember that Drug Rehab guy from Mexico. He came up to take some classes and he was a very nice guy. I don't remember the name but have an extremely accurate picture of his face and body in my mind. It I am thinking of the right guy, he was short, about 5'5" or 5'6", he looked to be in his late 20's, he had light brown hair, which was a bit curly and he was on the thin side. He was always cheerful, positive and friendly. He came down to Treasury a couple of times and I had a stereo sound system down there. He was one of the few people in the org who liked classical music so I put on some Mozart. He loved it and said that Mozart was one of his favorite composers. He hung around CCLA for quite a while, maybe 8 or 10 weeks and then went back to Mexico. If I had to guess a name, I would say Riccardo.

Could the auditor you are mentioning be Dean Stokes and not David Stokes. Dean Stokes was a prominent name at CCLA back in the day and he was a skilled auditor. He is still around and is currently in Texas and is in touch with one of my friends who occasionally posts on this thread.

The tall thin attractive girl was probably Ronnie Johnson, the younger sister of our Org Officer, Irene Howey. She ended up marrying Chris Many, the HCO Sec but that marriage broke up and then she married Randy McDonald. She was about 5'10 or 5'11", very thin and with medium brown hair. She was a reserved person, not loud and boisterous. Later on, she and Randy became friends of my brother. In 1977 I bought a condominium in Long Beach and my brother, along with Randy McDonald and his wife Ronnie all came over for dinner at my Condo sometime around 1979 or 1980. My guess about what David said about Ronnie was mostly a joke with just a tinge of identifying her with some sort of creation he ran in his auditing.
Lakey
 
Last edited:

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Here is Pachelbell's Cannon in d in 432 megahertz:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJsPmOMaiVc

Here is Pachelbell's Cannon in d in 440 megahertz:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Af372EQLck

Take a test drive and see what you think. To me, the difference in sound is like night and day. In the 432 Hz version, every chord of the music penetrates deeply into my psyche, I am almost trembling with every note.

The 440 Hz, calibrated with middle C vibrating at its modern standard frequency of 440 Hz for me, packs about half the beauty and half the emotional impact.

There were several on this thread attacking me visciously for voicing my personal observations and opinions. I have an extremely keen ear for music and I sense an enormous difference in the two performances. You wouldn't believe what lengths these jerks went to try and insist that the two performances were identical and there was no perceivable difference between them. Maybe that was true for them but they went all out to enforce their views on me.
Lakey
Surely you mean A4 at 440 Hz? Middle C is 261.6 Hz in modern tuning.

I, too, prefer A=432 Hz tuning myself, btw. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top