JackStraw
Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Yep, it's SUMMER!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z9iUdiS3hI
Jack
Yep, it's SUMMER!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z9iUdiS3hI
Jack
The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: New Book, "Inside Scientology" by Janet Reitman
I read further today. I learned something new. A reporter from the U.S. magazine, The Saturday Evening Post was invited to St. Hill by LRH in 1964 and was given red carpet treatment and courted by LRH in the hopes of having a favorable article written and published in the magazine.
To LRH and others, it appeared the author was won over and would supply the hoped for article. It took several months but when the article was published, i trashed LRH and his tech and in particular it mocked LRH. This had a major negative impact on LRH and he was never quite the same after that article came out.
His immediate response was to write the Bulletin KSW #1 and to stiffen up on ethics. I had not encountered the story of the Saturday Evening Post article in any of my past readings on the internet or in books. So far so good, the book is very well written and informative.
Lakey
I read further today. I learned something new. A reporter from the U.S. magazine, The Saturday Evening Post was invited to St. Hill by LRH in 1964 and was given red carpet treatment and courted by LRH in the hopes of having a favorable article written and published in the magazine.
To LRH and others, it appeared the author was won over and would supply the hoped for article. It took several months but when the article was published, i trashed LRH and his tech and in particular it mocked LRH. This had a major negative impact on LRH and he was never quite the same after that article came out.
His immediate response was to write the Bulletin KSW #1 and to stiffen up on ethics. I had not encountered the story of the Saturday Evening Post article in any of my past readings on the internet or in books. So far so good, the book is very well written and informative.
Lakey
Last edited:
Div6
Crusader
Re: New Book, "Inside Scientology" by Janet Reitman
Link to article published 21 March 1964
http://www.scientology-lies.com/press/1964-03-21/saturday-evening-post/have-you-ever-been.html
KSW #1 was written February 7, 1965.
Not exactly an "immediate" response.
Link to article published 21 March 1964
http://www.scientology-lies.com/press/1964-03-21/saturday-evening-post/have-you-ever-been.html
KSW #1 was written February 7, 1965.
Not exactly an "immediate" response.
Terril park
Sponsor
Re: New Book, "Inside Scientology" by Janet Reitman
It may have been a relevant response. Possibly the current time lines discussions may shed some light.
Also 1965 was the main year of ethics PLs etc.
This was a main time of change.
Maybe this was a trigger?
It may have been a relevant response. Possibly the current time lines discussions may shed some light.
Also 1965 was the main year of ethics PLs etc.
This was a main time of change.
Maybe this was a trigger?
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: New Book, "Inside Scientology" by Janet Reitman
Alan Walter has written on the massive shift he saw in LRH after this article was published. His writing can be found in the alt.clearing archives on Google and perhaps here on ESMB, too.
Also note, LRH was none too stable before that event so it's hard to say what set him off.
Alan Walter has written on the massive shift he saw in LRH after this article was published. His writing can be found in the alt.clearing archives on Google and perhaps here on ESMB, too.
Also note, LRH was none too stable before that event so it's hard to say what set him off.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: New Book, "Inside Scientology" by Janet Reitman
Yes, the article was published March 21, 64 and KSW was issued (not written) on Feb 7, 1965. You are correct, it was not an immediate response since over 10 months elapsed. My point was that if the article published March 21, 1964 had been positive, then perhaps KSW #1 in its current form might never have been issued.
Hubbard had been trying since 1949 to gain acceptance from the medical and psychiatric professions for what he considered were breakthroughs in Dianetics and later Scientology. He wanted his subjects to be "mainstream" and not fringe or cultlike. Initially, this was very important to him but he was never able to achieve the mainstream status which he sought. He had high hopes for the Saturday Evening Post article. From the indicators which he observed from the writer he assumed that a favorable article was forthcoming. When instead the actual article made fun of him and his tech, it caused a very negative reaction in him. The book cites Allen Walter as the one who observes and states his observations about this matter.
Hubbard was latered cornered by that British TV news crew in North Africa in 1968 when he was on the Apollo (or Royal Scotsman at that time) and gave the interview where he claimed that he never had a second wife. After that, I believe that he gave no further public interviews.
Lakey
Yes, the article was published March 21, 64 and KSW was issued (not written) on Feb 7, 1965. You are correct, it was not an immediate response since over 10 months elapsed. My point was that if the article published March 21, 1964 had been positive, then perhaps KSW #1 in its current form might never have been issued.
Hubbard had been trying since 1949 to gain acceptance from the medical and psychiatric professions for what he considered were breakthroughs in Dianetics and later Scientology. He wanted his subjects to be "mainstream" and not fringe or cultlike. Initially, this was very important to him but he was never able to achieve the mainstream status which he sought. He had high hopes for the Saturday Evening Post article. From the indicators which he observed from the writer he assumed that a favorable article was forthcoming. When instead the actual article made fun of him and his tech, it caused a very negative reaction in him. The book cites Allen Walter as the one who observes and states his observations about this matter.
Hubbard was latered cornered by that British TV news crew in North Africa in 1968 when he was on the Apollo (or Royal Scotsman at that time) and gave the interview where he claimed that he never had a second wife. After that, I believe that he gave no further public interviews.
Lakey
RogerB
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Key points of change in a more negative direction by LRH were in this sequence. As we now know, he always was "bent," but there is a sequence of events in which he went further and further around the twist.
A key point is mentioned by Alan in his "Opening Pandora's Box" thread. This was the event wherein LRH "lost his auditor" (MSH) when MSH found out he'd gotten another woman pregnant: this around 1962? The conflict with MSH and guilt trip that occurred had an impact.
Then there was the incorrect and back-to-front research he did into own goals GPMs. I speak of the impact of this incorrect tech endeavor in my FZ presentation in Pasadena. The point here is that Hubbard abandoned pursuing the truths of your power, abilities and such, and dived off into his implant shit in early part of '63.
This is when he abandoned the truth of you, went negative, fixated on all the space opera shit we "all" were supposed to be effect of and have to "run out."
This is the point wherein Hubbard saw enemies "everywhere" . . . add to this the "betrayal" of the bad press articles . . . and you find he was ever after writing about "SP's" and going mad about the whole universe. Earlier in the last quarter of '62, with the introduction of the $cn List 1, he had began to hunt for those who opposed him and $cn, but he hadn't quite descended into his mad, intense fight against enemies at that stage.
The insane reaction to "enemies" really began to manifest after he flipped from "processing the positive" (own goal GPMs) to the negative of the (motivator side) implant GPMs.
Rog
Key points of change in a more negative direction by LRH were in this sequence. As we now know, he always was "bent," but there is a sequence of events in which he went further and further around the twist.
A key point is mentioned by Alan in his "Opening Pandora's Box" thread. This was the event wherein LRH "lost his auditor" (MSH) when MSH found out he'd gotten another woman pregnant: this around 1962? The conflict with MSH and guilt trip that occurred had an impact.
Then there was the incorrect and back-to-front research he did into own goals GPMs. I speak of the impact of this incorrect tech endeavor in my FZ presentation in Pasadena. The point here is that Hubbard abandoned pursuing the truths of your power, abilities and such, and dived off into his implant shit in early part of '63.
This is when he abandoned the truth of you, went negative, fixated on all the space opera shit we "all" were supposed to be effect of and have to "run out."
This is the point wherein Hubbard saw enemies "everywhere" . . . add to this the "betrayal" of the bad press articles . . . and you find he was ever after writing about "SP's" and going mad about the whole universe. Earlier in the last quarter of '62, with the introduction of the $cn List 1, he had began to hunt for those who opposed him and $cn, but he hadn't quite descended into his mad, intense fight against enemies at that stage.
The insane reaction to "enemies" really began to manifest after he flipped from "processing the positive" (own goal GPMs) to the negative of the (motivator side) implant GPMs.
Rog
Terril park
Sponsor
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I know personally one who was on the 1962 experimental briefing course and she verified everything Alan said about the problems of
handling own GPMs, and the difficulties experienced by the people on that course.
I was told by a knowledgable techie that the GPM tech was solved by the grades. I'm not sure if thats true or even partially true.
Otherwise LRH failed in achieving what he set out to accomplish.
Interestingly my friend said she gained real abilities from this course, but also was left with unhandled case problems.
Why the " Implant shit" works is somewhat mysterious. I've done
OT 2&3 twice with CC platens in between and got great benefits.
Having known lots of people who've done them and read success
stories of success stories by others, they generally give people good gains. OT 2 seems to give better benefits than OT 3 in general.
I know personally one who was on the 1962 experimental briefing course and she verified everything Alan said about the problems of
handling own GPMs, and the difficulties experienced by the people on that course.
I was told by a knowledgable techie that the GPM tech was solved by the grades. I'm not sure if thats true or even partially true.
Otherwise LRH failed in achieving what he set out to accomplish.
Interestingly my friend said she gained real abilities from this course, but also was left with unhandled case problems.
Why the " Implant shit" works is somewhat mysterious. I've done
OT 2&3 twice with CC platens in between and got great benefits.
Having known lots of people who've done them and read success
stories of success stories by others, they generally give people good gains. OT 2 seems to give better benefits than OT 3 in general.
RogerB
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
The problems we all had with dealing with "own Goals GPMs" were due to approaching the subject incorrectly. Hubbard, of course, like all of us was hit with that charge and the "creaks" (the feeling of the body being crushed) . . . and then, to use the term he used to refer to those who chicken out by avoidance on OT3, he rabbited and dived off into the lighter lock stuff. And he left all the BPC stirred up by the incorrect approach to own GPMs on his case.
One can actually get gains by getting a dictionary, thesaurus or book of antonyms & synonyms and selecting all the verbs or other expressions of intentions and running repeater on them . . . . you'd get "gains" from that too. It would in fact be tantamount to what you do in running Hubbard's implant parade.
And the reason you'd get gains from it is because you are discharging the encysted charge and life-force hung up on those intentions and action which are common to us all . . . the concepts of the words in the dictionaries, etc., are common to us all. And the why/how the discharge occurs is that you are knowingly doing and taking over the action/intention of the concept being repeated. See the thread Dulloldfart started on "Out-Int, is it real" . . . we get into it there, and also tape 5 of my Pasadena presentation.
But my post was about change-points in Hubbard's life that set him up to be more and more dramatizing of evil. It is not an inval of anyone's gains from running implants.
Though I sure as hell would recommend anyone contemplating doing the implant stuff to "not bother." Spend your time going for the "real deal."
And my recommendation to you, my Dear T, is stop defending Hubbard's implant stuff as the thing to do . . . and go find out what Alan discovered to be the better approach to recovery of self . . . until then, you are going off half-cocked.
And as to the notion that "the GPM tech was solved by the grades" . . . no bloody way. And also which version of "GPM."
I was reading TROM the other night with a view to citing some of Dennis's stuff relative to the "GPM" thing, for I plan to continue on with the Games Matrix piece I posted after my FZ presentation. Dennis made a very astute observation totally missed by Hubbard which is a why behind Hubbard screwing up on his own goals GPMs endeavor. But, notwithstanding, Dennis also missed some key points that led his research endeavor astray also.
Rog
The problems we all had with dealing with "own Goals GPMs" were due to approaching the subject incorrectly. Hubbard, of course, like all of us was hit with that charge and the "creaks" (the feeling of the body being crushed) . . . and then, to use the term he used to refer to those who chicken out by avoidance on OT3, he rabbited and dived off into the lighter lock stuff. And he left all the BPC stirred up by the incorrect approach to own GPMs on his case.
One can actually get gains by getting a dictionary, thesaurus or book of antonyms & synonyms and selecting all the verbs or other expressions of intentions and running repeater on them . . . . you'd get "gains" from that too. It would in fact be tantamount to what you do in running Hubbard's implant parade.
And the reason you'd get gains from it is because you are discharging the encysted charge and life-force hung up on those intentions and action which are common to us all . . . the concepts of the words in the dictionaries, etc., are common to us all. And the why/how the discharge occurs is that you are knowingly doing and taking over the action/intention of the concept being repeated. See the thread Dulloldfart started on "Out-Int, is it real" . . . we get into it there, and also tape 5 of my Pasadena presentation.
But my post was about change-points in Hubbard's life that set him up to be more and more dramatizing of evil. It is not an inval of anyone's gains from running implants.
Though I sure as hell would recommend anyone contemplating doing the implant stuff to "not bother." Spend your time going for the "real deal."
And my recommendation to you, my Dear T, is stop defending Hubbard's implant stuff as the thing to do . . . and go find out what Alan discovered to be the better approach to recovery of self . . . until then, you are going off half-cocked.
And as to the notion that "the GPM tech was solved by the grades" . . . no bloody way. And also which version of "GPM."
I was reading TROM the other night with a view to citing some of Dennis's stuff relative to the "GPM" thing, for I plan to continue on with the Games Matrix piece I posted after my FZ presentation. Dennis made a very astute observation totally missed by Hubbard which is a why behind Hubbard screwing up on his own goals GPMs endeavor. But, notwithstanding, Dennis also missed some key points that led his research endeavor astray also.
Rog
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Well, it would seem there is ( mostly ) agreement that LRH went off the rails even if there is diasgreement why or how he got off the rails.
?
Will it ever be when X's ( or supposed to be X's ) discuss something without having to have a " why " ?
Anyway, for me, bat shit crazy seems to cover LRH.
Well, it would seem there is ( mostly ) agreement that LRH went off the rails even if there is diasgreement why or how he got off the rails.
?
Will it ever be when X's ( or supposed to be X's ) discuss something without having to have a " why " ?
Anyway, for me, bat shit crazy seems to cover LRH.
Terril park
Sponsor
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
This makes quite a bit of sense.
Thing is the "implant shit" works very well, and making derogatory comments about it does a disservice. That there may be other tech out there as good or possibly better I consider a very reasonable point of view. One can do all of them if one wishes.
I know plenty of highly trained techies who'd consider Alan's stuff as nonsense. I don't take that view. Nor do I go around bashing other tech.
Now a question for you or anyone to answer. OT 2 is not just looking up words, but there are also end words added to the concept. I'd
be very interested in any suggestions as to why they work.
Recently had a very strange experience. A friend visited and he was quite amazed when he saw some of my paintings. He showed me his website of his paintings and many had an eery similarity. For example on my website [link at bottom] in section " History of the Freezone" is a painting that seems to be of the " Tocky" end word " Sun Swing". Done before I heard of scientology. He had
a picture that was almost exactly the same. Others of our paintings had strong similarities also.
Now I don't know if I even believe OT 2 was an implant. But somethings definitely going on. But what?
This makes quite a bit of sense.
Thing is the "implant shit" works very well, and making derogatory comments about it does a disservice. That there may be other tech out there as good or possibly better I consider a very reasonable point of view. One can do all of them if one wishes.
I know plenty of highly trained techies who'd consider Alan's stuff as nonsense. I don't take that view. Nor do I go around bashing other tech.
Now a question for you or anyone to answer. OT 2 is not just looking up words, but there are also end words added to the concept. I'd
be very interested in any suggestions as to why they work.
Recently had a very strange experience. A friend visited and he was quite amazed when he saw some of my paintings. He showed me his website of his paintings and many had an eery similarity. For example on my website [link at bottom] in section " History of the Freezone" is a painting that seems to be of the " Tocky" end word " Sun Swing". Done before I heard of scientology. He had
a picture that was almost exactly the same. Others of our paintings had strong similarities also.
Now I don't know if I even believe OT 2 was an implant. But somethings definitely going on. But what?
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Thanks for this post and your previous post Roger. They are very timely, informative and pertinent! Reitman's comments about the negative Saturday Evening Post magazine article in the Spring of 1964 seem to blend into the mix of what was going on with LRH at that time. Apparently he was abandoning his search for truth at that time and "rabbiting", as you call it. The magazine article occurred and simply reinforced what he was already doing if I understand you correctly.
I wanted to ask something which relates to your mentioning of how a person can have gains by looking things up in dictionaries, thesaureses, etc.
In my own auditing, I have been making big gains in simply getting "my item" stated properly. Sometimes, big changes (blowdowns, etc.) occur when wording some area of interest. An example would be that I want to "get rid of" upsets with family members. If I reword this item and substitute "dissipate" for "get rid of", the item reacts much more strongly and runs easier and deeper. This goes so far that if significant effort is expended in picking the words and phrasing to express the item, the item is often nearly handled before it gets run.
I began using this tool when counseling other people informally. For example, a good friend came over and wanted to get advice from me on how to handle a situation with her boyfriend. I spent a lot of time getting her to word and phrase the difficulty she was having and by doing this, she practically solved her boyfriend situation by inspection, at least from her side of the situation. We then worked out a question for her to ask him. She asked that question of him that same evening and everything worked like a charm. The two successfully resolved their problem.
Lakey
Thanks for this post and your previous post Roger. They are very timely, informative and pertinent! Reitman's comments about the negative Saturday Evening Post magazine article in the Spring of 1964 seem to blend into the mix of what was going on with LRH at that time. Apparently he was abandoning his search for truth at that time and "rabbiting", as you call it. The magazine article occurred and simply reinforced what he was already doing if I understand you correctly.
I wanted to ask something which relates to your mentioning of how a person can have gains by looking things up in dictionaries, thesaureses, etc.
In my own auditing, I have been making big gains in simply getting "my item" stated properly. Sometimes, big changes (blowdowns, etc.) occur when wording some area of interest. An example would be that I want to "get rid of" upsets with family members. If I reword this item and substitute "dissipate" for "get rid of", the item reacts much more strongly and runs easier and deeper. This goes so far that if significant effort is expended in picking the words and phrasing to express the item, the item is often nearly handled before it gets run.
I began using this tool when counseling other people informally. For example, a good friend came over and wanted to get advice from me on how to handle a situation with her boyfriend. I spent a lot of time getting her to word and phrase the difficulty she was having and by doing this, she practically solved her boyfriend situation by inspection, at least from her side of the situation. We then worked out a question for her to ask him. She asked that question of him that same evening and everything worked like a charm. The two successfully resolved their problem.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
My take on your comment, Toady, for what its worth is that after reading some truth, people need to process the data and MAKE IT THEIR OWN.
For example, as you say, there is wide agreement on ESMB that LRH went off the rails. If I get what you are saying, you are posing a question of why can't we just let it go at that. Why do we have to have a "why" to explain it.
Of course there is entertainment value in kicking around a statement and looking at it from different points of view but beyond that, I believe the essence of why people enjoy discussing it further is so that they can make the data their own.
Let's say I just agree that LRH is bat shit crazy and let it go at that. That approach leaves too many loopholes open for my tastes. Why did I give up my aerospace job to follow this man? Why did I pay him so much money? Why did I allow he and his people to push me around so much?
If a person can MAKE THE DATA HIS OWN, then he or she can come to grips with why certain things occurred in his/her life. Often even more important is that the person can then guide others to not fall into the same trap.
You made a good point above and I made a sincere effort to respond to your querry.
Lakey
My take on your comment, Toady, for what its worth is that after reading some truth, people need to process the data and MAKE IT THEIR OWN.
For example, as you say, there is wide agreement on ESMB that LRH went off the rails. If I get what you are saying, you are posing a question of why can't we just let it go at that. Why do we have to have a "why" to explain it.
Of course there is entertainment value in kicking around a statement and looking at it from different points of view but beyond that, I believe the essence of why people enjoy discussing it further is so that they can make the data their own.
Let's say I just agree that LRH is bat shit crazy and let it go at that. That approach leaves too many loopholes open for my tastes. Why did I give up my aerospace job to follow this man? Why did I pay him so much money? Why did I allow he and his people to push me around so much?
If a person can MAKE THE DATA HIS OWN, then he or she can come to grips with why certain things occurred in his/her life. Often even more important is that the person can then guide others to not fall into the same trap.
You made a good point above and I made a sincere effort to respond to your querry.
Lakey
Last edited:
Lesolee (Sith Lord)
Patron Meritorious
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Is Alan's stuff now public domain and online?
There are lots of very knowledgeable experts out there - but their expert views do not agree that well. Reading more is good - but buying more
Is the Pasedena tape available online?
Is Alan's stuff now public domain and online?
There are lots of very knowledgeable experts out there - but their expert views do not agree that well. Reading more is good - but buying more
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Your synopsis accords with that which I've always considered the likeliest reasons for the obvious failures of hubbard & the church.
Mark A. Baker
Your synopsis accords with that which I've always considered the likeliest reasons for the obvious failures of hubbard & the church.
Mark A. Baker
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Actually it doesn't. There was a great deal more going on with lrh than simply being 'batshit crazy', most of which is not genuinely knowable due to lack of data and his death.
More to the point, lrh really is NOT the issue. What is at issue is the behavior of each individual scientologist. Blaming all ills on lrh only constitutes a failure to acknowledge the individual responsibility each person had in creating the effects which they have created.
LRH was a common and significant influence for many if not all involved in scientology. Nonetheless, each person is responsible for their own actions and considerations, whether relating to scientology as an institution or not. Citing lrh as 'batshit crazy' in an attempt to dismiss one's past involvement with institutional scientology neither addresses the actual issues either of the conduct of individual scientologists, or of the abusive practices & policies of the scientology institution. Neither does it confront the genuinely useful aspects of scientology tech. It's simply the old technique of avoidance through denigration or 'name calling'.
Mark A. Baker
Actually it doesn't. There was a great deal more going on with lrh than simply being 'batshit crazy', most of which is not genuinely knowable due to lack of data and his death.
More to the point, lrh really is NOT the issue. What is at issue is the behavior of each individual scientologist. Blaming all ills on lrh only constitutes a failure to acknowledge the individual responsibility each person had in creating the effects which they have created.
LRH was a common and significant influence for many if not all involved in scientology. Nonetheless, each person is responsible for their own actions and considerations, whether relating to scientology as an institution or not. Citing lrh as 'batshit crazy' in an attempt to dismiss one's past involvement with institutional scientology neither addresses the actual issues either of the conduct of individual scientologists, or of the abusive practices & policies of the scientology institution. Neither does it confront the genuinely useful aspects of scientology tech. It's simply the old technique of avoidance through denigration or 'name calling'.
Mark A. Baker
Last edited:
RogerB
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Terril,
you can be very tiresome at times.
Let me put it this way . . . . you were not there in 1962 and 1963 . . . when Hubbard was doing his variations on a basic theme of "GPMs" . . . and I can tell you the implant shit he released in 1963 after he grandiosely announced in April '63 that "all GPMs audited to date were not your own but implants" . . . was shit! I was there and I lived and ran that crap all through that period.
Please stick to what you actually bloody know.
What you are talking about is later released, repackaged "implants lite."
If you want an informed call on the implant shit released at that time . . . talk to Mystic. He was there, he did it as well.
You're proving to be a master of running around in circles to make yourself right.
And as to this which you wrote:
1) which techie do you know who has actually done any training on Alan's material that could give you such an opinion?
2) If you think OT2 has anything to do with "looking up words" . . . boy, no wonder you rant on about that stuff the way you do! You need to re-look at this notion and have a look at what your understanding of what it is and what's actually going on in doing OT2! Either that, or you have no clue of what I actually wrote that you are reacting to.
Get real mate, Hubbard was dishonest, and the period I referred to in '62-'63 is when he went further around the bend and threw shit tech at us . . . it later got repackaged as "space opera lite" . . . . You can think it is wonderful if you want . . . but I wish to maintain my integrity and call it for what it is based on my personal experience of it all and from a position of being able to compare it to more workable, more correct tech.
And I would be dishonest not to do so.
R
Terril,
you can be very tiresome at times.
Let me put it this way . . . . you were not there in 1962 and 1963 . . . when Hubbard was doing his variations on a basic theme of "GPMs" . . . and I can tell you the implant shit he released in 1963 after he grandiosely announced in April '63 that "all GPMs audited to date were not your own but implants" . . . was shit! I was there and I lived and ran that crap all through that period.
Please stick to what you actually bloody know.
What you are talking about is later released, repackaged "implants lite."
If you want an informed call on the implant shit released at that time . . . talk to Mystic. He was there, he did it as well.
You're proving to be a master of running around in circles to make yourself right.
And as to this which you wrote:
1) which techie do you know who has actually done any training on Alan's material that could give you such an opinion?
2) If you think OT2 has anything to do with "looking up words" . . . boy, no wonder you rant on about that stuff the way you do! You need to re-look at this notion and have a look at what your understanding of what it is and what's actually going on in doing OT2! Either that, or you have no clue of what I actually wrote that you are reacting to.
Get real mate, Hubbard was dishonest, and the period I referred to in '62-'63 is when he went further around the bend and threw shit tech at us . . . it later got repackaged as "space opera lite" . . . . You can think it is wonderful if you want . . . but I wish to maintain my integrity and call it for what it is based on my personal experience of it all and from a position of being able to compare it to more workable, more correct tech.
And I would be dishonest not to do so.
R
Last edited:
RogerB
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Lesolee,
It's here on ESMB:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...gative-RogerB%92s-FZ-Presentation-in-Pasadena
The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasadena
Rog
Is the Pasedena tape available online?
Is Alan's stuff now public domain and online?
There are lots of very knowledgeable experts out there - but their expert views do not agree that well. Reading more is good - but buying more
Lesolee,
It's here on ESMB:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...gative-RogerB%92s-FZ-Presentation-in-Pasadena
The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasadena
Rog
Smilla
Ordinary Human
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Interesting story, Terril. Jungian archetypes come to mind - have a look at this list:
http://earthvision.info/archetypes
Interesting story, Terril. Jungian archetypes come to mind - have a look at this list:
http://earthvision.info/archetypes
Hatshepsut
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I had recently taken a look at running dramatizations as they repeat in life and there is hardly anything new under the sun. I spent a little time observing what others were dramatizing and what they wanted another to dramatize. I would sum these up as experiences....theatres of activity you want to engage in and those roles you want others to ascribe to or have them experience. It was interesting to note who was writing a script for my life and what scripts were being written for the lives of others. In the end I came to a realization that some individuals feel entitled to assign the future unfoldment of another's time track. Why? some folks are dramatizing or being in the valence of old 'gods'. (which of course is a 'winning' valence as is Napolean or Caesar etc) What I am saying is that some folks are dramatizing getting others to dramatize fixed items. This keeps attention and a population in line. So running repeater technique or end words probably does destimulate both implanted drama intended to be experienced as well as self determined dramas.
From my point of view there have always been those who consider themselves the free and priveledged life force and those that have been made into the construct. So the implanted and the natural dramas run side by side in some scenarios. I'm thinking here of the Zacharia Sitchin type stuff where humanity was always viewed with a watchful eye in case it thought up unique dramas of its own which exceeded the consciouslness parameters allowed. The thing Rog mentioned about the antonym dictionary is a good. There are so many people these days who are bipolar. I recently noticed that my postulates pro and anti were coming into swing a little too close to each other. It takes one to give impetus to the other. It is nice to be able to spot when you are launching into an activity or direction because of an automaticity. Taking the anti or the pro away desensitizes the whole drama. It just doesn't seem to be so important or compulsive any more.
I had recently taken a look at running dramatizations as they repeat in life and there is hardly anything new under the sun. I spent a little time observing what others were dramatizing and what they wanted another to dramatize. I would sum these up as experiences....theatres of activity you want to engage in and those roles you want others to ascribe to or have them experience. It was interesting to note who was writing a script for my life and what scripts were being written for the lives of others. In the end I came to a realization that some individuals feel entitled to assign the future unfoldment of another's time track. Why? some folks are dramatizing or being in the valence of old 'gods'. (which of course is a 'winning' valence as is Napolean or Caesar etc) What I am saying is that some folks are dramatizing getting others to dramatize fixed items. This keeps attention and a population in line. So running repeater technique or end words probably does destimulate both implanted drama intended to be experienced as well as self determined dramas.
From my point of view there have always been those who consider themselves the free and priveledged life force and those that have been made into the construct. So the implanted and the natural dramas run side by side in some scenarios. I'm thinking here of the Zacharia Sitchin type stuff where humanity was always viewed with a watchful eye in case it thought up unique dramas of its own which exceeded the consciouslness parameters allowed. The thing Rog mentioned about the antonym dictionary is a good. There are so many people these days who are bipolar. I recently noticed that my postulates pro and anti were coming into swing a little too close to each other. It takes one to give impetus to the other. It is nice to be able to spot when you are launching into an activity or direction because of an automaticity. Taking the anti or the pro away desensitizes the whole drama. It just doesn't seem to be so important or compulsive any more.
- Status