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

[afaceinthecrowd]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I did a tour of the Bolivar one time - I think she was a mine sweeper. I was told she could stop in her own length from full throttle. A guy (Mike? rather overweight) told me he was sitting on the stern of the ship while it was zipping along feet dangling above the water. He said the captain (Sabrisky?) hated him, so he dumped the ship in full reverse to bring it to a full stop. The stern dug down into the water and Mike hastily grabbed on to the stanchions, as his body extended fully behind him, the sea water rushing onto the stern, nearly washing him off the ship.

Mimsey

The Bolivar was not a mine sweeper. I you spend a little time with Google I am confident you will find pictures of US Navy Sub Chasers that looked just like the Bolivar pic above...with the exception of all the armament and equipment on deck.

Also, no ship ever built could stop in it's own length from full throttle, nowhere close (I assume by "full throttle" you mean flank speed).

If the fellow was dangling his feet off the stern deck, they were at least 4 feet off the water. Alex Sibersky certainly had a rep as being capable of and culpable for aggressive and outrageous behavior but a maneuver like you describe not only risks casting that fellow into the screws, it also risks injury to other crew and damage within the vessel. He was certainly not the only person out on deck at that time that was in peril of being washed overboard and the G force would have splattered folks below decks all over the bulk heads. Any one on or near a gangway would have been sausage.

I knew Alex...If he hated you he figured out a way to get you real good without risking injury to other crew or damage to his ship.

I think someone was spinnin' you a yarn.

Face

 

[cakemaker]

Re: A Little Housekeeping Chore

I had always figured that the Bolivar was renamed by the Sea Org in the manner that the Royal Scotsman was renamed the Apollo. After all, Hubbard talked several times about Simon Bolivar and wrote up a major PL about him, "The Responsibility of Leaders", I think it was called but not sure. Hubbard even strongly recommended a book about Bolivar's consort, "The 4 Seasons of Manuela".

It comes as a surprise that the U.S. chose that name for the Ship. Isn't it rare for the U.S. Navy to name ships after a foreign dignitary?
Lakey

In this link, it gives you the basic history of the Bolivar. It was originally called PC-1230. After the Sea Org sold it, it was renamed to the M/V Grinnell.
More pictures there when it was a fighting ship.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/12/011230.htm

Here's a picture in drydock:

 

[elwood]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

USS Bolivar (APA-34) was a Bayfield-class attack transport in the United States Navy during World War II. She was named for Bolivar County, Mississippi.
-Wikipedia

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Re: A Little Housekeeping Chore

In this link, it gives you the basic history of the Bolivar. It was originally called PC-1230. After the Sea Org sold it, it was renamed to the M/V Grinnell.
More pictures there when it was a fighting ship.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/12/011230.htm

Here's a picture in drydock:

you are simply amazing!

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I agree with your conclusion, Toady, but I'm not so sure about the rusting away, at least while the S.O. ran the ships. When staff were busted or sent down for rehab, one of our major duties was always to chip away rust from the ship and then apply a rust proof coating. I'm not sure but I seem to recall this as being called "pinholing".

" Pinholing
In decorating, pinholing is a defect in a painted or varnished surface characterised by minute craters or 'pin holes' in the film which are slightly rough to the touch and allow the passage of moisture. Pinholing may be caused by incorrect application or shaking of the varnish resulting in tiny air ..."
Found on http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/brow

I looked it up and it looks like the little rust areas themselves are referred to as pinholing but the S.O. members used the word to mean the task of repairing the pinholing.

You'e probably right that the ships rusted out after the S.O. decided they were too expensive to maintain.
Lakey

Your post makes my point : The SO was staffed mainly ( I did NOT say EXCLUSIVELY ! ) by INEPT people - your example of the utter hilarity of having a bass ackwards misunderstanding of pinholing.

It doesn't not matter how deligently or dedicatedly work is done when it done wrong it is wrong, period.

There were afew people who knew what they were doing but they were not the grunts sent on board the ship to "train".

I would guess only in a faux navy can one become an " able bodied seaman " on a ship tied to the dock that the outfit that owns it hasn't the budget to take it to sea.

If my memory serves me right the Bolivar ( not named after Simon - LOL ! ) did make at least one harbor excursion of the Long Beach area and a trip to San Francisco.

Oh, should anyone know if the " commodore " ever set foot aboard the Bolivar please post details. ( Every time I have ever seen " commodore " I have always done a mental translation to a commode ( shitter ) and gotten an image of one...even back in the day - LOL ! )

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Also, no ship ever built could stop in it's own length from full throttle, nowhere close (I assume by "full throttle" you mean flank speed). ...

Well, they aren't ships, but the u.s. navy developed a river patrol craft circa viet nam which used water jet propulsion and which could stop in it's own length from full speed due to the use of thrust reversers. I saw a demonstration in the mid-70s. Very cool little boats with awesome maneuvering capabilities.

Your comment about ships though is accurate. The mass/power/control surface ratios are such as to reduce maneuverability for larger vessels.


Mark A. Baker

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Your post makes my point : The SO was staffed mainly ( I did NOT say EXCLUSIVELY ! ) by INEPT people - your example of the utter hilarity of having a bass ackwards misunderstanding of pinholing.

It doesn't not matter how deligently or dedicatedly work is done when it done wrong it is wrong, period.

There were afew people who knew what they were doing but they were not the grunts sent on board the ship to "train".

I would guess only in a faux navy can one become an " able bodied seaman " on a ship tied to the dock that the outfit that owns it hasn't the budget to take it to sea.

If my memory serves me right the Bolivar ( not named after Simon - LOL ! ) did make at least one harbor excursion of the Long Beach area and a trip to San Francisco.

If you've read this thread, Carmelo and Hat's both mentioned the cruise the Bolivar took to San Francisco. I was on an excursion the Excalibut took around Long Beach Harborin late 1971, I don't know if the Bolivar took one but I doubt it.

Oh, should anyone know if the " commodore " ever set foot aboard the Bolivar please post details. ( Every time I have ever seen " commodore " I have always done a mental translation to a commode ( shitter ) and gotten an image of one...even back in the day - LOL ! )

Geez Toady, my post was in agreement with yours! I had no argument with what you were saying! I just pointed out that S.O. labor was used frequently to remove rust spots. I served one 2 week period working on the Bolivar and Excalibur, both docked at the same location, and never returned so I can't attest to the quality of the rust removal or whether it held up over time. Ditto for the Apollo.

The question you asked a couple posts back about whatever happened to the Bolivar was answered in Cakemaker's post above. If you click on the link there, it reveals that Hubbard sold the ship to another owner and the ship was renamed the Grinnel. The article shows a picture of the Grinnel and it looks like its in pretty decent shape. Check out the picture below:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/12/1201123005.jpg
Lakey

 

[Leon]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I did a tour of the Bolivar one time - I think she was a mine sweeper. I was told she could stop in her own length from full throttle. A guy (Mike? rather overweight) told me he was sitting on the stern of the ship while it was zipping along feet dangling above the water. He said the captain (Sabrisky?) hated him, so he dumped the ship in full reverse to bring it to a full stop. The stern dug down into the water and Mike hastily grabbed on to the stanchions, as his body extended fully behind him, the sea water rushing onto the stern, nearly washing him off the ship.

Mimsey

I doubt this very much.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I disagree. Basic arithmetic is pretty simple but advanced mathematics can get extremely complex. ...

You would.

Mathematical principles are simple. Complexity appears to arise from the ways in which these simple principles may interrelate. Focus on the complexity and a person is easily overwhelmed. Learn to see the simplicity and things become clear.

Relatively few people are comfortable with thinking simply enough and clearly enough as to comprehend mathematics easily. Complex assumptions & relationships are the 'norm' for most human activities. The tendency thus becomes looking for complex explanations rather than simply abstracting out the simplicities. Often imaginary data is assumed or supplied to "explain" that for which the underlying simplicity has been overlooked.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Ted]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

You would.

Mathematical principles are simple. Complexity appears to arise from the ways in which these simple principles may interrelate. Focus on the complexity and a person is easily overwhelmed. Learn to see the simplicity and things become clear.

Relatively few people are comfortable with thinking simply enough and clearly enough as to comprehend mathematics easily. Complex assumptions & relationships are the 'norm' for most human activities. The tendency thus becomes looking for complex explanations rather than simply abstracting out the simplicities. Often imaginary data is assumed or supplied to "explain" that for which the underlying simplicity has been overlooked.


Mark A. Baker

Thus the birth of the conspiracy theory.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

You would.

Mathematical principles are simple. Complexity appears to arise from the ways in which these simple principles may interrelate. Focus on the complexity and a person is easily overwhelmed. Learn to see the simplicity and things become clear.

Relatively few people are comfortable with thinking simply enough and clearly enough as to comprehend mathematics easily. Complex assumptions & relationships are the 'norm' for most human activities. The tendency thus becomes looking for complex explanations rather than simply abstracting out the simplicities. Often imaginary data is assumed or supplied to "explain" that for which the underlying simplicity has been overlooked.


Mark A. Baker

I have one specific disagreement with your post, otherwise it's fine.

Where you say "learn to see the simplicity and things become clear" I believe that is too general. A lot of times that will be the case but sometimes it doesn't hold up.

Take an actual example such as my debate with TAJ and S of T. One sees a complex system of parts dovetailing and working together as is seen in nature. The simplicity seems to be to recognize that the system has a design and if something appears to be designed then the simplicity suggests that their is a designer.

If that concept is rejected, then the simplicity suggests that the system occurred because of random interactions. Mathematically, there is a possibility that this is the case, though it's probability is extremely small, it is finite.

If random chance is rejected, the option is to proceed to the next step which you state above; The tendency thus becomes looking for complex explanations rather than simply abstracting out the simplicities. Often imaginary data is assumed or supplied to "explain" that for which the underlying simplicity has been overlooked.

I believe that TAJ and S of T are engaging in this activity. You agree with them and call me ignorant but all I am doing is following your recommendation of trying to abstract out the simpicities.

I'm just stating an opinion and may well be wrong but my question to you is, why would a person doing what you yourself suggest is a correct approach to analyzing a complex problem be called ignorant.?
Lakey

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Re: A Little Housekeeping Chore

you are simply amazing!

Cakemaker is A-M-A-Z-I-N-G!!!

GREAT STUFF!!!

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thus the birth of the conspiracy theory.

Just curious Ted, do you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK on his own without being part of a bigger plan. I'm not a conspiracy theory buff but the JFK assassination is one instance where I believe there was a huge cover up to prevent the truth from reaching the public. There are too many inconsistencies with the official version to render it believable.
Lakey

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

USS Bolivar (APA-34) was a Bayfield-class attack transport in the United States Navy during World War II. She was named for Bolivar County, Mississippi.
-Wikipedia

Helluva find, Elwood!!!

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Your post makes my point : The SO was staffed mainly ( I did NOT say EXCLUSIVELY ! ) by INEPT people - your example of the utter hilarity of having a bass ackwards misunderstanding of pinholing.

It doesn't not matter how deligently or dedicatedly work is done when it done wrong it is wrong, period.

There were afew people who knew what they were doing but they were not the grunts sent on board the ship to "train".

I would guess only in a faux navy can one become an " able bodied seaman " on a ship tied to the dock that the outfit that owns it hasn't the budget to take it to sea.

If my memory serves me right the Bolivar ( not named after Simon - LOL ! ) did make at least one harbor excursion of the Long Beach area and a trip to San Francisco.

Oh, should anyone know if the " commodore " ever set foot aboard the Bolivar please post details. ( Every time I have ever seen " commodore " I have always done a mental translation to a commode ( shitter ) and gotten an image of one...even back in the day - LOL ! )

Nope...The CommodeDoor never set foot on the Bolivar.

Face

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Nope...The CommodeDoor never set foot on the Bolivar.

Face

Back in the days of FCDC, when LRH ran the place, Bob Harvey was down in the basement in the mail room. He did have a framed portrait of LRH hanging there. It (the frame) was a toilet seat with the words, "Our Flounder" written on it.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Back in the days of FCDC, when LRH ran the place, Bob Harvey was down in the basement in the mail room. He did have a framed portrait of LRH hanging there. It (the frame) was a toilet seat with the words, "Our Flounder" written on it.

Ya know, Carmelo, having stood looking at and listening to El Ron, face to Face, with Hisself's hands on my shoulders, I sure enough Grok that.

Face

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

... I'm just stating an opinion and may well be wrong but my question to you is, why would a person doing what you yourself suggest is a correct approach to analyzing a complex problem be called ignorant.?
Lakey

Generally I don't bother responding to your posts directly much anymore, Lakey. Not much point. However, since you feelingly have asked in a direct fashion a legitimate question concerning the nature of reasonable discussion I will respond.

The fact is your characterization of your 'reasoning' process is inaccurate. In your posts, you routinely show very little propensity for abstract thinking or the ability to reason with available data. Those are processes which involve stripping concepts down to the minimum and deducing the relationships implied therein. This is very much in the spirit of Einstein's famous quip concerning physics.

Moreover, contrary to your own belief TAJ & SoT, with both of whom I frequently disagree, nonetheless routinely do a pretty d@mn good job on focusing on the essential points of an argument and not wandering around in irrelevancies. That is certainly true as regards the sort of casual discussion characteristic of online discussion boards such as this. In general they are both very conscientious and fairly conservative regarding the conclusions they draw in a line of argument.

You, on the otherhand, leap joyfully across an abyss of unreason & assumptions in order to land upon a favored outcropping, i.e. a pre-determined & favored conclusion. Not not only do you too often fail to grasp the basics of whatever principles are presently being discussed on the board, you frequently interject irrelevant and unrelated data which conforms to your own assumptions; and offered up by you as an 'explanation'.

This is an issue which has been drawn to your attention on numerous occasions on the board and by a variety of different correspondents. So it is not to be dismissed as something 'personal' between us. Believe me, there is nothing 'personal' between us.

Far from being insightful, analytical, or rational, such ability as you routinely appear to exhibit in communication is centered on being seen as 'chatty' and 'affable'. Sociable skills as these are often valued by some in and for themselves, but for the particular purpose of advancing insight through resort to discourse focused on reason, debate, and intelligent discussion, they have a very limited utility.


Mark A. Baker
p.s. don't expect a follow-up. I've little interest in engaging you in a discussion.

 

[Ted]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Just curious Ted, do you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK on his own without being part of a bigger plan. I'm not a conspiracy theory buff but the JFK assassination is one instance where I believe there was a huge cover up to prevent the truth from reaching the public. There are too many inconsistencies with the official version to render it believable.
Lakey

At the time, I believed that LBJ had something to do with it, directly. Now I believe that LBJ had something to do with it, not so directly. I just don't know.

I believe the Warren Commission incapable of a correct assessment.

I believe that a lone gunman could not have pulled off those shots from the Texas School Book Depository with a bolt-action rifle.

I believe that the video of the president's brains blowing out to the back of the limo indicates a shot received from the front rather than the back.

I believe that witnesses have been known die too soon because they are witnesses.

Otherwise, I have no further comment on this can of worms.

 

[RogerB]

Re: author unknown

Thanks for this informative post! Speaking of love, I've seen it written on ESMB several times that Hubbard had virtually nothing to say about love. He defined it as "admiration and respect" and then said no more about it, as far as I know.

This omission might have something to do with restricting the growth of C of S worldwide. A religion charging high prices and not regarding "love" as essential is a tough sell as far as bringing people in in droves. Everything else about the church would have to be nearly perfect to overcome these two obstacles and of course that is not the case.

In DM's "church" I would go so far as to say that not only is love not encouraged but it is not even tolerated. DM seems to look at it as human emotion and reaction (HE&R) and a sign of weakness.

Mac Master's primary motivation seemed to be LOVE and LRH barely acknowledged the existence of LOVE. It's not surprising that LRH got rid of MaccMaster just based on that one consideration alone.

Rog, do you see any merit in my remarks or do you think I am oversimplifying or what?
Lakey

Nah,

Hubbard wrote on the importance of Love, and I recall he even spoke of himself as a "symbol" of love in the vein of the earlier great philosophers a la the Buddha . . . I'm just too lazy to dig up the references.

You'll note he always signed his stuff: "Love, Ron."

Now I barf at that!

The trouble is that he was phony: a liar. And his version of love was an inversion and a negative expression of the real deal.

He used "love" negatively, manipulatively and destructively.

And we all aught know the dichotomy of love is hatred. One of the books you read some of Hubbard's writings on love is in 8-8008.

And because of that, he most certainly would have acted destructively toward anyone who expressed true love for his fellows. And it didn't help, in the case of John Mac, that John was gay.

R