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

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

http://m.npr.org/story/155782697?url=/2012/06/26/155782697/future-murky-for-arizonas-immigration-law

As Arizona officials prepare to apply the one provision of the state's immigration law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, some local authorities doubt they can properly enforce it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rizona-immigration-law-upholds-key-provision/

Brewer also cautioned her state's police officers against taking the policy too far, saying: "Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual's civil rights."


The federal government had claimed the law encroached on its authority to enforce immigration law. 

GOOD NEWS OR BAD?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down key parts of an Arizona law that sought to deter illegal immigration, but let stand a controversial provision allowing police to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

In a decision sure to ripple across the political landscape in a presidential election year, the court's 5-3 ruling upheld the authority of the federal government to set immigration policy and laws.

"The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law."

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-25/...ion-status-arizona-association?_s=PM:POLITICS

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Dup

 

[Terril park]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Paul, professional is the whole different level, and watching it will not bring me there. I am not planning to become professional in that area, and for those interviews the quality of the videos I make are acceptable, as you can hear and understand one who talks.

I think Pauls advice of a lapel worn mike is good. The videos from
Idaho? FZ conference nosted by Mary Freeman are almost unlistenable because of the very reverberent hall.

 

[Ted]

Re: Ken Ogger, The Pilot speaks from the dead

[Note by RelayerAnt: What we are sending out is only excerpts and you can see the full Pilot's Posts at http://www.freezoneearth.org/pilot/posts/eframeset.htm]



Pilot'sPosts Z10

Clear and the Time Track

(From Post 58 – June 1999)


After all this time, I've finally realized a key fact about the state of Clear and the way R3R runs after clear.

After clear the pc's time track does not move at the auditor's command.

A clear will continue to mockup his own solid time track until he hits the clear-OT state. But it will only move under the control of the pc, not the auditor.

According to the R3R bulletins, the time track moves under the auditor's control. Based on the small amount of Dianetics I had before clear and based on running many hours of Dianetics on people who were not clear, this seems to be correct. The track moves when the auditor tells it to (assuming he is in control of the session and has decent TRs).

I had a great deal of Dianetics after clear. The auditor would say "move to (date)", and then, being in session and wanting to run the process and learn new things, I would obey the command and move the time track.

Notice the difference there. It is a big difference.

There is a time delay. The track moves instantly when it moves, but it doesn't move until the pc executes the auditing command.

Based on running a lot of Dianetics on others, the meter sometimes flicks when the track moves. On pcs who are not clear, you will see that flick (if it occurs) like an instant read on the move command. However, on pcs who I now think were unacknowledged Dianetic clears, that flick is latent, occurring when the pc did the command. It is not that the track takes time to move, it is that the pc takes time to decide to move it.

But there is an exception, which is entities' time tracks. These always move instantly at the command of the solo auditor. If they didn't, you would already have a blow.


[...]

The Pilot

[relayed by Ant Phillips <[email protected]> in 2012]

Thanks, Ant, for the posting.

The above is speculative at best. At worst, it is propagation of Hubbard's false information.

When I started Dianetics, I was definitely not Clear. When I completed Dianetics I definitely was Clear. Was I Clear by the Book I prophesy? No. But I did not care. I had attained much more of value to me.

At no time did the time track move on the auditor's command. I am simply not built that way. I do not like to be bypassed. My time track, my stuff--leave it alone! These things move when I say "Move."

So what is the difference between Dianetics before and after Clear? For me it was a matter of completion and interest. Feeling complete, I had no further interest in rummaging pictures. I found the plug, and I unplugged it.

Before Clear I had mental blockages that I didn't even know existed. These blockages give the impression of mental mass. During the processing, I had the perception of huge chunks of mass dissolving and blowing away. The best way I can describe the phenomena is that my head felt like an empty eggshell. In the session when I Cleared, any inkling of a time track vanished. I found a timeless space and in it was the answer to my quest.

After that, more Dianetics was no longer a process but a ritual. Running was completely unproductive.

One of the mistakes that Hubbard made was in the assumption that "there are no different cases." Following the assumption, he developed a process for everyone, then he demanded that it work.

I know of people who, during the rush to declare Dianetic Clears, attested simply because they could not see pictures. These were people who had no auditing experience or who were heavy drug cases. What a tech degrade that was, especially to those of us who actually did the work and made the grade.

There comes the question of why some Clears continue to benefit from Dianetic auditing of different sorts. I believe it goes back to workability and interest. If the process is working for a person, no need to change--in fact, it would bad form to change a process that is working.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I like the writings of Ulrich Kramer. There is an article on his Mindwalking site regarding having a person look at his incidents and review the considerations he's accumulated. Ulrich is a long time professional with more than a little experience with old time Scn.

Go down to his article if interested to where he's answering someone's query about experiencing death. He talks about the decisions and efforts weighing on a person and how these will be used to construct a future pattern for his next life. It is a PDF.

http://www.mindwalking.de/en/11_literature.htm

 

[FoTi]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This is for all you old fogies in Apollo-Land:

oldiestelevision.com

This will keep you entertained for years!!

You can scroll down the listed links, click, and watch anything. TV shows (we sure had some good ones), songs (you'll be singing along) - oh my - what a collection.

Groucho Marx on You Bet Your Life for me.

Lloyd Bridges on Sea Hunt for Carmelo.

The Adventures of Superman and Arthur Godfrey, His Way Or No Way for Facey.

A Tribute to the Roots of TV Baseball for Lakey.

The Musical Comedy Genius of Victor Borge for Mr. Baker.

Voyage To the Bottom of the Sea for all of us Co$ Watchers.

And so much more...

This doesn't seem to work for me. ???????

 

[Ted]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This doesn't seem to work for me. ???????

??????

Copy and paste.


http://www.oldiestelevision.com/

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Works for me

 

[Helena Handbasket]

Re: Ken Ogger, The Pilot speaks from the dead

So what is the difference between Dianetics before and after Clear? For me it was a matter of completion and interest.

I've always felt I didn't get enough Dianetics, even after Dianetic Clear.

Feeling complete, I had no further interest in rummaging pictures. I found the plug, and I unplugged it.

I have never been able to see pictures, before, during, or after Dianetics, and what does that have to do with it anyway?

After that, more Dianetics was no longer a process but a ritual. Running was completely unproductive.

I am currently getting sessions from Heidrun Beer (details: see http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26857-ClearBird-addresses-GPMs&p=683536#post683536 ). Some of these included Dianetics, and I am hoping for more in the future. Things like grades, objectives, and pseudo-processes like FPRD were just distractions.

Helena

 

[Ted]

Stats re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973 Thread/Excursion/Trip/WhatHaveYou

Lakey Ma Man,

Congratulations on starting something that other people have and are enjoying. I know the satisfaction that comes from doing good things that others enjoy.

However, I am betting that, like Hubbard in his management style, you have not a clue as to exactly why the stats are up and soaring. In Hubbard's case, I suspect he thought it was all about Him and His Greatness. In your case, I don't see that. But you have, at times, tread close enough to that slippery slope of self-importance.

So I will tell you why I have continued to post here:

In the beginning the thread topic was a bit interesting--"The Apollo, humm... ." Although I was new to ESMB, I recognized a couple of old friends here so I read on. Then having posted a few topics, you paid some splendid acknowledgments, and I was recognized! "Okay! I exist here, now!"

The more you acknowledged, the more I enjoyed posting. I figure, why post anything if I can't be of any help? It seems I was helping now and then.

It was you, Lakey, that drove me on. What turns it on, will continue to turn it on--at least until the TA runs out of the process.

Sadly, what turns it off will continue to turn it off. I say "Sadly" because had Hubbard been able to discover real WHYs he would have found what turns people on to Scientology, and what turns them off. When it came to turning people on to the subject, it was mostly not about Him or "His" tech at all. He, or more appropriately the idea of Him, was just a bit of glue holding everyone together. At least that is what is true for me. I cannot presume to speak for anyone else.

But, ignoring his '50s pronouncement to focus on Scientology not its personalities or organizations, Hubbard eventually made "it" about Him. Even if it is proven that Hubbard was, beyond any doubt, a total, criminal wacko, had he kept Himself out of the daily administration and machinations of organization, and just appeared as "Founder" and tech master, I suspect that Scientology would have faired far better than it has.

Lakey, when you made the thread about you, your worry over attraction to women, your weight, your gray hair, whatever, I don't remember, I began losing interest. When you mis-duplicated more than one poster, going off on a tangent that had nothing to do with the posters original intent, well, that's a turn-off.

There it is, Lakey. If you would listen to any of my suggestions, I would advise strengthening your TR-2, muzzled. I am going to power-up my clairvoyance and, looking onto the future, say that this one thing could bring you much prosperity. You are capable of being a very likable guy.

Of course, if you feel a disagreement popping up, just blow the whole thing off. It's just me rambling on an internet post. It could be not at all important.

 

[Smilla]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I must be a really bad producer, as a background noise of the wind blowing or the leaves rustle, or even airplane rumble do not distract me, but add nicely into the unique picture of the moment. I can hear Candy all the way ok, I thought that's the only requirement.

I even find that noises somewhat spooky sometimes. For example, in the interview with Ken Urq. about LRH at night, there was horrible background noise of the party going on upstairs. And also there was a creature hiding in the bushes, that was interrupting Ken when he was trying to say something particular. Ken would get quiet and the creature in the bushes would go quiet. Ken then started talking, and the creature started making his laud noise. I thought it was fun, and only gave the interview a special flavor.

Like one that happened while Ken was talking about LRH on the 2011 convention, and LRH jumped loudly of the wall! That was quite a destructive background noise and motion. The speech was interrupted for a while by discussion if we should hang the LRH back on the wall or leave him on the floor. I wish I did not stop my camera and recorded that background incident.

It is a axiomatic in the video industry, that the more extraneous noise in a video the better it is. Please Svetka, do not slow your ambulance because of these yapping dogs.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Paul, professional is the whole different level, and watching it will not bring me there. I am not planning to become professional in that area, and for those interviews the quality of the videos I make are acceptable, as you can hear and understand one who talks.

<sigh>

Well, I tried.

Paul

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

http://m.npr.org/story/155782697?url=/2012/06/26/155782697/future-murky-for-arizonas-immigration-law



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rizona-immigration-law-upholds-key-provision/

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-25/...ion-status-arizona-association?_s=PM:POLITICS

GOOD NEWS OR BAD?

I've been following this particular situation closely as well as all the many similar situations which are taking place.

GOOD NEWS OR BAD? - If you hold that the U.S. Constitution should be upheld and the U.S.A. should continue as as a Superpower economically and militarily then the news is BAD. If you believe otherwise, then the news is GOOD!

Here is what is happening in a nutshell:
#1.The U.S. Constitution assigns the duty of enforcing U.S. borders to the Federal Government, not individual State Governments.

#2. The Federal Government, both Democrat and Republican, is reluctant to fully enforce the borders for the political reason of fearing that they will alienate a the large and growing Latin/Hispanic bloc of voters. If the Hispanic bloc votes 90% Democrat as the Black voter bloc does, Republicans will never hold national office. If the Republicans can achieve 40% - 50% of the Hispanic vote, the Democrats will have trouble being elected.

There are also some other important economic considerations having to do with the pros and cons of using undocumented workers which I won't get into.

#3. The Obama administration is more committed to protecting illegal immigration than any Republican administration could ever be. Being a Progressive, Obama is more interested in "doing what is right" as he puts it, rather than complying with the laws set forth by the U.S. Constitution.

Just my opinion but I feel he has chosen to make his stand here, a stand against the U.S. Constitution, the powers of the U.S. Congress and the rights of various states to have their borders protected. He believes that the principles he beleives in are more important than the "rule of law" based on the U.S. Constitution. He is willing to fight the individual states, the Congress, the Supreme Court, etc.

ONE LAST POINT: All the other countries of the world enforce their borders and no one gives a damn. Basically, people from other countries do not try and sneak in in huge numbers and no one objects to those countries enforcing their borders.

In stark contrast to this is the United States. Here, if you want to enforce the national borders, most of those with a Progressive leaning will call you a "racist". This line of reasoning is absurd but believe it or not, Progressives in the U.S. are beating the drum for this insanity and are making headway with the public, in getting them accept this lie. Similar to what Candy posted yesterday, citing Joseph Goebbels, "If a lie is repeated often enough, it comes to be accepted as the truth.
Lakey

 

[Veda]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Like one that happened while Ken was talking about LRH on the 2011 convention, and LRH jumped loudly of the wall!

-snip-

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "LRH jumped loudly off the wall"?

 

[Antony A Phillips]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Soliloquy​

.
...

After I wrote this, I thought some more on it. Particularly remembering some experiences I have had.

A few times I have been the opening speaker at a small (Ex-)Scientology conference. There were I suppose 15 to 20 present, mostly people did not know each other. So I tried to have an introductory round with name, country they came from, and a brief idea of their contact with Scientology. But it was rarely brief. It tended to be a long description of how they "came out" of Scientology "Church". It was difficult to curb this, so the rest of the conference could get under way.

Similarly, meeting people who have been in the "Church", I seem often to be met with long explanations of how they came out. One gets the suspicion that they have not got over it yet!

I do not know how widespread it is that people who have been in Scientology ("Church") still have their attention heavily on how they left it. I also wondered whether people who had not been in the "Church" but knew some who had, have their attention on how some one individual was mistreated in the "Church".

We are getting a bit into generalities here, but I am wondering whether many now outside the "Church" have their attention some what fixated on a single incident of injustice (or a limited number of instances). In that state they do not see the "Church" as a whole. They do not see the magnitude and complexity of its evil, having their attention just on one instance. Also, if their attention is fixated in that direction, they might have difficulty sorting out the positive things in Scientology.

I am still sort of hung up on that puzzle.

All best wishes, Ant(ony)

 

[lkwdblds]

A Child's Game which Develops OT Abilities?

I was at a lecture yesterday where the lecturer brought a game to display. The game is called "Brainflex", built by Mattel.

The game has a futuristic case with a motor inside. The motor creates a stream of air of varying intensity. On top of the counsel is a hole where the air comes out. A ball which looks like a blue ping-pong ball but is about 1/2 the size is placed over the airhole.

A player clips on an electrode, sticking one end above his left eye brow while clipping the other end on his ear. The player then turns on the machine causing the air compressor to start sending out a stream of air. The stream of air underneath it causes the ball to rise.

The player then is supposed to intend for the ball to rise. If this is achieved, then after a while the player intends for the ball to fall or just relaxes in which case the ball will fall.

Several people were trying it out. I gave it a try. As soon as I intended the ball to arise, sure enough it rose several inches up into the air. I held it there for about 20 seconds and them someone suggested I intended the ball to fall back onto the tee. Sure enough, that worked too.

IT WAS REALLY FREAKY, IT SIMULATED THE OT ABILITY OF LEVITATING MATTER WHICH WE ALL WANTED AND, as far as I know, NO ONE HAS YET ACHIEVED!

It is very empowering to intend the ball to rise and watch it rise immediately. It produced a huge surge of elation in me. You feel, "Wow, I really have OT Powers just like Hubbard said."

There are some games where 2 players play and have counter intentions. There are also some knobs on the counsel which the players twist during the game.

The game lists for a hefty $100 but the guy who owned it recently picked it up at Wal Mart for $20 because it was on a table out in the front which contained items the store was not going to restock. I check on line and the best price for a new one seems to be $58.

One critic stated that the motor was pre-programmed to increase and decrease the flow of air but that critic never bought the machine or even tired it out. He just asserted his theory.

Here is a link with some info:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8STHiP7HZY

Lakey

 

[Smilla]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

After I wrote this, I thought some more on it. Particularly remembering some experiences I have had.

A few times I have been the opening speaker at a small (Ex-)Scientology conference. There were I suppose 15 to 20 present, mostly people did not know each other. So I tried to have an introductory round with name, country they came from, and a brief idea of their contact with Scientology. But it was rarely brief. It tended to be a long description of how they "came out" of Scientology "Church". It was difficult to curb this, so the rest of the conference could get under way.

Similarly, meeting people who have been in the "Church", I seem often to be met with long explanations of how they came out. One gets the suspicion that they have not got over it yet!

I do not know how widespread it is that people who have been in Scientology ("Church") still have their attention heavily on how they left it. I also wondered whether people who had not been in the "Church" but knew some who had, have their attention on how some one individual was mistreated in the "Church".

We are getting a bit into generalities here, but I am wondering whether many now outside the "Church" have their attention some what fixated on a single incident of injustice (or a limited number of instances). In that state they do not see the "Church" as a whole. They do not see the magnitude and complexity of its evil, having their attention just on one instance. Also, if their attention is fixated in that direction, they might have difficulty sorting out the positive things in Scientology.

I am still sort of hung up on that puzzle.

All best wishes, Ant(ony)

This may help clarify matters, and save you some time:

One is inside
then outside what one has been inside
One feels empty
because there is nothing inside oneself
One tries to get inside oneself
that inside of the outside
that one was once inside
once one tries to get oneself inside what
one is outside:
to eat and to be eaten
to have the outside inside and to be
inside the outside

But this is not enough. One is trying to get
the inside of what one is outside inside, and to
get inside the outside. But one does not get
inside the outside by getting the outside inside
for;
although one is full inside of the inside of the outside
one is on the outside of one’s own inside
and by getting inside the outside
one remains empty because
while one is on the inside
even the inside of the outside is outside
and inside oneself there is still nothing
There has never been anything else
and there never will be

- RD Laing, Knots.

 

[Ted]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

After I wrote this, I thought some more on it. Particularly remembering some experiences I have had.

A few times I have been the opening speaker at a small (Ex-)Scientology conference. There were I suppose 15 to 20 present, mostly people did not know each other. So I tried to have an introductory round with name, country they came from, and a brief idea of their contact with Scientology. But it was rarely brief. It tended to be a long description of how they "came out" of Scientology "Church". It was difficult to curb this, so the rest of the conference could get under way.

Similarly, meeting people who have been in the "Church", I seem often to be met with long explanations of how they came out. One gets the suspicion that they have not got over it yet!

I do not know how widespread it is that people who have been in Scientology ("Church") still have their attention heavily on how they left it. I also wondered whether people who had not been in the "Church" but knew some who had, have their attention on how some one individual was mistreated in the "Church".

We are getting a bit into generalities here, but I am wondering whether many now outside the "Church" have their attention some what fixated on a single incident of injustice (or a limited number of instances). In that state they do not see the "Church" as a whole. They do not see the magnitude and complexity of its evil, having their attention just on one instance. Also, if their attention is fixated in that direction, they might have difficulty sorting out the positive things in Scientology.

I am still sort of hung up on that puzzle.

All best wishes, Ant(ony)

Whatever happened to a person, or whatever they caused to happen, is late on the chain of personal events. (One useful reference is the definition of Action Cycle. It starts at Tone 40 and ends at 0.0, Death.) The beginnings are the agreements each individual had with the stated aims of the subject. My guess is that had these aims been achieved, no matter the person's objectionable experience, there would be nothing left to discuss. We would be celebrating over pizza and beer, or for the more elite, champagne and caviar.

"A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology." What sociopath among us wouldn't want that? :confused2:

Many of us have had that desire long before we ever heard of Scientology. The pissed-off-ed-ness comes about because we were conned out of our time, money, efforts, and good will, and we did not realize the goal in whole or in parts adequate to give enough satisfaction to keep us going. In fact, within the walls of Scientology's organizations, where success should be most likely, that goal has not been achieved. And someone wants us to believe it is going to be achieved planet-wide?

 

[Ted]

Saying "Adios"

I have attempted to leave more than once.

Now this is it. I must move on.

It's been fun.

I will read along from time to time, but I have nothing further to say.

Adios for now.

 

[FoTi]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

??????

Copy and paste.


http://www.oldiestelevision.com/

The link works.....that's not the problem. When I get there I get all the text and other stuff, but no matter which program I choose to see, I get only text and no videos. It says if the video doesn't show up, refresh the page....I tried that....still nothing. ??????