Hubbard's a fraud - yeah right.

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
What beats the crap out of me is when guys see some of what he did and lambaste him for it and decry the "con" of it all - like the talking to plants stuff he did at St Hill, hooking tomato plants up to an e-meter and seeing their responses to verbal statements, Life magazine panned the guy for it. So did many other people and writers. But then during the early 70's some other guys came up with the same stuff and now suddenly Oh Wow, what a breakthrough in science, wow.

Listen to this interview which George Noori has with a guy on Coast to Coast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h_EMRBS8E_U

I mean that's just plain old Dianetics packaged up in a different form. And he asserts the reality of the past lives because - get this - fantasy would never result in conditions disappearing from the guys case. Only reality would bring that about.

I haven't yet heard all of it but Christ, I have heard plenty.
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Can't say that I'm impressed by the interview. They're picking odd little bits out of the book and finding fault with them. How easy is that to do with any book on the market?

Have you listened to the CtoC interview?
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
I agree Leon, but tbh I think everyone here's already made up their mind as to what they think of Ron Hubbard and the Tech. I'd say just handle it in your own universe and don't worry about anyone else (yes, I know I'm bad at taking my own advice at times, but still...)
 

Veda

Sponsor
What beats the crap out of me is when guys see some of what he did and lambaste him for it and decry the "con" of it all -

Leon, you love to attribute the word "all" to Hubbard's or Scientology's critics.

That allows you to find one thing that demonstrates that there is an exception to the assertion of "all."

Speaking only for myself, I've never asserted that "all" of Hubbard's verbal outpourings are a con or false. On the contrary, I've emphasized that there are occasional truths amongst the tricks and tall tales.

It's the occasional truth that is essential to the mind-trap.

It also allows chaps such as yourself to locate an occasional truth and go, "See?! See?! See?! Uh huh!!!"

You trip yourself up because you get carried away, in your adolescent enthusiasm.

like the talking to plants stuff he did at St Hill, hooking tomato plants up to an e-meter and seeing their responses to verbal statements, Life magazine panned the guy for it. So did many other people and writers. But then during the early 70's some other guys came up with the same stuff and now suddenly Oh Wow, what a breakthrough in science, wow.

It's true that, in the early 1960s, Hubbard hooked up an e-meter to a tomato plant. We've all seen the photos of "scientist" and "horticulturalist" Hubbard, that Dr. Hubbard, DD, Ph.D, and nuclear physicist had taken.

Please provide a link to his research in that area. It must have been extensive, and certainly would be well documented.

Where is it?

The others, who did actual extensive research, can show that research.

Show us Hubbard's, please.

Listen to this interview which George Noori has with a guy on Coast to Coast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h_EMRBS8E_U

I mean that's just plain old Dianetics packaged up in a different form. And he asserts the reality of the past lives because - get this - fantasy would never result in conditions disappearing from the guys case. Only reality would bring that about.

I haven't yet heard all of it but Christ, I have heard plenty.

Well, I guess you believe in those wacky implant descriptions in OT 2, and in OT 3's Incident 1 and Incident 2 after all. Mmmm.... Thanks for finally fessing up.

The idea of past lives did not begin with Hubbard, Dianetics or Scientology, but Hubbard certainly exploited it to establish his cult, convince good people to become destructive fanatics, justify his having 12 year old girls for his personal servants/slaves, and "assert and maintain dominion over thoughts and loyalties," and makes lots of money.

Scientology would be a very different subject, today, if Hubbard had been an honest man - he wasn't an honest man.

Deal with it.

l-ron-hubbard2.jpg
 

Teanntás

Silver Meritorious Patron
What beats the crap out of me is when guys see some of what he did and lambaste him for it and decry the "con" of it all - like the talking to plants stuff he did at St Hill, hooking tomato plants up to an e-meter and seeing their responses to verbal statements, Life magazine panned the guy for it. So did many other people and writers. But then during the early 70's some other guys came up with the same stuff and now suddenly Oh Wow, what a breakthrough in science, wow.

Listen to this interview which George Noori has with a guy on Coast to Coast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h_EMRBS8E_U

I mean that's just plain old Dianetics packaged up in a different form. And he asserts the reality of the past lives because - get this - fantasy would never result in conditions disappearing from the guys case. Only reality would bring that about.

I haven't yet heard all of it but Christ, I have heard plenty.

I think it's likely that Hubbard was acquainted with Gustav Fechner. "Fechner, along with Wilhelm Wundt and Hermann von Helmholtz, is recognized as one of the founders of modern experimental psychology. His clearest contribution was the demonstration that because the mind was susceptible to measurement and mathematical treatment, psychology had the potential to become a quantified science. Theorists such as Immanuel Kant had long stated that this was impossible, and that therefore, a science of psychology was also impossible."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Theodor_Fechner


In 1848 Fechner published a book called " Nanna oder über das Seelenleben der Pflanzen (1848) (Soul life of plants)

"Within the year 1848 Fechner also presented a book called Nanna—or On the
Soul Life of Plants. The direct occasion had been a mystic experience he had had
in October 1843 ,towards the end of his crisis. For the first time in a long while
he was able to take a walk through the garden without covering his eyes and he
literally soaked-in the beauty of the flowers.¹⁶¹ He saw everything in exaggerated clarity and believed to perceive that the plants’ souls were “glowing.”

In Nanna Fechner tries to prove that plants have souls, using scientifically
sober, albeit sometimes long-winded explanations. He meant that plants also
have their own psychic side, which only they and no one else can apprehend. He
rarely concentrates on positive reasons supporting the theory of plant animation,
but instead tries to refute the opposing skeptical arguments. The main arguments
included the following: Plants have no nerves, they possess no central organ, they
are incapable of voluntary movement, they serve no purpose of their own, one
cannot imagine the life of their souls."

http://www.upress.pitt.edu/htmlsourcefiles/pdfs/9780822942108exr.pdf

It wouldn't be surprising if some of Hubbard's inspiration came from Fechner
 

Teanntás

Silver Meritorious Patron
I have been listening to the audible sounds that plants on my porch make and I wondered about the other (to me) inaudible sounds they make, so I did a bit of googling. It's no stretch to imagine that they might not be too happy if eg they were blasted with heavy metal vibrations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZGzZ3keyUE
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
'

Here's L Ron Hubbard admitting that Dianetics does not create a Clear. He describes this fact as an "oversight", in wog world its actually called "fraud".

[video=youtube_share;oNtaxR6wEyc]http://youtu.be/oNtaxR6wEyc[/video]

And the reason why Dianetics - nor any form of Scientology processing - cannot create a Clear is because there is no such thing as Engrams. Because there is no such thing as Engrams, there is no such thing as a Reactive Mind, and with no Reactive Mind, there can be no such thing as a Clear. In short, L Ron Hubbard lied before he started Dianetics, lied in the writing of Dianetics, lied when he started Scientology, and carried on lying afterwards. He never stopped lying. That's the work of a con-man. Admittedly, he did a very good job at it. In fact, L Ron Hubbard is due his place in the annals of history as probably the most successful criminal of the 20th century.
 

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
For fuck's sake. Here is Hubbard telling people "oops, it doesn't work and i feel a little guilty (giggle giggle)" yet the bloody church continues to sell the book as a way to clear people.

It IS flat out fraud.:angry:

Thanks for posting the video. I hadn't taken the time to watch it before.
 

RolandRB

Rest in Peace
Dianetics gets unceremoniously dumped once you get into the "church" and they think they have you. Sure, Dianetics auditing does not produce Clears. Hubbard knew that but continued to pretend it did to get people hooked and then do the "switch" part of the "bait-and-switch fraud" and sell them Scientology auditing at 20x the price. So this "Modern Science of Mental Health" with its "engrams" and axioms to prove it is scientific is conveniently forgotten about because there is a more profitable scam there. Hubbard was a fraud. Dianetics is a fraud. Scientology is a fraud.
 
Last edited:

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
I mean that's just plain old Dianetics packaged up in a different form. And he asserts the reality of the past lives because - get this - fantasy would never result in conditions disappearing from the guys case. Only reality would bring that about.

So what is the truth here?

This guy's remarks above that it has to be reality and not fantasy that gets the results?

Or Hubbards statements in DMSMH Book 3 chapter 9 part 2 that imaginary incidents can produce results?

Rd00
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
What beats the crap out of me is when guys see some of what he did and lambaste him for it and decry the "con" of it all <snip>
I think you're on to something! - It's like this: If it's said by anyone but Hubbard it's sort of ok and we're all kind'a tolerant about it. But if it's Hubbard saying anything, we fly into a flaming rage and yell fraud, and we drench that basterd in showers of un-admiration... That's just the way it is..

For some reason I'm (half) inspired to do a painting of Hubbard. Buried with his legs sticking out of the ground and his feet on fire... Hmm... Simoniacs in the 8'th malebolge.. This 'mental image actually causes 'charge' to blow from my case.. What was it? - Can't be fantasy then, It must be reality!?

:yes:
 

This is NOT OK !!!!

Gold Meritorious Patron
snip: What beats the crap out of me is when guys see some of what he did and lambaste him for it and decry the "con" of it all .

Not true for me - I saw and did it all - the whole enchilada!

My conclusion is that it is and was a con - a long con committed by a madman.
 
Last edited:

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Leon, you love to attribute the word "all" to Hubbard's or Scientology's critics.

That allows you to find one thing that demonstrates that there is an exception to the assertion of "all."

Speaking only for myself, I've never asserted that "all" of Hubbard's verbal outpourings are a con or false. On the contrary, I've emphasized that there are occasional truths amongst the tricks and tall tales.

It's the occasional truth that is essential to the mind-trap.

It also allows chaps such as yourself to locate an occasional truth and go, "See?! See?! See?! Uh huh!!!"

You trip yourself up because you get carried away, in your adolescent enthusiasm.


This is weak rebuttal, Veda. There are many many posts on this board from people condemning "all" of Hubbard's work as trash and a total con. And your snide little ad hom at the end is also noted.

The essence of Dianetics (and no, I do not say that Hubbard was the first to point this out nor that he didn't get it from elsewhere) is that past traumatic incidents in one's life can and often do affect us in the present, and that by going over (reliving, confronting, call it whatever) these incidents one can achieve considerable relief of the unwanted present symptoms.

That is the essence of it. All else is technique and presumed context and decoration. And it is this core to the subject which establishes the reality of the Reactive Mind and of Engrams, Secondaries and Locks - which terms are useful sub-divisions and names for observed incident-types that produce reactivity in a person. The existence of any "State of Clear" as being the result of the deletion of all such reactivity and the deletion of the entire reactive mind thereby, has always been pure conjecture by Hubbard since no such person has ever been found.

But what he did find was that many such symptoms only alleviated when the aspect of past lives was allowed and incorporated into the subject. And he also encountered exteriorization, and how it is often better to operate the body from just outside of it.

This has, at this stage, NOTHING to do with what is presented to people on CC or OT-2.

Hubbard was condemned for his assertion of what I write above. "It's all a con" is what is promoted by many here on the board.

And yet here we have a guy - a qualified psychiatrist - finds exactly what Hubbard found and promoted and no one yells Fraud and Con at him. Makes me wonder who the real frauds are around here.
 

Spirit

just another son of God
Does anyone know what year this was recorded?
'

Here's L Ron Hubbard admitting that Dianetics does not create a Clear. He describes this fact as an "oversight", in wog world its actually called "fraud".

[video=youtube_share;oNtaxR6wEyc]http://youtu.be/oNtaxR6wEyc[/video]
 

Anonycat

Crusader
This reviewer does a very extensive dissection of the fraud and questionable actions of the author - take a look, he cites many pages/quotes and points out many, many flaws:
This is one of the worst books I've ever read - parading as a scientific analysis when it is nothing of the sort.

Dr Weiss has conducted his research without scientific protocols or peer review, yet as a "scientist", Dr Weiss should have the skills and resources necessary to have conducted his "investigation" properly and scientifically. The fact that he chose not to has, I believe, discredited his book as a work of fairy tale-like fiction.

Rather than a conventional review, I will go through some of the claims made in the book, page by page, and show how it's full of nonsense.

Page 27-28 – In regressing an anonymous patient called Catherine to a “past life”, Dr Weiss claims that Catherine can “vividly” see that, “The year is 1863 BC”. Yet this date could not have existed at that time, so how could Catherine possibly have seen it? In later hypnosis sessions, Catherine was only able to reveal the date of her past life if she could “see or hear” it: so it makes a complete nonsense of history to be able to “see” a date that didn’t exist contemporaneously.

And on it goes: http://www.epinions.com/review/Many...Brian_L_Weiss_Books/content_601569529476?sb=1
 
Last edited:

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
Leon might be onto something here.

Let's extrapolate and apply this "fraud" idea to DM, however instead of fraud let's use the term "sadistic despot"

Now we can posit that DM is a sadistic despot

But DM...

Gives people beds to sleep on

Gives people food to eat

Gives people exercise

Gives people a paycheck

Give people jobs

Keeps families together

Gives people nicknames

Keeps the faithful abreast of the gains of the organization

Gives respect to his colleagues

See DM is not a despot

Now there are those who would claim the following as opposed to what is written above

Gives people beds to sleep on, even though in some instances it is desks or floors to sleep on

Gives people food to eat, even though in some instances it is slop

Gives people exercise, even though in some instances it is running around a pole in the hot sun

Gives people a paycheck, even though in some instances it might be considered mere pittance

Give people jobs, even though some might call it indentured servitude

Keeps families together, even though some might label it is keeping the faithful under one roof

Gives people nicknames, even though sometimes the nicknames might be "lesbo" or "queer"

Keeps the faithful abreast of the gains of the organization, even though sometimes by the use of statistics that some consider worthless

Gives respect to his colleagues, even though it might require that colleague to bitchslap a few peers.


Perhaps LRon is not a fraud

Rdoo
 

omnom

Patron with Honors
This thread is trying to counter hyperbole with further hyperbole. Does not compute.
 

Anonycat

Crusader
hy·per·bo·le - Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. This is one of my preferred writing styles.

captainhyperbole2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top