But I must say, on my recent thread, I did found myself face to face with some very complicated stuff... Middle East is still embroiled with those kind of viewpoints on both sides.
.
Vin intends this thread in a joking way. Even so your statement above is a bit wrong. According to OTIII 2nd handwritten note (28 Oct 68) and others we haveOt II (http://www.freezoneearth.org/Prometheus04/otTwo/index.htm) lists the 21 different implant GPM's that were "installed" during the 36 days of implanting during Incident II (the catastrophe of 75 million years ago.)
The CC implant was also installed at this time according to Hubbard. This super manic psychic engram is the unconscious basis of humanity, and "groups" on this planet.
The final version of the terminology for this lot seems to be
Incident 2
then
R6
The terminology has certainly changed as more data came to light. For example "the 7's" have eight items and are part of the CC now.
It was a scary glimpse of naked insanity.
![]()
Religious wars, Crusades, Jihad, Taliban, TV executions...
Interrogations, Torture, Inquisitions...
.
Mob violence... rape... sexual mutilation...
.
No. In the III pack Hubbard says, "Incident 2 is R6, 75 million years ago" or something very similar. If you have it there take a look.
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MAY 1968
"When one runs Incident I out of one thetan and then Incident 2 out of another (thinking it was the first one) one can get a partially run body thetan who won’t blow but who may start to go on through the whole of R6 automatically …"
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 OCTOBER 1968
"A preOT can free wheel into R6 if you run only an INC 2."
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 OCTOBER 1968
"Only those in this Old Confederation have Inc 2 and R6. All CC and OTII materials are in R6 75 million years ago."
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 OCTOBER 1968
"Inc 2 is R6 75 million years ago."
http://freezoneamerica.com/Prometheus04/clearCourse/index.htmPaul, my information is that "the sevens" referred to the number of times you checked through the various implant platens on the CC (7).
They conflict and I assumed there was a typo/OCR error because there are quite a few in that "tech vol". How do you resolve the conflict? (And don't tell me to read it again!)
Consider the possibility that this is an installed phobia.
Thank you. A well reasoned response.I always understood the "and" in ". . . have Inc 2 and R6" in the sense of "or", meaning "in other words." I'm not saying that is correct, but that is how I interpreted it for myself.
And
Those references tell me that R6 and Incident 2 are not the same. Of course you are also right. In the same damn bulletin he says …
They conflict and I assumed there was a typo/OCR error because there are quite a few in that "tech vol". How do you resolve the conflict? (And don't tell me to read it again!)
Reading R6 as a subset of Incident 2 might work slightly less badly than having them synonymous, although I don't think all the references can actually be logically consistent.
R6 is only a part of Incident 2.Those references tell me that R6 and Incident 2 are not the same.
Examples?Hubbard can't even get his own stories straight. Sounds like he just made up shit with with every lecture or writing he gave.