I had a glimpse of R6 Bank

[Voltaire's Child]

I like Hubbard's stuff in many ways, but an example of making shit up (even if not aware that he was doing that) could be the Incident II story...

 

[Operating DB]

Examples?

Start with this thread from the beginning

 

[KnightVision]

Talking R6 BANK?

........ a sure sign one has lost their sense of composure.

HELLO out there! Wake the fuck up.

 

[knn]

Start with this thread from the beginning

I take it as a "No, I have no examples".

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

By all means.. Let's have some examples of Hubbard being ignorant, and talking out of his ass:

"Here is a datum: That particular implanting outfit was located down towards the center of this galaxy and was founded 52,863,010,654,079 years ago. It was destroyed 38,932,690,862,933 years ago by the 79th wing of the 43rd Battle Squadron of the Galactic Fleet. It was a wildcat activity. They used to drag magellanic clouds out of the center hub of the galaxy, let them follow lines of force and come over a system, and then send planes in with speakers. The place would be caved in for thousands of years as a result of radioactive clouds."

[Hubbard, "The Time Track", SHSBC-265, lecture of 16 May 63]

Nice pic of the large and small Magellanic clouds. They're in the southern hemisphere of the sky. The Aussies can see 'em..
(From this site: http://www.astr.ua.edu/gifimages/lmc_smc.html )

The Magellanic Clouds are galaxies. They are very far away, 75,000 light years, so that the individual stars seem small and so blend into each other to give us the visual impression of 'clouds'. The Magellanic Clouds are nowhere near the center hub of our Galaxy, the Milky Way. Note that the Milky Way looks like a cloud too when when we look at it naked eye. A 'foggy' band across the sky. That's our own Galaxy as seen from inside.. (To see a typical Galaxy from a distance, Google pic's of Andromeda..)

If you imagine standing on an earthlike planet in the magellanic clouds you'd see 'a' sun and stars in the night sky just like here. The distance to the nearest star will probably be a dusins of lightyears. You wouldn't call it a 'cloud'!

Mewhaha! - Hubturd believed them to be 'clouds'! - He probably looked up the word 'cloud' in a dictionary. Then he fabricated this incredible tale about engulfing planets in 'magellanic clouds' to prepare the people living there for religious implanting with talking pink bombs zooming about in the grey and black clouds.

Why didn't someone tell him to go home and sleep it off?

Very space opera! - Very debunked! byChris Owen (Link has more Hubbardian Space Opera)

Repost from an old thread: Super Massive Black Holes

( Then there's the Galactic Federation according to Hubbard: )

"Sirius, Canopus, Alpha Centauri, Vega, Capella, Arcturus, Rigel, Procyon, Achernar, Beta Centauri, Altair, Betelgeuse, Acrux, Aldebaran, Pollux, Spica, Antares, Fomalhaut, Deneb, Regulus and Sol"

The "Hamlyn Guide to Astronomy" by David Baker in 1978 lists the 20 brightest stars from Earth as:

"Sirius, Canopus, Alpha Centauri, Arcturus, Vega, Capella, Rigel, Procyon, Achernar, Betelgeuse, Beta Centauri, Altair, Aldebaran, Acrux, Antares, Spica, Fomalhaut, Pollux, Deneb, Beta Crucis"

These are a wide variety of star types. Arcturus and Aldebaran are stars of type K0 and K5 - so cold relatively that a planet close enough to it to support life would be within the zone of captured rotation i.e. one side would face the star all the time making life as we know it impossible. At the other end Acrux is a binary of almost violet stars so rich in violent radiation and so hot that no life could exist in that glare nor could any planet have stable conditions. The distances of these stars from Earth vary widely - a developing federation would surely choose stars closer together rather than those brightest from Earth. I find the conclusion almost inevitable that his list of stars came not from whole track recall but a brief study of an astronomy book.

The above quote from: ARS Literati $10,000 Challenge entry by Ralph Hilton. It's a good read!

 

[Zinjifar]

What I find interesting here is that it's a flat-out contradiction for those Scientologists who attempt to 'explain' Ron's ludicrous numbers as referring to 'other, earlier 'universes''.

"Here is a datum: That particular implanting outfit was located down towards the center of this galaxy and was founded 52,863,010,654,079 years ago. It was destroyed 38,932,690,862,933 years ago by the 79th wing of the 43rd Battle Squadron of the Galactic Fleet. It was a wildcat activity. They used to drag magellanic clouds out of the center hub of the galaxy, let them follow lines of force and come over a system, and then send planes in with speakers. The place would be caved in for thousands of years as a result of radioactive clouds."

[Hubbard, "The Time Track", SHSBC-265, lecture of 16 May 63]

Zinj

 

[Alanzo]

...

 

[knn]

By all means.. Let's have some examples of Hubbard being ignorant, and talking out of his ass

Your post is one of the better SchwimmelPuckel posts, so why did you decide to spoil it by again cursing "*ss" and "t*rd".

Moreover the whole argument collapses when you see Magellanic clouds not in the definition of "Magellanic clouds = Galaxy" but "Magellanic clouds = clouds from somewhere there". Hubbard simply didn't use it in the sense astronomers use it.

The above quote from: ARS Literati $10,000 Challenge entry by Ralph Hilton. It's a good read!

Yes good link. The varying sizes of the stars are also here:
http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=275308#post275308
Thus I completely agree with the sentence: "I find the conclusion almost inevitable that his list of stars came not from whole track recall but a brief study of an astronomy book."

 

[knn]

Do you deserve to have an R6 Bank installed in you where you believe that if you think certain thoughts or look at certain things in your mind that you will die?

I don't claim that R6 exists. I am also against auditing it. Because I think that auditing the time track (including dating and running past lives) _IS BAD_ for your mental health. I am also against exorcizing BTs.

But when it comes to contradictions in Hubbard's statements about the R6 bank then I don't see any in this thread so far.

You know, I don't care about Christianity's trinity. But if someone claims Trinity is "Father, Son and Mary" then I would counter-post, too.

 

[knn]

What I find interesting here is that it's a flat-out contradiction for those Scientologists who attempt to 'explain' Ron's ludicrous numbers as referring to 'other, earlier 'universes''.

All years that Hubbard mentions are of course "session years" = as they come up on the eMeter. As you know earth didn't exists when Incident I happened and yet it shows up as "XXX trillion years ago" in the auditing.

Don't take these years literally, but simply as dates that make the needle react.

Hubbard even admits it that he doesn't know what "years" means in this context, but it nevertheless shows on the eMeter.

 

[Zinjifar]

Don't take these years literally, but simply as dates that make the needle react.

This is the High Crime of 'Tech Degrade'.

Hubbard even admits it that he doesn't know what "years" means in this context, but it nevertheless shows on the eMeter.

Do you have a citation for this? Or did you just want to add 'Verbal Tech' to your list of offenses?

Zinj

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

You post is one of the better SchwimmelPuckel posts, so why did you decide to spoil it by again cursing "*ss" and "t*rd".

For the hell of it!

Moreover the whole argument collapses when you see Magellanic clouds not in the definition of "Magellanic clouds = Galaxy" but "Magellanic clouds = clouds from somewhere there". Hubbard simply didn't use it in the sense astronomers use it.

Mewhehe.. That's about the lamest excuse I ever saw for Hubbards drivel... He could have invented a name that didn't already exist and meant something intirely different. Like zroomfultic clouds, or something..

No.. He specifically said Magellanic Clouds! - There really are no way out of that spectacular blunder.

 

[knn]

No.. He specifically said Magellanic Clouds!

He said. And he was no astronomer. Just as we in every day's life use the term "Energy" ("He is full of energy") differently than a nuclear physicist would do.

His list of Galactic Fed Stars is much more condemning than the cloud issue.

 

[Zinjifar]

He said. And he was no astronomer. Just as we in every day's life use the term "Energy" ("He is full of energy") differently than a nuclear physicist would do.

His list of Galactic Fed Stars is much more condemning than the cloud issue.

It's not enough to point out that L. Ron Hubbard lied; He was also ignorant.

Zinj

 

[Tiger Lily]

I don't claim that R6 exists. I am also against auditing it. Because I think that auditing the time track (including dating and running past lives) _IS BAD_ for your mental health. I am also against exorcizing BTs.

Knn I'm really curious. . . that was an interesting statement to me. Do you believe BT's exist but don't think they should be exorcised, if so, why not? Or do you feel like trying to exorcise non-existent BT's is dangerous?

-TL

 

[michaelangelo]

I just had a glimpse of the R6 bank... and it is scary.

So far I have encountered the following in R6 Bank

(1) SEX
(2) RELIGION

Vin

.

How jolly nice for you.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

He said. And he was no astronomer. Just as we in every day's life use the term "Energy" ("He is full of energy") differently than a nuclear physicist would do.

His list of Galactic Fed Stars is much more condemning than the cloud issue.

You think Hubbard does that a lot? - Using wrong words that mean something intirely different..

A daunting prospect!

 

[Veda]

All years that Hubbard mentions are of course "session years" = as they come up on the eMeter. As you know earth didn't exists when Incident I happened and yet it shows up as "XXX trillion years ago" in the auditing.

Don't take these years literally, but simply as dates that make the needle react.

Hubbard even admits it that he doesn't know what "years" means in this context, but it nevertheless shows on the eMeter.

Scientology was meant to be taken literally. Scientologists take it literally. When cornered, the great PR tap dance begins. "I don't believe thaaaaaat. You take that literally?" The first time that I became aware of this tendency was when a Scientology attorney, when cornered, insisted (to the SP), that the 'Bolivar PL' was meant, by Hubbard, as a joke. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=122173&postcount=16

Years earlier than that I had read Paulette Cooper's book, 'Scandal of Scientology', but it didn't register when I read PR person David Gaiman's answers to her submitted written questions, and his criticism of her for being "literal minded" and "humorless." http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=68098&postcount=5 http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/tsos/sos.html

"Exact, time, place, form, and event," "This is a cold blooded and factual account of your last sixty trillion years," "Records of the mind are permanent," "I know with certainty where I was and who I was in the last 80 trillion years," etc., etc., etc.

PR damage control in the Scientology "Freezone" is especially fun to watch. It can become pretty creative.

 

[knn]

Knn I'm really curious. . . that was an interesting statement to me.

For different reasons. For example Hubbard's whole approach is already upside down: You have to get rid of the bad bank, the evil psychs, the bad BTs, the nasty SPs who make you PTS, the low tones, the evil implanters, the 1.1ers.
It's always "Us vs Them".
Even one of the supposedly highest states ("To be able to confront everything") sounds anti-something.

Hubbard also tells you that these incidents were bad for you. Now it's one thing to state "Xenu blew up your dacha" (= describing an exact incident) but another one is "You need your dacha and you still suffer from having lost it". It's a double invalidation. And it's bottom-up because the target should be you, not some past dacha.

Do you believe BT's exist but don't think they should be exorcised, if so, why not? Or do you feel like trying to exorcise non-existent BT's is dangerous?

My statements above are rather a GENERAL criticism of how Hubbard made the wrong APPROACH.

But I have also have a specific view of specific procedures like dating or BT busting. Dating in my view can be helpful (charge relieving) shortterm but longterm it's bad because it's based on the wrong assumption that the time-track needs to be audited. However in my view there is no incident that you are stuck in. If you are stuck in something then you are CURRENTLY stuck in it. All there is to audit is Now. No time-track or past-identities. Running track/identities restimulates more than it helps in the long run, aside from the fact that track/identities can be complete fabrications ("I was Jesus"). Short term it can be helpful, of course, just like scratching.

Thus LRH's approach is not only bottom-up but pasttime-now.

The same applies to the BT issue: Instead of going incident-hunting you should rather check what makes YOU hold to a BT in the current now (whether BTs really exist is a different question, but I am talking about how an approach from the top+from the inside would look like as compared to LRH's approach to audit outside forces from the bottom).

Thus LRH's approach is not only bottom-up and pasttime-now but inside-out.

Moreover Hubbard doesn't offer any differentiation between BTs and self-mocked-up masses or other mental phenomena (or body phenomena):
just imagine (now, while you sit in front of your computer) a black ball in your knee that says "Don't do it" all the time. If you would mock-up this constantly then it could qualify as a BT and could maybe cause kneepain. Now go ahead try to exorcise it (for example by mocking up a theta hand throwing the knee ball away). It would be ridiculous AND harmful: You try to disown (and "evilify") your own mock-ups and body functions. No wonder NOTs can make you NUTs and cause cancer. Even Hubbard got a tumor on his forehead.

Add to it, that at least some stuff existed only in Hubbard's case then you are effectively auditing Hubbard's case as your own.

Thus parts of Scientology Tech are bottom-up, pasttime-now, inside-out and other-own.

 

[NonScio]

"R6", kind of a lousy name for a bank. No pizzaz at all to it.
Not sure I'd want to put my money in the R6 Bank. First National
sounds far sounder. Member of the FDIC and all that. Backed by
the Federal Reserve don't you know.

As far as "R6" surviving the current economic woes...well, don't
bank on it! I heard "R6" is really a cult front. Lots of fancy
buildings, very little substance. Shady characters running the whole
operation. They take your money and god knows what rat hole it
disappears down! Really, the bank examiners need to take a look.
Teams of auditors need to walk in, unannounced...start looking
at the whole rotten structure.