Metering & Needle Phenomena in Auditing

The following is a tech post related to metering and needle phenomena. It's reposted from a freezone forum with permission from the author. Initial comments are included at the author's request.

Similar topics to those mentioned here have come up recently elsewhere on ESMB. Thus, I considered the material to be of interest. However I chose to start a new thread rather than force the material to fit elsewhere.


Mark A. Baker


>
> Sure you can repost it. Just put at the top that these are my personal opinions and it would be real smart to dig up the LRH references, especially the HCOB on the Dianetic R3R chain where LRH talks about the needle going "back and forth, and back and forth." It was the robotic use of this HCOB that caused the new definition of F/N to occur, from what I can see.
>
> Best wishes, Randy
>

Hi all,

I have been getting a number of emails about this calling of F/Ns because I gave information about this much earlier, maybe a year ago.

I was there in the late 40s and early 50s when the original efforts were made to bring in some metered devices to the auditing session.

At that time Book I did not need a meter. At that time those doing Scientology and research auditing type processes did not need a meter. One was expected to locate masses, entities, facsimiles by questioning, looking at the PC's physical indicators, and directing viewing masses in the spiritual universe.

Black and white processing, direct comm into a mass, affinity processing, mocking up duplicates to restimulate masses, and other techniques were all used.

The recoil was quite heavy sometimes and this is where you get the ten day destimulation rule. Some sessions resulted in the PC being knocked out for as long as ten days.

If you had been through these days then one would really appreciate how valuable the current technology is. But much of this has been forgotten and moved to the side with the current rote standardization. The standardization has allowed a person's advancement without getting kick in the teeth so much and allowed the person to much less skilled with directly handling the spiritual universe. This means more people can be gotten to quicker without as many casualties.

When the first devices came in even oscilloscopes were tried. This meant one could even detect a change in direction of electrical current flow, which some masses caused.

The Wheatstone Bridge device (e-meter) was brought in and the different e-meter reads had to be given names according to what was going on in the PC. The Floating Needle name came much later. The original call on the meter was "a happy needle." It meant basically that the area being handled was as-is-ed or masses released and the PC was happy with it.

I do not remember anyone calling it a floating needle because we were not interested in the state of the needle; we were interested in the state of the PC. Therefore the call was "a happy needle."

Wanted to say a lot more but do not have time so I will rough out the rest.

When I was the Snr C/S Flag's admin assistant (1979-1982) and he would do the final pass on meter video, many times he would sit me down and ask me what I thought - not that my opinion matter but at least I had this experience of watching videos of many of the current auditor's and C/S's in the FreeZone and Class XIIs at Flag. The importance was placed on the PC first and the meter second.

The definition of "uninfluenced motion of the e-meter" was important. The spiritual universe masses and entities were gone. The PC was free of these AND the PC was still involved in the area concerning what had been addressed in the session. The last part of the "AND" was about making sure the PC attention was still in the area that the session was addressing so the auditor would "F/N what was originally reading.

The current definition that is killing could auditor in Scientology is the one pointed out here concerning "back and forth, and back and forth" twice. This is taken from a Dianetic R3R HCOB concerning running down an engram chain. The incidents on a particular engram chain are gone over, then an earlier incident, and then earlier until the earliest is found and erased - with a postulate gotten off. During this process the needle becomes looser and looser with the needle starting to F/N. When the final incident is erased with its connected postulate the needle will go wider with the needle going "back and forth, and back and forth." Find and read this HCOB and one will find LRH is making a point about the needle loosening up more and more. He is not making an absolute definition for all "happy needles" supporting the PC is done with a process.

This same sort of taking one part of the tech and making it universal happened in the early late 60s and early 70s when auditors could only call F/Ns at 2.0 for females and 3.0 for males. Many auditors that went by PC indicators just changed the TA on worksheets to 2.0 or 3.0 even though it was not. A number of auditors were really confused until LRH wrote policy allowing indication of an F/N at other TA positions.

That is all I have time for now. As usual check out all the above for oneself. I have audited thousands of hours on many others including OT reviews and research auditing so this is real to me.

Best,

Randy Payne
 

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
Interesting, another example of auditors lying so as not to break an LRH rule. In my time, for a while, TA had to be between 2 & 3 to indicate an FN. So if TA was slightly above or below this, we used to just lie and mark the worksheet as TA within range! :roflmao:

Also at this time there was the False TA checklist where on would splash hand lotion or talcolm powder over the PC's hands to try to force the TA between 2 & 3 before starting the session. A ridiculous ritual that put the PC's attention on the meter! :duh:

Glad to see some FZers applying common sense as regards the meter! :thumbsup:
 

RogerB

Crusader
Yes!

Interesting, another example of auditors lying so as not to break an LRH rule. In my time, for a while, TA had to be between 2 & 3 to indicate an FN. So if TA was slightly above or below this, we used to just lie and mark the worksheet as TA within range! :roflmao:

Also at this time there was the False TA checklist where on would splash hand lotion or talcolm powder over the PC's hands to try to force the TA between 2 & 3 before starting the session. A ridiculous ritual that put the PC's attention on the meter! :duh:

Glad to see some FZers applying common sense as regards the meter! :thumbsup:

Lionheart,

Yes . . . thank heavens for good and common sense and the defeat of rigid "standard tech".

I had a girlfriend when "in" who had inordinately dry skin, particularly on her hands to the extend they appeared calloused. Naturally, she was always troubled with "high TA" and the usual standard dose of hand cream did nothing to bring her TA into "normal" range.

My solution was to recommend she get some medical electrolytic paste used for the purpose of being a conductor of electrical current in medical tests :yes: Worked wonderfully . . . . but we had a hell of a time convincing the "standard tech" artists is was a) needed and b) in order and proper in her case.:duh:

Rog
 

Ralph Hilton

Patron Meritorious
What seems to be missing regarding TA and metering is that the TA depends on how much skin is in contact with the cans. People with small hands observably have an average TA much higher than people with huge hands.
I find the use of hand creams reduces the size of reads. Medical electrolyte gel seems even worse from limited tests.
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Didn't any of you try foot plates?

I had a student who worked in a chem lab and he always had extremely dry hands. Hand lotion didn't help enough so I put him on foot plates and this seemed to work pretty well.
 

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
Didn't any of you try foot plates?

I had a student who worked in a chem lab and he always had extremely dry hands. Hand lotion didn't help enough so I put him on foot plates and this seemed to work pretty well.

Yes we quite commonly used foot plates. They generally had a TA "in range" compared to cans and for a while they were very common.

The problem was Body Motion was impossible to see, compared to cans in hands. A wiggle of the toes and you would get Rock Slams! :omg:

Plus in winter bare feet would get cold, so you would end up covering them in a blanket or blow a hot air heater under the desk over the feet.

Ridiculous! All because of LRH's unexplained arbitrary of male bodies being at 3.0 and female at 2.0.

The things we used to do to accomodate his mad arbitraries! :duh:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Ridiculous! All because of LRH's unexplained arbitrary of male bodies being at 3.0 and female at 2.0.

The things we used to do to accomodate his mad arbitraries! :duh:

There are so many things wrong with that one. Like

1. That ALL male bodies have a "base" resistance of exactly the same value

2. That ALL female bodies have a "base" resistance of exactly the same (different) value

3. This value in each case is a nice round number

4. That valid F/Ns occur only between these two values, with no explanation

5. The range for a valid F/N even has these two points as extremes!

I know these things occurred at different times and some of them got revised as being no longer necessary. But the hours I spent trying to work out some of that stuff! Sometimes I think he did it deliberately, on the basis of "Heh! I wonder if the suckers will swallow this one too. :evillaugh:"

Paul
 

Ralph Hilton

Patron Meritorious
Didn't any of you try foot plates?
I tried foot plates with a dual meter set up comparing the reads in solo sessions from the 2 meters side by side one connected to hands the other to feet. The foot plates meter showed some reads that occurred on the hands meter but some reads occurred from the hands that were totally missed on the other meter.
 

Merman

Patron
Isn't there a quote in one of the E-Meter manuals where LRH says a PC lost 8 or 10 pounds of weight in session...

mass as-ised in her mind....

?
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Isn't there a quote in one of the E-Meter manuals where LRH says a PC lost 8 or 10 pounds of weight in session...

mass as-ised in her mind....

?

In the hard-cover book I think he said a pc "mocked up" 30 lb. of body weight. But in a tape he said it was over several months, I believe. It wasn't over a few minutes or hours. Several months makes it indistinguishable from the more usual way of getting fat and unfat.

Paul
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
In the hard-cover book I think he said a pc "mocked up" 30 lb. of body weight. But in a tape he said it was over several months, I believe. It wasn't over a few minutes or hours. Several months makes it indistinguishable from the more usual way of getting fat and unfat.

Paul

*However*, Ron's 'theory' of mocking up and 'mass' make it clear that he believes it's a 'Spiritual' creation of 'mass'. Not fat.

Zinj
 

EP - Ethics Particle

Gold Meritorious Patron
Ransackin' me memory bank...

Isn't there a quote in one of the E-Meter manuals where LRH says a PC lost 8 or 10 pounds of weight in session...

mass as-ised in her mind....

?

In the hard-cover book I think he said a pc "mocked up" 30 lb. of body weight. But in a tape he said it was over several months, I believe. It wasn't over a few minutes or hours. Several months makes it indistinguishable from the more usual way of getting fat and unfat.

Paul

Somewhere, early-on, around '90 I was new to the whole scn thing - and I recall there was a cartoon like picture in some pub or manual that showed a guy standing on a bathroom-like scale and the caption read that a person could gain or shed pounds just by mocking up mass or as-ising it.

It fascinated me :melodramatic: and the clear implication was that this was something one could do via scn.

It might have been on the metering portion of the M1 co-audit materials...:confused2:

Anyone else remember this?

EP
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Somewhere, early-on, around '90 I was new to the whole scn thing - and I recall there was a cartoon like picture in some pub or manual that showed a guy standing on a bathroom-like scale and the caption read that a person could gain or shed pounds just by mocking up mass or as-ising it.

It fascinated me :melodramatic: and the clear implication was that this was something one could do via scn.

It might have been on the metering portion of the M1 co-audit materials...:confused2:

Anyone else remember this?

EP

Yeah, it's in the hardcover E-meter book.

I had a discussion a couple of years back with a guy on the XSO list who said he could do that, a pound or two over the space of maybe ten minutes. I could never do it to an extent measurable on bathroom scales and never tried it on anything more sensitive.

Paul
 

EP - Ethics Particle

Gold Meritorious Patron
Knowing and willing...

Yeah, it's in the hardcover E-meter book.

I had a discussion a couple of years back with a guy on the XSO list who said he could do that, a pound or two over the space of maybe ten minutes. I could never do it to an extent measurable on bathroom scales and never tried it on anything more sensitive.

Paul

Got it and thanks, Paul. :thumbsup:

Right now I'm attemptin' ta ratchet-up me OK powerz an lay off the cocktails and hors d'oeuvers at evening repast long enuff ta rehab a couple'a notches on me belt. "Cause over MEST" ya know. :p 8 or 10 lbs oughta do the trick. :yes:

But so far it's been a FLUNK!...an from the Sr C/S too :nervous: :melodramatic:

EP
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
You're obviously not blowing enough 'charge'.

Maybe take a fan into the bathtub with you...

Zinj
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Actually, I meant an *electric* fan, but, maybe somebody gets a 'charge' out of blowing bubbles...

Zinj
 
Top