OSA capabilities

chipgallo

Patron Meritorious
If there is one thing the GO and OSA should have learned in the 1970's, is that having operations being conducted by Scientologists points directly back to Scn Management. Even if there is no paper trail, the mere fact that an illegal act was performed by a Scientologist indicates he probably did it for Scn.

Things done by PI's, through a string of cut-outs, are easier to distance yourself from.
Doktor Hubbard envied and wanted his own SMERSH and he got it. G.O. were "hatted" in standard spy tek, and FCDC was host to their East Coast management operation back in 1977 when raided by the feds. We rubbed shoulders with G.O. staff and they sometimes recruited locals to be Guardian Apprentice Scientologists (G.A.S. members), who happily provided grist for the intel mill.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Let me just point out that Kyle Brennan died with a gunshot wound to his head from a 357 Magnum, and his father called Denise Miscavige first, David Miscavige's sister, instead of 911.

14 pieces of crime scene evidence were wiped clean of fingerprints, blood and other clues. No one was tested for gun residue on their hands, including Kyle, by the Clearwater PD. The bullet that killed Kyle was never found.

Marty Rathbun in his affidavit laid out the judges and attorneys that scientology had ex parte communication with, and who "played ball" with scientology. All of the same Clearwater players who worked to change the Pinellas county coroner's story in Lisa McPherson were players in Kyle's investigation.

Kyle's body was found in February of 2007. It is well documented in John Sweeney's book The Church of Fear that Mike Rinder had been directly working with David Miscavige at this time on taking out John Sweeney, and for many months prior.

Mike Rinder 'blew' Scientology in May of 2007.

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

Criminal indictments can effectively pierce any corporate or religious protection. If you have enough money, lawsuits never will.

There are people here who will be looking at me saying this, over and over on this board, on my blog, and pretty much everywhere else on the Internet, and trying to find a way to make me into an OSA agent.

They will look at what I just said about lawsuit VS crimes and the death of Kyle Brennan, and this will somehow be proof to them that I am an OSA agent.

You will be seeing the people, and the thinking, that has ensured that David Miscavige is still in power over a tax exempt organization, still doing whatever he wants to scientologists. You will be seeing the players in the David Miscavige ALL CLEAR UNIT. Including the dupes.
 
Last edited:

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
This is all part of one of many hypotheses, each with a certain level of likelihood. It's the "Employees of the Corporation" Hypothesis. Which has a likelihood that is certainly not 100%. Neither is it Zero.

Mike Rinder could be exactly who he has claimed to be all along. That hypothesis is not 100% certain. But it's not zero, either.

The fact is that "Alanzo is an OSA Agent" is just another hypothesis which attempts to explain what you are seeing with me. It also should be assigned a probability level that is not zero, nor is it 100%. Then there is the hypothesis that Alanzo is exactly who he says he is, too.

You have to juggle all of them, and rule none of them out.

Do not develop a pet hypothesis. That is death.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
I think you enjoy being deliberately inflammatory and 'controversial' but I certainly don't think you're an OSA goon ... I couldn't care less one way or the other though I expect OSA are quite enjoying the show if they are still watching.

:brow:
 

chipgallo

Patron Meritorious
This is all part of one of many hypotheses, each with a certain level of likelihood. It's the "Employees of the Corporation" Hypothesis. Which has a likelihood that is certainly not 100%. Neither is it Zero.

Mike Rinder could be exactly who he has claimed to be all along. That hypothesis is not 100% certain. But it's not zero, either.

The fact is that "Alanzo is an OSA Agent" is just another hypothesis which attempts to explain what you are seeing with me. It also should be assigned a probability level that is not zero, nor is it 100%. Then there is the hypothesis that Alanzo is exactly who he says he is, too.

You have to juggle all of them, and rule none of them out.

Do not develop a pet hypothesis. That is death.
I have a suggestion that is proving successful for me in understanding the elements of this scene, or situation, or whatever you want to call it. Read more sources. Be wary of social media and apply the fundamentals of Street Epistemology. It is easy to shoot first and apply analytical skills later; lord knows I have been guilty of this over the many years spent recovering.

My personal blind spot has kept me from reading Alanzo's excellent blog site. Well, that and not wanting to go into unknown territory unless ensconced behind my locked down browser and proofed up security software. He puts the blog link at the bottom of posts and fills in background that, as Robert A. Heinlein might say, helps you "grok" him and where he is coming from.

I have never been aware of a Scientology asset using GEnie (online information service) back in the dial-up days (discounting Bill Yaude whose online fingerprint is recognizable). Combine that with Alanzo's blog stuff and I would confidently vote for <5% odds of him being an agent of OSA.

Chip
 
Last edited:

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I have a suggestion that is proving successful for me in understanding the elements of this scene, or situation, or whatever you want to call it. Read more sources. Be wary of social media and apply the fundamentals of Street Epistemology. It is easy to shoot first and apply analytical skills later; lord knows I have been guilty of this over the many years spent recovering.

My personal blind spot has kept me from reading Alanzo's excellent blog site. Well, that and not wanting to go into unknown territory unless ensconced behind my locked down browser and proofed up security software. He puts the blog link at the bottom of posts and fills in background that, as Robert A. Heinlein might say, helps you "grok" him and where he is coming from.

I have never been aware of a Scientology asset using GEnie (online information service) back in the dial-up days (discounting Bill Yaude whose online fingerprint is recognizable). Combine that with Alanzo's blog stuff and I would confidently vote for <5% odds of him being an agent of OSA.

Chip
Thanks, Chip!

I really appreciate this, especially coming from you.

And this too - is one of my new favorite websites: https://streetepistemology.com/publications/street_epistemology_the_basics
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Let me just point out that Kyle Brennan died with a gunshot wound to his head from a 357 Magnum, and his father called Denise Miscavige first, David Miscavige's sister, instead of 911.

14 pieces of crime scene evidence were wiped clean of fingerprints, blood and other clues. No one was tested for gun residue on their hands, including Kyle, by the Clearwater PD. The bullet that killed Kyle was never found.

Marty Rathbun in his affidavit laid out the judges and attorneys that scientology had ex parte communication with, and who "played ball" with scientology. All of the same Clearwater players who worked to change the Pinellas county coroner's story in Lisa McPherson were players in Kyle's investigation.

Kyle's body was found in February of 2007. It is well documented in John Sweeney's book The Church of Fear that Mike Rinder had been directly working with David Miscavige at this time on taking out John Sweeney, and for many months prior.

Mike Rinder 'blew' Scientology in May of 2007.

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

Criminal indictments can effectively pierce any corporate or religious protection. If you have enough money, lawsuits never will.

There are people here who will be looking at me saying this, over and over on this board, on my blog, and pretty much everywhere else on the Internet, and trying to find a way to make me into an OSA agent.

They will look at what I just said about lawsuit VS crimes and the death of Kyle Brennan, and this will somehow be proof to them that I am an OSA agent.

You will be seeing the people, and the thinking, that has ensured that David Miscavige is still in power over a tax exempt organization, still doing whatever he wants to scientologists. You will be seeing the players in the David Miscavige ALL CLEAR UNIT. Including the dupes.
If, Kyle's death was a murder, then it is most likely that his father did it. If he were found guilty then how exactly does this take down Miscavige? Did Rex Fowler take down DM? No.

So, while I can appreciate your desire for a re-investigation of the case, I do not see that it would do anything to take down DM.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
If, Kyle's death was a murder, then it is most likely that his father did it. If he were found guilty then how exactly does this take down Miscavige? Did Rex Fowler take down DM? No.

So, while I can appreciate your desire for a re-investigation of the case, I do not see that it would do anything to take down DM.
Did Kyle Brennan's dad have the reach into the Clearwater PD to have 14 pieces of evidence wiped free of clues?
 

Veda

Sponsor
The problem is that there is no hard evidence. Without evidence nothing will happen.

From what I understand, the non Scientologist mother of Kyle is not contesting the finding of suicide, but is suing the "Church" for wrongful death due to the "Church" having separated her son from his medication.

Motive also has importance. What was the motive? Why would someone want to murder Kyle Brennan?
 

Veda

Sponsor
Did Kyle Brennan's dad have the reach into the Clearwater PD to have 14 pieces of evidence wiped free of clues?
Where are you getting the information that 14 pieces of evidence were wiped free of clues?

I ask, because your energies are directed at getting Rinder more than finding the truth. There's a certain stink of "noisy investigation" about what you're doing. Other people concerned about Kyle's death, including his mother, seem to have a different take on it than do you.

"Kyle's fingerprints were no where to be found on 14 separate pieces of evidence at the scene including the weapon."

Justice For Kyle Brennan

Scientology is notorious for cover ups.










 
Last edited:

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Explain why criticism, disagreement and an opposite opinion are gaslighting.
I don't think anyone is making an argument that these things are gaslighting in themselves but criticism, disagreement and opposite opinion can still be used for gaslighting or as cover for gaslighting or agitating by any other name. I think the intention and purpose behind it is relevant even if the motivation is psychological or the program is executed in a way to convey credibility. If the intent is to disrupt friendships and alliances then effective believable gaslighting is still gaslighting. Maybe gaslighting is an art and skilled gaslighting is difficult to differentiate from criticism, disagreement and opposite opinion.

Maybe we should make a distinction between trolling and gaslighting. To my thinking trolling could be just about anything that is disruptive but gaslighting would be for a specific purpose or according to a more defined program.

If it isn't gaslighting then they should be able and willing to answer questions and define specifics of their position without the reliance on false or vague premises. For me it is a red flag if they bail on the discussion when it gets defined too well and they feel the need to pop up somewhere else to restart the same agenda until it becomes too well defined there as well. If we have a difficult time distinguishing between normal criticism, disagreement and opposite opinion and agenda driven gaslighting then maybe the other party should do a better job of stating their agenda and not appearing like gaslighting, or maybe some people just like to be seen as gaslighting because that in itself is disruptive and they feel it gives them an advantage in debate.

I think much of this comes down to debate strategy also. A person can have a legitimate position based on criticism, disagreement and opposite opinion and still use rhetorical devices and other manipulative things to win the debate but if they are mostly trying to win the debate with manipulation and their position is weak then that starts to look more like gaslighting.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I don't think anyone is making an argument that these things are gaslighting in themselves but criticism, disagreement and opposite opinion can still be used for gaslighting or as cover for gaslighting or agitating by any other name. I think the intention and purpose behind it is relevant even if the motivation is psychological or the program is executed in a way to convey credibility. If the intent is to disrupt friendships and alliances then effective believable gaslighting is still gaslighting. Maybe gaslighting is an art and skilled gaslighting is difficult to differentiate from criticism, disagreement and opposite opinion.

Maybe we should make a distinction between trolling and gaslighting. To my thinking trolling could be just about anything that is disruptive but gaslighting would be for a specific purpose or according to a more defined program.

If it isn't gaslighting then they should be able and willing to answer questions and define specifics of their position without the reliance on false or vague premises. For me it is a red flag if they bail on the discussion when it gets defined too well and they feel the need to pop up somewhere else to restart the same agenda until it becomes too well defined there as well. If we have a difficult time distinguishing between normal criticism, disagreement and opposite opinion and agenda driven gaslighting then maybe the other party should do a better job of stating their agenda and not appearing like gaslighting, or maybe some people just like to be seen as gaslighting because that in itself is disruptive and they feel it gives them an advantage in debate.

I think much of this comes down to debate strategy also. A person can have a legitimate position based on criticism, disagreement and opposite opinion and still use rhetorical devices and other manipulative things to win the debate but if they are mostly trying to win the debate with manipulation and their position is weak then that starts to look more like gaslighting.
Or a person could write long-winded posts, asserting the same thing over and over in multiple threads, with all kinds of politicized Marxist conjecture about another poster's motives, tactics, and "agenda", rather than 'engaging in conversation', too.

That's another manipulative rhetorical strategy to persuade people his speculative assertions are correct, as well.

Everyone uses rhetoric except BigBlue.
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
If we have a difficult time distinguishing between normal criticism, disagreement and opposite opinion and agenda driven gaslighting then maybe...
May I play "fill the last part of the sentence" ???

"...then,
may be it"a because people are gaslighted
In doubting their own observations, critical thinking and conclusion to adopt a new mainstream agenda/ belief..."

  • Alanzo's behaving all fine nothing wrong.
  • Alanzo criticize and it's what we want
  • HH , Veda and Lotus wrong..they criticize Alanzo's Gas lighting and smearing that never happens- show..show!
  • Osa ops??? Come on..would be ridiculous
  • Lotus wants Alanzo to go away...ohhhh!
  • Go on Karen's group sec checking Rinder: what are Rinder's crimes - why he didn't apologized
My favorite one that comes here and there from day one on the chatboard: .. Not even subtle​
  • Why are you scared
  • What do you fear
  • :D
I am not auditing you:

What are you scared brothers and sisters..why are you scared???
Why are you seeing things that doesn't exist?
Why have you been brainwashed by anti-cult leaders?
Why do you fabulate you are being gaslighted???

:thewinner:

:guilt:
 
Last edited:

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
Oh I forgot to repeat:

When I put Alanzo on ignore, and not distracted anymore by his attacks, Gaslighting and smearing it suddenly became so easy to grab as we can evaluate from an exterior viewpoint what is going on..it's totally repetitive..go see for yourself, if you wish, like just for a few days, and have a look back on the main threads.

Interesting...very interesting
 
Last edited:

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
May I play "fill the last part of the sentence" ???

the may be it"a because people are gaslighted
In doubting their own observations, critical thinking and conclusion to adopt a new mainstream agenda/ belief
  • Alanzo's behaving all fine nothing wrong.
  • Alanzo criticize and it's what we want
  • HH , Veda and Lotus wrong..they criticize Alanzo's Gas lighting and smearing that never happens- show..show!
  • Osa ops??? Come on..would be ridiculous
  • Lotus wants Alanzo to go away...ohhhh!
  • Go on Karen's group sec checking Rinder: what are Finder's crimes - why he didn't apologized
My favorite one that comes here and there from day one on the chatboard: .. Not even subtle​
  • Why are you scared
  • What do you fear
  • :D
I am not auditing you:

What are you scared brother and sister..why are you scared???
Why are you seeing things that doesn't exist?
Why have you been brainwashed by anti-cult leaders?
Why do you fabulate you are being gaslighted???

:thewinner:

:guilt:
You just reminded me of another Black Dianetics tactic - Self Listing.

A Scientology auditing list is basically a series of questions to find out what is wrong with you. Scientologists aren't supposed to self-list because without an auditor and Scientology's professional guidance they will be incapable of finding the real source of their problems. Finding the correct indication in session is supposed to bring relief and result in a cognition about what the problem is and how to resolve it.

Now reverse the process and bombard the person with introverting questions that get them continually looking inward for the things that are deeply and seriously wrong with them instead of the real problem and solution...why, why, why? What, what, what?
 
Top