Scientology Works!

[Feral]

My emphasis. Look at official NASA photos of Mars. There are some interesting ones here, with (non-NASA!) commentary about trees:

http://mmmgroup.altervista.org/e-trees.html

Paul

Have you seen the Rover 1 footage?

 

[lionheart]

Thanks Ax for bringing this Derren Brown racing trick to attention.

I discussed it 18 months ago here. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=3778

Interestingly I also came to a similar conclusion from the programme and my thread was called "How Hubbard created a 100% workable technology" Yours is called "Scientology Works!"

Yes the simplicity of the scientology con is that we only see the "wins". In his programme Derren only showed us the winner. How many viewers, even knowing it must be a trick, still thought it must be a winning system?

Ron got us to only see the wins, by 1. removing the losers from our sight through Qual and Ethics and out the door as Derren did in his trick. (he told the losers something had gone with the system and removed them from the experiment without showing the viewers) And 2. by making us focus on our wins and negate/ignore our failures or promising any failures would be turned into wins once we got back on the winning system. This was repeated over and over until we believed it. That aspect is just a trance exercise combined with outright lying.

Simple!

 

[lionheart]

Axiom142,

Thanks for mentioning Derren Brown. I had not heard of him before so I figured that there were probably some things on YouTube.


Here is one where he did an elaborately staged subliminal thing with some professional advertisers (please watch until the very end):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW393PMuQDQ

Amazing!

Yes, that's areally great programme it had a deep impact on me as regards what Ron did.

After watching the programme, it is interesting to think of all the subliminal messages and images that Ron fed us. Think of the posters, the magazines, the images, etc.

 

[clamicide]

ugh

OMG....when I talk to people still "in", it's always the same thing....but you KNOW it works. uh...no, I don't. I countered one and made him tell me what he actually, personally gained from Scientology. Couple hundred grand spent, and all he could really come up with was that he now knew he was a spiritual being. He thought that was priceless. I told him could have meditated and gotten that realization for free. He was not thrilled by my reply. I hate that stupid cult. Seriously.

 

[FinallyFree]

I know from my own experience and observation that a confessional works,
I find it odd that rather than tell what you observed or experienced you use a "con" game on film to make your points. I also know that if brevity isnt applied you lose your audience. Jack

scientology’s use of confessional data erases any gain obtained from it.

 

[Axiom142]

Thanks Ax for bringing this Derren Brown racing trick to attention.

I discussed it 18 months ago here. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=3778

Interestingly I also came to a similar conclusion from the programme and my thread was called "How Hubbard created a 100% workable technology" Yours is called "Scientology Works!"

Yes the simplicity of the scientology con is that we only see the "wins". In his programme Derren only showed us the winner. How many viewers, even knowing it must be a trick, still thought it must be a winning system?

Ron got us to only see the wins, by 1. removing the losers from our sight through Qual and Ethics and out the door as Derren did in his trick. (he told the losers something had gone with the system and removed them from the experiment without showing the viewers) And 2. by making us focus on our wins and negate/ignore our failures or promising any failures would be turned into wins once we got back on the winning system. This was repeated over and over until we believed it. That aspect is just a trance exercise combined with outright lying.

Simple!

Well, it looks as though you’ve got me banged to rights there LH!

But in my defence, I would like to say that your original thread was before I joined ESMB and I had never read it (honest).

And, on the bright side, we have conclusively proved the old maxim of “Great minds think alike!” (anyone heard muttering “Fools seldom differ” will be sent straight to Ethics ).

It seems that we both saw the same programme and made the exact same logical conclusions and parallels to Scientology. That is, when you are caught up in a scam, you don’t get to see the whole picture and often you want it to be true so much, you overlook the failures.

You made some very good points about the way Hubbard dealt with non-believers. These were labelled ‘no-case gain’, PTS, SP or in other pejorative ways and removed from the group. This leaves only believers in the group who then reinforce the ‘group think’ by coming up with exaggerated ‘success stories’ because they don’t want to be seen as different or inferior etc and then this in turn inspires others to do the same, thus creating a self-perpetuating cycle of deception.

I had started composing this thread over a year ago, but got bored and never posted it. I resurrected it when I got a bit miffed at some of the comments made by some people on other threads a few weeks ago along the lines of “It works, so it’s right” etc. I find this attitude rather frustrating and when people come up with this type of statement but then lack any cohesive argument or credible evidence to back up their assertions, it’s rather like a red rag to a bull as far as I am concerned.

If someone believes a particular thing is true, well fine, but I like to know why they think that way and feel that I am perfectly justified in challenging them on that point. If they can come up with a logical, rational argument, then I will listen to them. But if they get angry and demand to know how I dare to question them and accuse me on being on the ‘wrong side’ and refuse to listen to anything I say, then I lose any respect for them and start to question their sanity. You might think that I am exaggerating, but that very situation did actually happen to me about three years ago. And surprise, surprise, the antagonist was a long-time Scientologist.

I might write up the full story of what happened one day, but perhaps not right now as that would enable me to be clearly identified.

Axiom142

 

[xguardian]

Lee_from_phx, I am responding to the signature at the bottom of your messages:
Scientology: Like North Korea, but without UN membership.

That's a good point, scientology just doesn't own a country -- yet. If they did they'd have diplomatic immunity to the United Nations. They must have their eyes set on a South American or a Caribbean island nation. Maybe they'd set up a silent corporation called the United Churches of Hatai (sort of like scientology did when they invaded Clearwater, FL.)

I wonder who US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would anoint as foreign minister of that country.

LRH and his " UN Temple of Understanding" buddy did have property in 'Guyanna' but they couln't agree on the flavor of the 'Kool Aid'.

 

[xguardian]

He tried for Rhodesia and later for Morocco. He failed both times.

The Moroccon story is well documented but few even know about it, think about it...How can anyone so enmeshed in that type of affair affecting U.S./Morroco diplomatic relations, not be involved w/ covert intel op's?

 

[Dulloldfart]

Have you seen the Rover 1 footage?

Dunno. Give me a link. I couldn't find something that would clearly be what you are talking about.

This long article about true colours on Mars is *fascinating*:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/colors.htm

Paul