The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

... Another question - Does the phenomena of As-is-ness (presuming that it is real) violate the law of conservation of energy/mass?

The only 'as-isness' phenomenon of which I'm aware is a mental/spiritual phenomenon described in scientology. As such it has not been identified as a physical phenomenon nor is it known to be subject to physical principles.

Hubbard's word is unreliable as a 'source' as he clearly failed to understand logic, sciences, or rudimentary philosophy, and was therefore incapable of relating these in a coherent consistent philosophy along with the subjective principles underlying scientology.


Mark A. Baker

 

[degraded being]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

OK. Thanks for that.

Another question - Does the phenomena of As-is-ness (presuming that it is real) violate the law of conservation of energy/mass?

Firstly, if As-is-ness is not real, that which makes it not real can be as-ised. As-is-ness is then real.
Secondly, violation of the law of conservation of energy/mass may be dealt with in the same way, i.e, by being as-ised. The violation itself maybe as-ised, leaving the law of conservation of energy/mass intact, or the law of conservation of energy/mass can be as-ised. It's all a matter of how much power a thetan has or whether you use green and red ink.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The only 'as-isness' phenomenon of which I'm aware is a mental/spiritual phenomenon described in scientology. As such it has not been identified as a physical phenomenon nor is it known to be subject to physical principles.

Hubbard's word is unreliable as a 'source' as he clearly failed to understand logic, sciences, or rudimentary philosophy, and was therefore incapable of relating these in a coherent consistent philosophy along with the subjective principles underlying scientology.


Mark A. Baker

On this, I completely agree with Mark A. Baker.

Did anyone else feel the earth move ? :confused2::confused2::confused2:

 

[PirateAndBum]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

"The most important things to do in science is to figure out who the human is and how he operates biochemically. We're never going to understand how the brain works. I always say that my brain is a big palace, and I'm just a little rodent running around inside it. The brain owns me, I don't own the brain. A large computer can simulate totally a smaller computer but it cannot simulate itself, because if it did there wouldn't be anything left except the simulation. Consciousness would stop there."

- John Lilly

True or untrue?

Seams to have a contradiction in the statement that the most important thing to do is to figure out how humans work biochemically and then to say we will never be able to understand how the brain works. What does figure out who the human is even mean?

That one can't simulate that which is doing the simulation is probably not the right issue to focus on.

Like trying to understand seeds - the chicken and the egg question.

Seems to me the seed would be the starting point for the lifeform engineer.

Life is a mystery. The best one written to date.

 

[Leon]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Untrue, but it seems true to him because he is stuck in the idea that he can only ever be human. Once he sheds that crazy idea and adopts a better one he'll make some progress.

 

[FoTi]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Untrue, but it seems true to him because he is stuck in the idea that he can only ever be human. Once he sheds that crazy idea and adopts a better one he'll make some progress.

Which/who's post are you referring to? :confused2:

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: A Little Housekeeping Chore

I read some weeks back on this Thread a post that was historically inaccurate…nothing earth shaking…just a piece of minutia that I feel needs to be corrected for the record so that the historical information parts of this Thread are as accurate as possible.

The post stated that the Bolivar and the Excalibur were WWII Sub Chasers.

I've been on the Bolivar and the Excalibur, as well as the Apollo. While I’m not going into the specifics here, I was SO Sea Duty Trained/Rated and was an Apollo Sea Duty Watch Member with a fairly responsible position. I am quite familiar—bow to stern—with all three vessels.

The Bolivar WAS a WWII Sub Chaser with a minimum of superstructure...sleek, fast, responsive and remarkably maneuverable yet stable. The Excalibur WAS NOT a WWII Sub Chaser. It was a Convoy Escort with a large, high superstructure and conning tower, flying bridge, radar tower and although more tonnage than the Bolivar, less powerful engines. While the Excalibur was far more “tight” than the Apollo, it was “loose” and “goosey” compared to the Bolivar.

After the early ‘70’s the Bolivar and Excalibur were rarely taken out to Sea and spent their time moored to a dock in San Pedro. The SO didn’t want to spend the money to keep them Sea Worthy, pay for the fuel and commit the full time operations personnel.

Many of Sea Org members of that era had never been near a ship and, if they had, it was for a few weeks of SO Indoc courses and the vessels were moored to the dock the entire time…even most of the ones on the Apollo knew little to nothing about sailing or ships.

The Bolivar and Excalibur were as similar as a Ford Mustang GT 350 and F150 Pick up…the Apollo, in comparison, was like a bus/cattle truck. Just standing in the wheelhouse of each vessel plainly showed they were all different breeds of cat. Bridge to Bilge, Foc’sle to Fantail, Engine Room to Ward Room all three ships were built for different purposes.

How’s this for irony? When I was out at Sea on the Bolivar I got all stoked on the idea that I was experiencing being on the Bridge at Sea of a Sub Chaser, like El Ron did. All these years later I sit here knowing now it was all a lie. Every SO Member that ever stepped aboard the Bolivar did something Hisself never did—stood on the deck of a WWII Corvette that saw combat (El Ron never set foot on the Bolivar).

Face

Thanks for pointing that out. It was I who said they were both sub chasers. I got that info from my brother Clarence Rockaway or some other staff members. I had no sea experience whatever and accepted it at "face" value (no pun intended). I know for sure that the Excalibur had a course room while the Bolivar was cramped and definitely could not have had a course room. Most of us went down to the ships either because our stats were down and we needed to do a rehab assignment or just to do our basic S.O. training. I did the Able Bodied Seaman Course. It was a very fundamental course and I still didn't know much about ships after graduating.

I do remember some sort of superstructure which could be climbed up on, right? The Bolivar, at that time was not able to travel and we were just sent over there to do clean up. One assignment was to go down in the bilges and remove heavy iron type objects and take them off the ship and set them near the dock. It was very narrow and cramped, almost like a submarine, you almost had to turn sideways to pass someone coming the other direction. We took the Excalibur for a cruise in Long Beach Harbor and people on other ships waived to us enthusiastically and we waved back very enthusiastically. The name Excalibur was painted on the side of the ship and I believe there was a drawing of an Excalibur sword underneath the name. The other ships may have assumed that we were some sort of pleasure yacht.

As to the error I made about the ships, I appreciate learning that I made an error and am glad that it was caught and corrected but frankly, I don't think it is a major error or anything to apologize for.

This is a discussion board not a courtroom testimony. Small flubs come with the terrtory. Perhaps a disclaimer needs to be stated

DISCLAIMER:
I am telling stories which happened up to 42 years ago. I try my best to get things right and always tell the truth as I see it. Occasionally, I may get a detail or two wrong or pass on a piece of incorrect info which someone gave me. If someone sees such an error, such as Face did, please call it too my attention and I will correct it. For major points, if I am not positive, I usually Googol the topic before writing about it. That's about it, if you think making a small mistake such as this one or the one where I stated an incorrect definition for the word "touche" in sword fighting discredits me then just put me on ignore or don't bother reading my posts. I think Face did the right thing in correcting me. He has the knowledge and what I wrote was in error, he pointed it out and I fixed it . Paul, "Dull Old Fart", did a similar thing on another thread the other day. He pointed out my error stating a wrong definitions for the word touche' in a courteous manner once, and then added some additional relevant data a little later. I thanked him and moved on. .Cases closed. To make sneaky innuendos and pick out minor flubs and make jokes about them is another matter. If a person has to engage in that then it is they who have a problem, not me.
Lakey

 

[FoTi]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

UFO shaped object found at the bottom of the Baltic Sea....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ttle-fireplaces-lying-end-1-000ft-runway.html

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

UFO shaped object found at the bottom of the Baltic Sea....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ttle-fireplaces-lying-end-1-000ft-runway.html

UFO shaped? Do you realize how silly that is?

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

movie coming

movie coming out at the end of summer

looks good

[video=youtube;3SAZGurVLPc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SAZGurVLPc[/video]

cast looks good

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

UFO shaped? Do you realize how silly that is?

The Anabaptist Jacques

Unfortunately those who buy into that stuff don't see how silly it is.


Mark A. Baker

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

"The most important things to do in science is to figure out who the human is and how he operates biochemically. We're never going to understand how the brain works. I always say that my brain is a big palace, and I'm just a little rodent running around inside it. The brain owns me, I don't own the brain. A large computer can simulate totally a smaller computer but it cannot simulate itself, because if it did there wouldn't be anything left except the simulation. Consciousness would stop there."

- John Lilly

True or untrue?

This concept of putting ourselves down and saying we are too insignificant to grasp the brain or God or a trans-intelligence or all manner of things seems to me to be self defeating. I'm not saying that it is not true, I'm just suggesting that it is not the best viewpoint to take in trying to discover and understand new truths.

Of course mankind has limitations in intelligence, perception, imagination, etc. but the point is that mankind definitely has not reached its ultimate potential to understand the universe in which he finds himself. Mankind today has more understanding than mankind 50 years and mankind of 50 years ago had more understanding than mankind 100 years ago. Newton made great advancements in the late 17th, early 18th centuries, Einstein made his huge contributions in 1905 and 1916. We are now sending probes to Mars to take photographs and sample the weather there, the Internet age is relatively new.

As long as advancement is occurring in many fields, why not focus on continued progress rather than focusing on how limited we are in intelligence and understanding. At the end of the line, in some future time, maybe we will reach the end of the trail in gathering knowledge and understanding but that day has not come yet. In fact, it may never come because new breakthroughs always cause new vistas to open up for us.

However, If we do reach the end of the line and no more breakthroughs occur, shouldn't that be the time we start focusing on our limitations and smallness. Why focus on that now?

In summary, I am not suggesting arrogance or hubris but merely a more positive attitude. It's like life itself, we know we are going to die sometime but why focus on that before the actual time nears. Same type of thing here - as long as knowledge and understanding are expanding, why focus on how minute we are. Maybe it will work out that our potential for intelligence is greater than what is now believed.
Lakey

 

[FoTi]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

UFO shaped? Do you realize how silly that is?

The Anabaptist Jacques

As silly as you are?

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This concept of putting ourselves down and saying we are too insignificant to grasp the brain or God or a trans-intelligence or all manner of things seems to me to be self defeating. I'm not saying that it is not true, I'm just suggesting that it is not the best viewpoint to take in trying to discover and understand new truths.

snip

However, If we do reach the end of the line and no more breakthroughs occur, shouldn't that be the time we start focusing on our limitations and smallness. Why focus on that now?

In summary, I am not suggesting arrogance or hubris but merely a more positive attitude. It's like life itself, we know we are going to die sometime but why focus on that before the actual time nears. Same type of thing here - as long as knowledge and understanding are expanding, why focus on how minute we are. Maybe it will work out that our potential for intelligence is greater than what is now believed.
Lakey

I would like to add this:

If we say that logically some spiritual concept about God or the spiritual world isn't or can't be correct because it isn't scientific or mathematically possible, then we are being arrogant.

Let us say that someday dogs wanted to see if the ideas humans have are valid. So they decided to take the ideas of geometry and test them by their standard of knowledge and truth and empirical evidence.

So they use the sniff test.

And that, being their best way of finding things out, would show that geometry is a bogus thing.

A materialist uses our version of the sniff test to negate the metaphysical world.

Bad dog!

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

As silly as you are?

It's at least as silly as I am.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

OK. Thanks for that.

Another question - Does the phenomena of As-is-ness (presuming that it is real) violate the law of conservation of energy/mass?

As I remember, we were taught very early on that two objects could not occupy the same space at the same time. I believe that statement comes from lower level physics, maybe as low as high school physics or the undergraduate levels at Universities. Please add more info or correct me if I am wrong!!!

With this early item which we are taught as children, along comes Hubbard and says that two things can occupy the same space at the same time. He states further that when they do, then vanishment or as-isness occurs.

Of course, Hubbard only asserts this and no proof is offered. Then when you start to audit, it seems to work that way for many people. It seems that it works for mental phenomena although nobody can physically prove that proposition.

When this happens, early on in Scn, we believe that it works only for mental masses and spaces but not for actual physical universe masses and spaces. Then you read more Hubbard and he states that it also works for physical universe masses and spaces. This again is merely an assertion with no actual evidence. Hubbard attempts to provide anecdotal evidence in his lectures and stories and people reinforce this with wild success stories such as those of Johnny the Magic Thetan. Still no actual evidence has ever been provided.

These claims of Hubbard's are in direct contradiction to the laws of Physics - I do not know which law or laws it violates but I am sure TAJ, MAB or Student of Trinity can supply that info.
Lakey

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Re: A Little Housekeeping Chore

Thanks for pointing that out. It was I who said they were both sub chasers. I got that info from my brother Clarence Rockaway or some other staff members. I had no sea experience whatever and accepted it at "face" value (no pun intended). I know for sure that the Excalibur had a course room while the Bolivar was cramped and definitely could not have had a course room. Most of us went down to the ships either because our stats were down and we needed to do a rehab assignment or just to do our basic S.O. training. I did the Able Bodied Seaman Course. It was a very fundamental course and I still didn't know much about ships after graduating.

I do remember some sort of superstructure which could be climbed up on, right? The Bolivar, at that time was not able to travel and we were just sent over there to do clean up. One assignment was to go down in the bilges and remove heavy iron type objects and take them off the ship and set them near the dock. It was very narrow and cramped, almost like a submarine, you almost had to turn sideways to pass someone coming the other direction. We took the Excalibur for a cruise in Long Beach Harbor and people on other ships waived to us enthusiastically and we waved back very enthusiastically. The name Excalibur was painted on the side of the ship and I believe there was a drawing of an Excalibur sword underneath the name. The other ships may have assumed that we were some sort of pleasure yacht.

As to the error I made about the ships, I appreciate learning that I made an error and am glad that it was caught and corrected but frankly, I don't think it is a major error or anything to apologize for.

This is a discussion board not a courtroom testimony. Small flubs come with the terrtory. Perhaps a disclaimer needs to be stated

DISCLAIMER:
I am telling stories which happened up to 42 years ago. I try my best to get things right and always tell the truth as I see it. Occasionally, I may get a detail or two wrong or pass on a piece of incorrect info which someone gave me. If someone sees such an error, such as Face did, please call it too my attention and I will correct it. For major points, if I am not positive, I usually Googol the topic before writing about it. That's about it, if you think making a small mistake such as this one or the one where I stated an incorrect definition for the word "touche" in sword fighting discredits me then just put me on ignore or don't bother reading my posts. I think Face did the right thing in correcting me. He has the knowledge and what I wrote was in error, he pointed it out and I fixed it . Paul, "Dull Old Fart", did a similar thing on another thread the other day. He pointed out my error stating a wrong definitions for the word touche' in a courteous manner once, and then added some additional relevant data a little later. I thanked him and moved on. .Cases closed. To make sneaky innuendos and pick out minor flubs and make jokes about them is another matter. If a person has to engage in that then it is they who have a problem, not me.
Lakey

The Excalibur had a small course room and a very tall superstructure you could ascend via internal and external gangways.

The heavy iron-type objects were most likely ballasts. The Bolivar spent most of its SO time nonoperational as it was too expensive to fuel per crew member carried…it had far less than half the cubic square feet of space of the Excalibur and the engines were State of the Art, Ultra High Performance WWII Military Combat Spec Marine Diesel from the early 40’s. The SO would not spend the dough to maintain or fuel the engines.

The ships were registered as Private “TSMY’s” (Twin Screw Motor Yachts). As far as your error goes…like I said, just “minutia”…no big deal...I’m just augmenting and contributing to the Historical Record here on this Thread.

The Bolivar made no economic, practical or operational sense for the SO to purchase...other than as an "Homage" to El Ron's Days as a "Commander of Corvettes"...which, as we all know now, was all bullshit. Gawd, do I ever wish I woulda known that then! I woulda been long gone in a heart beat...dazed, confused, heart broken but gone in a flash nonetheless...I gave it my all folks, I really gave "IT" my all. :confused2:

Peace.

Face

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Re: A Little Housekeeping Chore

The Excalibur had a small course room and a very tall superstructure you could ascend via internal and external gangways.

The heavy iron-type objects were most likely ballasts. The Bolivar spent most of its SO time nonoperational as it was too expensive to fuel per crew member carried…it had far less than half the cubic square feet of space of the Excalibur and the engines were State of the Art, Ultra High Performance WWII Military Combat Spec Marine Diesel from the early 40’s. The SO would not spend the dough to maintain or fuel the engines.

The ships were registered as Private “TSMY’s” (Twin Screw Motor Yachts). As far as your error goes…like I said, just “minutia”…no big deal...I’m just augmenting and contributing to the Historical Record here on this Thread.

The Bolivar made no economic, practical or operational sense for the SO to purchase...other than as an "Homage" to El Ron's Days as a "Commander of Corvettes"...which, as we all know now, was all bullshit. Gawd, do I ever wish I woulda known that then! I woulda been long gone in a heart beat...dazed, confused, heart broken but gone in a flash nonetheless...I gave it my all folks, I really gave "IT" my all. :confused2:

Peace.

Face

I rode out to the Farallon Islands from San Francisco Fishermans' Wharf once on the Bolivar. It was really fun. I climbed as high in the mast (or whatever you call it) that I could. Myself and one or two others. As the ship rolled we would be sitting / standing nearly perpendicular and looking straight down at the ocean. It was incredible fun.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: A Little Housekeeping Chore

The Excalibur had a small course room and a very tall superstructure you could ascend via internal and external gangways.

The heavy iron-type objects were most likely ballasts. The Bolivar spent most of its SO time nonoperational as it was too expensive to fuel per crew member carried…it had far less than half the cubic square feet of space of the Excalibur and the engines were State of the Art, Ultra High Performance WWII Military Combat Spec Marine Diesel from the early 40’s. The SO would not spend the dough to maintain or fuel the engines.

The ships were registered as Private “TSMY’s” (Twin Screw Motor Yachts). As far as your error goes…like I said, just “minutia”…no big deal...I’m just augmenting and contributing to the Historical Record here on this Thread.

The Bolivar made no economic, practical or operational sense for the SO to purchase...other than as an "Homage" to El Ron's Days as a "Commander of Corvettes"...which, as we all know now, was all bullshit. Gawd, do I ever wish I woulda known that then! I woulda been long gone in a heart beat...dazed, confused, heart broken but gone in a flash nonetheless...I gave it my all folks, I really gave "IT" my all. :confused2:

Peace.

Face

Thank you very much for adding more relevant data, it is extremely interesting! I hear LRH's main action in WWII was to fire upon a Mexican seaside town, ordering his crew to fire practice rounds while not realizing that they were firing on an inhabited city!

Well, now you are even with Paul, correcting me once and then adding more relevant data. It is a pleasure to have flubs corrected by guys such as yourselves, you both pretty much always know what you are talking about.

Talking about those ships is like a breath of fresh air because it is one of the few topics which is "on topic" for this thread which started out about experiences at sea on board the Apollo.

Ah yes, TSMY, twin screw motor yachts. How aptly named! When you went on board you were screwed at least twice. First by being overworked for almost no money and second by being deceived and then degraded.

Yes, it was the ballast which we were handling. I'll never forget it, each piece of ballast weighed a good 40 pounds and we had to carry them up a flight of stairs and over a gang plank to the shore. About 1/2 our workers were female and to my utter surprise they lifted and carried on a par with the males. I was working in tandem with an extremely attractive young woman, maybe 22-24, between 5'8" and 5'9", maybe 135-140 lbs. I was only 31, about 5'11 1/2 and about 190 lbs. I was in pretty good shape but could just barely keep up with her. I was getting turned on, observing her work. When we were done carrying, I mentioned to her how surprised I was about her strength and stamina. She said something about being raised with 3 brothers and that she had to be tough to keep from being pushed around by them.

Well done Face for giving your all in the S.O.! You have carried on that tradition posting here on ESMB!!!
Lakey

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Re: A Little Housekeeping Chore

I rode out to the Farallon Islands from San Francisco Fishermans' Wharf once on the Bolivar. It was really fun. I climbed as high in the mast (or whatever you call it) that I could. Myself and one or two others. As the ship rolled we would be sitting / standing nearly perpendicular and looking straight down at the ocean. It was incredible fun.

Luv it!

She was by far the finest ship the SO had in its' “flotilla”. You could lean her over 45 degrees in a turn under flank speed and never feel like you were getting anywhere near the edge. She was built to chase down submerged vessels whatever the topside wind and sea conditions were.

Face