An examination of Hubbard's stories about himself demonstrates a long series of conflicting accounts. "It's a trap not being able to prevaricate," said Hubbard in 1952, during the loose-lipped days of the 'Philadelphia Doctorate Course' lectures.
Nothing much has changed for Scientology believers. The standard responses about Hubbard's tales are belief or acceptance or, as a last resort, "I don't care."
Hubbard wanted badly to be seen as a V.I.P, a war hero, an Intelligence Officer on the order of James Bond. His tales were an attempt to accomplish that. He convinced the Scientologists, and those Scientologists who sense that something is wrong, who begin to perceive the conflicting accounts, and the ease with which Hubbard wafted from reality to fantasy, have - an an excuse - "I don't care."
When confronted with Hubbard's Naval records, one response is to assert that only the person or his immediate family members can access this information. Another response is that the person must be deceased before information can be accessed, so how could this information have appeared before 1986?
Yet the USA Freedom of Information act makes accessible certain information, and files, from a person's military records. This is not mentioned.
If it is noted that the information that has been published is available, through proper means to the public, then the sheep dip argument is made - that the documents must be forgeries.
Yet what of Hubbard's conflicting tales? What of the overwhelming evidence that he just "made up stuff"?
That's "ad hom."
"Well, Hubbard wrote that he was on the Japanese occupied island of Java and practically single-handedly saved the Australians from Japaneses invasion."
"Yea, well prove that he wasn't and that he didn't," etc.
"OK, records show that he was in the USA at the time," etc.
"Oh well, that's sheep dip," etc.
Connect the dots on Hubbard and his deceitful ways? Why would one want to? He gave us the "Tech," the "Bridge To Total Freedom," etc.
That's what really matters, so "I don't care" becomes the response.
Yet the results from Scientology seem to be disappointing. Scientologists are not that different from other people, or perhaps, in some instances, are worse off.
They have their e-meters, they can go through the routine of setting up their meters, holding the cans, going into session, watching the meter respond, watching the needle float, etc.
But, in the long run, are they "Clear," are they "OT"? No.
Not unless they think they are, then, "What's true for you," etc.
When someone is a contented cultist, there's not much point in debating with that person. The certainty that accompanies cultism is its own result, its own reward.
The moving sidewalk that rotates around the monument to Hubbard doesn't need to go any place. It moves, it vibrates. So what if it rotates? Those following the taped path, their gaze focused on a few inches of tape at their feet, won't notice - or care.