Video 4: Mike Rinder Gaslights Gerry Armstrong

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
This is the 4th video that the Office of Special Affairs (Marty, Mike and Dave) secretly filmed on Gerry Armstrong in Griffith Park - with the help of the LAPD and other hired Private Investigators.

It shows Mike Rinder pretending to be someone other than who he represents himself to be - to destroy his target any way he can.


He did this regularly as CO OSA.

As an Ex-Scientologist, did you know he was doing this?

As a Scientologist, would you have approved of it if you did?
 
Last edited:

The_Fixer

Class Clown
Is this when he first came out of Scn?

Seems many come out as anti Miscavige and pro LRH, until they get a bit more educated and ditch the whole thing as bullshit.

Takes some more time than others. No judgement, just the way things seem to work.
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
Is this when he first came out of Scn?

Seems many come out as anti Miscavige and pro LRH, until they get a bit more educated and ditch the whole thing as bullshit.

Takes some more time than others. No judgement, just the way things seem to work.
That first video was during an op on Gerry Armstrong, so, before 95? :confused:

EDIT: 11.30.84 is the date on the recording.
 

The_Fixer

Class Clown
That first video was during an op on Gerry Armstrong, so, before 95? :confused:

EDIT: 11.30.84 is the date on the recording.
And if the video is indeed 1984, then he was still in da cult?

George Orwell would have had some competition that year ya reckon?
 

Veda

Sponsor
This is the 4th video that the Office of Special Affairs (Marty, Mike and Dave) secretly filmed on Gerry Armstrong in Griffith Park - with the help of the LAPD and other hired Private Investigators.

It shows Mike Rinder pretending to be someone other than who he represents himself to be - to destroy his target any way he can.


He did this regularly as CO OSA.

He was applying confidential Scientology covert Intelligence tech.

As an Ex-Scientologist, did you know he was doing this?

It was done 35 years ago.

As a Scientologist, would you have approved of it if you did?
Do Scientologists approve of the tech being applied? Usually they do.

"SPs" don't have rights, are Fair Game, and are to have "enemy tactics" used on them. That's all in the "scripture" of this "minority religion" as you call it.

I've always supported Gerry Armstrong. He's done great work. I don't think you have friendly intentions towards him. You're using him, and using (exploiting) any dispute between opponents of Miscavige, just as did your predecessor, faux Scientology critic Bernie, Is Alanzo the new Bernie? | Ex Scientologist Message Board .

Note: In this 1984 video, Rinder was only pretending to be an opponent of Miscavige.

I believe now, 35 years later, that he genuinely is an opponent of Miscavige.

I've never been a fanboy of Rinder, but do appreciate the good that he's done when he's done good, and do appreciate the truth he's told when he's told the truth.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Is this when he first came out of Scn?

Seems many come out as anti Miscavige and pro LRH, until they get a bit more educated and ditch the whole thing as bullshit.

Takes some more time than others. No judgement, just the way things seem to work.
No, he was still in while assuming the guise of an opponent to Miscavige.
 

Tanchi

Patron with Honors
In Armstrong's interview with Spanky Taylor, he states he was GO intelligence. When asked by a male (possibly a cameraman?) If he was aware of Fair Game, dirty tricks, etc., Armstrong looks at him from the corner if his eye. Looks away and says he was aware of the policies.

When asked by Taylor if at a certain point he was aware what he was doing was illegal.

His reply was that he was aware of certain illegalities...
Suitcases of money, cigarettes...
Then stated he was willing to do what was necessary for the greater good.

I have a few questions about this. If I weigh a couple of options -he may be trying to explain why he did what he did. (Break the law). Or is that simply a justification for his behaviour at the time?
 
Top