The (in)validity of the OT3 story

Note: To not scare off true believers and to make this distributable to more people, I will include no confidential material in this blog post. There are however links to confidential material provided.

I have been discussing a lot on several forums lately and would like to share a conclusion regarding the background story for Scientology’s secret level called “OT 3”. While there are plenty of evidence that Hubbard’s story is untrue, many Scientologists tries to offer a counter-proof. And the “proof” they offer is that the e-meter does in fact react to the incidents Hubbard describes. That would constitute the proof for Hubbard’s take on what happened on this planet some 75 million years ago.

So, in short, there is no proof for the ot 3 story beyond the e-meter reads – except a subjective belief in the incidents.

What if i told you that according to Hubbard, e-meter reactions does not constitute proof of any incident. That’s right, Hubbard wrote about false incidents from a person’s past, and that these can indeed run as usual – complete with e-meter reads and all. Let me quote from “HCO BULLETIN OF 24 JULY 1978, DIANETIC REMEDIES”:

Sometimes a pc cannot confront the actual incidents that are keyed-in by life or auditing. Such a pc will not go backtrack. In this case the running of imaginary incidents is quite productive. Sometimes the preclear will run them, quite astonishingly, with somatics.

All the PC’s responses to this question, with their meter reads are noted by the auditor. He then takes up the best reading incident or picture and runs it out R3RA narrative quad, first checking interest. Lesser reading items are then taken up.

Technical Scientology-stuff in there, i know. But the main thing is that imaginary incidents do run like real ones, and the e-meter does read on these types of incidents.

So the “proof” that the OT 3 story is real because the e-meter reads is blown to bits. What is left? Religious belief.

Belief can move mountains – and belief in a story from your Guru may well make that story “true for you”, and you will be able to “run it” in session as though it was real. There is even support for this on OT 7 where one of the questions on a correction list asks if you are “mocking up” what is run in session.

There is nothing wrong with religious belief. At all. But to pass it off as “objectively proven” is dishonest.

Do i believe the OT 3 story? No.

Did i get gains from the auditing on OT 3? Yes, very much so. The reason for this is covered elsewhere on this blog.

140 thoughts on “The (in)validity of the OT3 story

  1. Geir, I don’t know how many have doubts or assert it’s true or sci-fi. The reason it has effectiveness is because of the common motion, stops and mock-ups included in what is run. When mining stuck and frozen energy this script is like an ice pick on an ice block. The benefits of freeing up other things seems important at first, but becomes secondary later. Trey mentioned a good point the other day; its the context v the content. You don’t have to believe it, it’ll still have an effect. It really has more to do with what you can do with your own creations. I don’t believe in that incident for one second, but it’s totally real to me that case is at some points very much held together by ridges, flows, and dispersive explosions regardless of the story.(The Hindus describe it in their process of creation very well) It’s clever creative therapy- and, probably why dianetics works on false track p.c.’s, too. Some can get very carried away by their creations; all the better. Just don’t force it on me, I’ve got my own way of handling these things.

  2. Hej Geir,

    There is something missing in your understanding in running imaginary incidents, or maybe you never trained on Dianetics or The Academy. The point is that running ‘imaginary’ incidents, telling the PC to run what he imagines should be there always makes him run the REAL incident, otherwise it would have no therapeutic validity. I have audited many PCs on ‘imaginary’ incidents and many have solved headackes, stomach aces and all sorts of other someatics and AESPs) running this, why else would you do it? I mean really, if you just run something which he is mocking up, what’s the idea? Unless he is mocking up the real stuff which is then really not a mock-up but an incident, but he does not see the difference. It’s like when you see science fiction movies. Where do you think they gat all that stuff from? Pure, plain, actual mock-ups? I am NOT discussing the validity of OT III here, just the validity in running imaginary incidents.

    Regarding the III-incident 75 mill ago a much more valid argument is when you contact a good geologist and have him check the list of vulcanos. He will deny most of their existance at that time and tell you a whole different story on the MEST-level.

    Everfun…
    Per

    1. I know this. I’ve read the issues. My Only point there was to show that imaginary incidents can very well produce the e-meter reads that some claim as proof that the incident is real. That’s all. The correction list question on Solo NOTs support the same. Besides this – it is obvious that imaginary incidents produce e-meter reactions. The Clear Cog is evidence enough – but here I was shown a clear-cut non-confidential issue from LRH saying the same.

  3. The emeter is a huge source of “observational evidence” for Scientologists.

    Yet Hubbard himself said that an emeter read is not evidence of anything. But he also said that R/Ses were evidence of SPs, that Stage four needles were evidence of “Black Fives”.

    An emeter read is a like a rorschach ink blot test. It is evidence of whatever you want it to be evidence of.

    Hubbard knew that. And he used that on Scientologists.

    Alanzo

  4. The point is that the IMAGINARY incident reads because there is a REAL CHARGE comming from a REAL incident. there. Calling it an imaginary incident is a trick to lure the PC into a little more responsibility in order to run the incident.

    There are many tapes and issues where Ron discusses this, not just the one you mmention.

    In any case, and this is true for all items, all metering, that when somehting reads, you have NO idear about what it is and if anything is there in answewer to the question. Everything can be made to read by supp., inval., protest, etc etc.. all the bottons. The only thing you know when you get a read is that you got a read. That’s all.

    If you check a guy on the meter regarding inc. 75 mill years ago it might read, but on what? You don’t know anything untill you start asking him and waching the meter again. It might just be a protest read, and will be if the queston is unreal to him.

    You didn’t comment on the vulcano-bit!!

    Tell me, what actuall training have you done, not counting solo course?
    I AM curious…

    The support in the question on the NOTS corr list is about 15 years after the same question occured on the Green Green Form.

    I don’t know what you mean regarding the clear cog’s connection to imaginary incidents read. I hope that any clear cog will not read but F/N..

    Love
    Per

    1. 1. My only point with that reference is to show that the Incident run is not factually proven by a meter read. That’s all.
      2. Volcanoes are covered by the link in the blog post.
      3. The reference to the Clear Cog; A thetan can mock up anything, charge included.
      4. Training as Supervisor, Pro Debugger, Objectives CoAudit and of course all of the L&N, Assessment, Ruds, Rehab, Data& Locate, etc, etc, on the Solo route.

      1. 1. good. 2. OK, 3. got you, didn’t see it like that at first, but ofcourse. 4. If you want to do some training, you are welcome, the entire ‘Bridge’ on the training side is awailable.
        Love
        Per

  5. There are certain cues that a pc gets from an auditor in session that say to him “we got a read on that question”. The auditor looks up, waits for the pc to answer, and does not go on to the next question.

    This prompts the pc to look around in his mind for what could be the answer. And it also causes the pc to create something that would be an answer.

    This is the process of false memory syndrome. The auditing question and Hubbard’s lectures and books and “hatting” act as hypnotic suggestions, the Emeter acts as the “objective authority” and the pc’s imagination is prompted by these to come up with false memories in most cases.

    Scientology creates false memories, false time tracks, and false identities through the use of the emeter.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome

    Alanzo

      1. Ever read “Have You Lived Before This Life?”. Those are false memories, prompted by emeters, Hubbard’s lectures, and auditing commands.

        If they are not false memories, present the evidence that they are true memories.

        Ever heard of a pc who says that they did OT 3 last lifetime when they were born in the early 1960’s? That’s a false memory, prompted by Hubbard’s writings and lectures, the emeter, and the auditing question as a suggestion.

        Wild conjecture? Dude. I have much more evidence for the generation of false memory syndrome in Scientology through the use of an emeter and Hubbard’s suggestions than you do for Scientology generating true memories – especially when it comes to past lives.

        If what I wrote is “wild conjecture” then show me all the past life incidents run in auditing for which there is even one little bit of evidence.

        My statements about false memory syndrome in Scientology are much more rooted in evidence and solid facts than any past life identity or incident generated by Scientology auditing.

        I am not saying that there is no such thing as past lives.

        I am saying that Scientology auditing with emeters generates false memory syndrome like a 16 stack coal factory produces smoke.

        Alanzo

          1. Gier wrote:

            “majority” is your claim. You back it up. Simple.

            I did. There is no evidence whatsoever for any past life memory “uncovered” or “generated” in any Scientology auditing session ever.

            There are plenty of auditing sessions which have generated multiple Jesuses, Catherine The Greats and Napoleons, as well as wild shit on other planets such as implant stations on Mars – which are obviously not true.

            Since there is NO evidence for the truth of any past life memory generated by auditing questions and an emeter, and there is MUCH evidence for false memories generated by these, I think there is plenty of evidence to say “most”, as in “The auditing question and Hubbard’s lectures and books and “hatting” act as hypnotic suggestions, the Emeter acts as the “objective authority” and the pc’s imagination is prompted by these to come up with false memories in most cases.”

            If that’s “wild conjecture” then you are assuming that most past life incidents generated by auditing are true – when there is absolutely NO evidence for any of them.

            So who is wildly conjecturing here, Geir? Huh??? (:>)

            Heh, heh, heh.

            Alanzo

            1. I am not conjecturing anything. I am challenging your conjecture. You cannot claim “majority” of anything without solid proof on this blog, my friend.

            2. So I am claiming that the majority of past life incidents generated in auditing are false, and you are claiming that my claim of a majority is “wild conjecture” and that I can not make that claim on your blog.

              While you stand on nothing at all – no evidence whatsoever – as the cause for your protest that most past life memories generated by Scientology are false.

              You are not saying that most past life memories generated by Scn auditing are true, because you know you can’t say that, because there is absolutely no evidence for their truth at all.

              But when I provide multiple instances of false memories generated from auditing that we all recognize as very solid evidence which shows scn auditing generating false memories all day every day that even Hubbard recognized – you reject that evidence in favor of no evidence at all, and call my claim “wild conjecture” which I can’t do on your blog.

              LOL!

              Okay Gier!!

              I am wildly conjecturing and I am out of control!!!!

              How about if a I say this: I believe that most of the past life memories that I ran in auditing were false, and I know many people who also say the same thing, and that even Hubbard’s OT 8 itself agrees with me.

              Would I still be “wildly conjecturing” on your blog – in your opinion?

              Alanzo

            3. I do not claim either way. I challenge you to prove the case for “majority”. That you can come up with a hundred examples supporting false memories does not constitute evidence for your claim of “majority”. Respect statistical proofs. Or simply add a “IMO” at the end of claims you cannot statistically support. Rather simple.

            4. A preponderance of actual evidence which falls on the side of false memories vs. no evidence whatsoever falling on the side of true past life memories generated by Scn auditing IS respecting statistical proofs.

              But you are right. Since I can not poll every person who has ever run a past life incident in Scientology auditing, add up each incident and determine their truth or falsity, and find a sum that is greater than 50 percent, then my statement is conjecture.

              But is it really “wild conjecture”, Geir?

              When a person falls on the side with the only evidence, and faces no evidence at all in the counter position – is his statement supporting the side with the evidence wild?

              Really?

              Let’s bring this discussion out of a false laboratory environment where it does not exist and onto the real world:

              Should the reasonable conclusion from our Socratic duel here be that most of the past life memories generated by Scientology auditing are true?

              Or should we reasonably conclude that most of the past life memories generated by Scientology auditing are false?

              Which position has the most evidence in its favor?

              Which position has NO evidence in its favor?

              Which conclusion is reasonable, and which conclusion is actually WILD?

              Alanzo

            5. I concede it is not wild. My conclusion is that there is insufficient evidence for your conjecture. To fall down on a false or true regarding your conjecture would be foolish IMO.

            6. LOL!!!

              Oh that’s a good answer, Geir!!

              So chalk up a NO CONCLUSION for Geir whether Scientology generates mostly false or mostly true past life memories!

              Alanzo

            7. Alanzo – have you not understood the basic mechanics in an engram? There were 10th of thousands of soldiers who were killed by Napoleon. Which identity do you think they would dramatize when they get into the area? The killed soldier or the victorious Napoleon? If you don’t know you can guess.. !!! I am sure you will guess right…
              Love
              Per

            8. Per –

              I like your answer. Discussing these things with you is fun, and you are reminding me of good and important lessons that I learned long ago in Scn. This one of identifying with different personae is really good. Thanks for that.

              But the point is whether these auditing-generated memories are true or false, and whether Scn technology actually – this includes the auditing environment and never to inval or eval for the pc, the use of the meter etc, GENERATES false memories that cause pcs to become delusory about their own identities.

              I say it does. So let’s say a pc says he was Napoleon in this battle – Scientology technology does not ever allow for the pc to determine if this is really true, and it tends to shut down questioning on the matter as “Qand A” and “PTS” and thus glue in false memories into a pc’s identity.

              Over time, and among all the group agreement that Ron generated about auditing, wouldn’t you agree?

              Alanzo

            9. Alanzo,
              It seems to me that your and my rality (or actuality rather) regarding auditing and auditing generated case is so entirely different that I find it very hard to discuss this with you. Your understanding is soooo very far away from mine that I feel that it will take me pages and pages upon pages to make you understand my answers to your postulates. This I can’t spend too much time on as I have clients to audit and to train, which I find more important. Don’t be offended about this. I DO respect your viewpoints and in fact I do not have any wish to change them at all. It’s just that I feel that in order for you to understand mine, for me to explain them to you – I will be a very old man when I am done. Real OT, you know: Old and Tired….
              Everlove
              Per

            10. What Per wrote is basically the sentiment I’ve been expressing for a while now. And not just with regard to Alanzo.

            11. Per wrote:

              It seems to me that your and my reality (or actuality rather) regarding auditing and auditing generated case is so entirely different that I find it very hard to discuss this with you. Your understanding is soooo very far away from mine that I feel that it will take me pages and pages upon pages to make you understand my answers to your postulates.

              There’s this thing in Scientology called the A-R-C T-r-i-a-n-g-l-e!

              We can begin with something we agree on.

              How about this?

              “Man is basically social.”

              Can you agree to that?

              Alanzo

          2. Oh yes, i’ve had PC’s who had gone clear and OT (up to 7) in previous life. But I feel that this whole dscussion is prompting me to re-load my earlier essay on case assessments, so here it is: (And do not tell me that past life does not exist. Lots of people, not in Scn, experience that. I have a very exact recollection myself of some PLs and real life change this life when I finally got audited out of those past incidents. (Can tell more about htis later).

            There is ONE aspect with Ron’s and Bill’s tech which has been coming up now and then. Both of them “found” their tech working with their own cases and then assumed that since they found what
            they found on their own case, they would find it on every other case. This is an actuality, not my idea. I have seen quite a few where they were NOT stacked the way Ron or Bill suggested. They were different. Some tended more in the direction of the description in other theory issues like A History of Man for instance.

            Then again I have seen cases where similar stuff to Ron’s and Bill’s ran very real because the person had mocked it up himself first. And yet again I have seen cases where nothing like it could be found, but other stuff handled made the PC – Pre-OT attain very similar states to those
            Ron and Bill had predicted could be obtained when those case phenomenon were handled.

            This shows various degrees of suggestibility. Persons, also those who has a higher level of awareness, has a high level of ability to create whatever you ask them to create, directly or via a solo C/S instruction. That they can do this is not an invalidation but an observation of an ability
            demonstrated in order to obtain a promised level of freedom/ability. I have seen this at a very subtle level too where the client would create it unconsciously at my suggestion (evaluation), just by asking if it’s there. Being a very “nice” and obedient client, again without invalidation, creating
            what is being asked for right away, consciously or subconsciously. It was NOT there before I asked for it, and would NOT come up if I ran whatever the client offered to run.

            So there are all kind’s of levels of reality based on these observations. I find it therefore to be my most important job to find out what to run on each case without ANY evaluation as pr. the auditors code. This can be quite a task, but so far, to me, it has been the most valuable task.

            Some clients come from the Church or from elsewhere and have heard about these case phenomenon’s and got them so solidly mocked up already, and with such a wish to run it, that it is not possible for me to negate it in any way, but they also get great gains running it the way they have already mocked it up.

            Therefore it is my experience after all these hours in the chair and C/Sing (40.000 hours) that you really have to observe and handle cases individually and not assume anything beforehand. This means auditing the case in front of you and not some postulated or imagined case which you assume is there, just because the previous one was like that.

            Why are there so many technologies or practices? Why aren’t there just ONE? One which all cases would follow and gain from? In my opinion this is because different cases unfold and open up in different ways. Different clients need different approaches to their cases.

            The biggest gains obtainable pr. auditing minute I have found by using PTS-handling, Power Auditing, NOTs and Op Pro by Dup. (Book and the bottle) for different cases.

            Everlove, Per
            Class IX
            October 2008

            1. Per wrote:

              So there are all kind’s of levels of reality based on these observations. I find it therefore to be my most important job to find out what to run on each case without ANY evaluation as pr. the auditors code. This can be quite a task, but so far, to me, it has been the most valuable task.

              Very interesting.

              To me, the Scientology before the dictates of “the Bridge” and “standard tech” was the Scientology most likely to help the most people. But it was labor intensive and required real, critical thinking experts to run it. And no organization could make very much money running it.

              So Ron trashed that Scientology and went for the “conveyor belt to spiritual freedom money-making machine” for himself. And himself alone.

              Alanzo

            2. Per; This is one hell of a reply. I could just as well have substituted my own OP for your reply here. Agree wholeheartedly. LIKE.

            3. Yes Alanzo, that’s what Ron did, but I think that his motivation was different. He got desparate because he could not train auditors who could understand and run the cases with the same results as he did. He finally gave up and started training what I call robot-auditors. They can follow a process, give the commands etc etc, but they don’t really know how, what they are doing, works. They can’t think with the tech and basics are often out. If the case is running a bit differently, then they are lost. THEN Ron tried to train some experts, the Class VIII came into being and that helped some…

              Everlove, Per

            4. Per
              I am familiar with the PTS tech. Why do you think it is so powerful? I am interested in your answer based on your training, knowledge and practice.

            5. Per – not related to this post… but damn, you are on fire here! You are one helluvaguy. Thanks for posting here.

            6. Per
              Thank you! Invaluable articles…I may reflect on some of it later but will read them over again first as they are indeed priceless. Wish others will read them too.

            7. Per
              If I had to say one thing that communicates to me the best in this universe, it would be this: to take responsibility for one’s self with which I take responsibility for the ONE SELF. To love myself, which is expanding to other ‘parts of the Self’.
              I love your writings! Simple, loving – as Life itself! I quote some parts here:

              ‘Everybody are members of ‘fields’. Spiritually connected by similar attitudes, ideas, experiences etc. If you handle a person’s negative contribution to a field, the others,
              being connected to the same field, will lose negativism too. The field will turn more positive.’

              ‘Capaciousness is here defined as the ability to encompass new viewpoints’
              (I would add, if I may, feelings, energy waves, sensations…whatever is ‘new’ to the
              person….embracing all, with or without ‘evaluation of comparable magnitude’).

              ‘Knowledge about what is really going on in the client’s universe….this knowing will
              extend to others in the environment, ‘flowed’ by love…’

              Thank you very much for the link! I am writing another comment too after this.

            8. Dear Marianne, Thanks a lot for your nice and real comments. Of course you can add to what I said, Your opinion is very much appreceated, please do not hesitate. I love to get some feed-back as it’s quite seldom I see any. I think that this is because I didn’t make myself very clear at times so that people do not get what I say or because there are so very different realities, or actualities rather that what I say is not duplicatable and therefore not heard. So I look forward to the other comments you said are on the way… great.
              Love
              Per

            9. Per: I love to get some feed-back as it’s quite seldom I see any. I think that this is because I didn’t make myself very clear at times so that people do not get what I say or because there are so very different realities, or actualities rather that what I say is not duplicatable and therefore not heard.

              Chris: I enjoy reading your posts Per. I find them to be contextual, clearly written and easy to understand.

            10. Per
              This one is a jewel too, from Latent Gains.
              ‘…auditing took place whilst there were several, even many, unhandled “PTS”-items on the case.’
              Hereby I invite others to read the article what CAN HAPPEN when this ‘handling’ takes place…THIS is miracle….or, I can say, the miracle of LIFE itself….

              Thank you ever so much, Per. Do you have any other writings?

              (the link to Per’s writings is a few comments above this)

            11. Thanks a lot Dear… Yes I have other writings, but I don’t think that they would really fit this threat. If there is something you are interested in specifically you can write me on per1909@gmail.com
              Love
              Per

            12. Per
              Thanks for your email address, I will write to you as I am interested in more of your writings.
              You write: ‘ I didn’t make myself very clear at times so that people do not get what I
              say or because there are so very different realities, or actualities rather that what I
              say is not duplicatable and therefore not heard.’
              Your writing is crystal clear, I like it because you use simple terms, you use the exact number of data to support your point(s).
              Yes, people can have different realities and actualities…but, YOU are heard.

    1. A PC who has his attention on anything other than his case – is NOT in session, and then reads are NOT valid… THAT auditor needs to get his act together…
      Everfun
      Per

      1. Per wrote: A PC who has his attention on anything other than his case – is NOT in session, and then reads are NOT valid… THAT auditor needs to get his act together…

        Isn’t the pc supposed to listen to the auditing questions as they are delivered to him by the auditor in the auditing session?

        I’ll go ahead and assume your answer is “yes”.

        Have you ever looked up and repeated a reading question to a pc, Per?

        Isn’t that a prompt that you got a read on the emeter and that we will be taking this question up further?

        Isn’t that a suggestion to the pc that there is something there, underneath his awareness, that the emeter has detected?

        Alanzo

        1. Could be but doesn’t HAVE to be. I only run things that read, and which read can be verified to be ‘real read’ and that the subject has PC’s interest. Otherwise – forget it. THIS is my point. The read itself doesn’t prove anything.
          Per

          1. Per –

            So if you get a read on a sec check or confessional question, and it turns out to be a “real” read, if the pc tells you he is not interested in the answer you are looking for as an auditor – you will drop that read and go on?

            Alanzo

            1. I do not do sec checks and I do not do confessionals, I do do Integrity Processing, There is a hell of a difference. If a reading question is challenged by the PC you put in the bottons, sup, inval, protest… etc. you can use ALL the prep check bottons until you have gotten the original read verified or discarded. This is very basic tech. What training have you done as an auditor? You can’t have done much if you missed this – excuse me, that is MY OPINION.
              Love,
              Per

            2. So while doing integrity processing, the emeter phenomena you are watching would cause you to put in these buttons until the meter fned – no matter what the pc said.

              Right?

            3. WRONG, You either get a valid reading item or you dont!

              What tech training do you have Alanzo.. you pose strange suggestions…

              Love
              Per

            4. I am saying that the emeter is a device that used to generate false memory syndrome in Scientology auditing, along with Ron’s positive suggestions in the form of pc “hatting”, lectures, writings and auditing questions.

              Are you familiar with false memory syndrome? I gave a link to some information about it earlier. Your answers seem to be ignorant of the possibility of false memory syndrome being generated by Scientology auditing.

              As a Scientology auditor it would not be surprising if you had no training in the avoidance of false memory syndrome in your pcs whatsoever.

              Do you have any training in the avoidance of false memory syndrome?

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome

              Alanzo

            5. Al, you’re talking about false memory syndrome as though it is a recognized fact when actually it is at best ‘controversial’ and not accepted by most psych therapists. From the same article you cited:

              “False memory syndrome is not recognized as an official mental health diagnosis[4][5][6][7] but the principle that memories can be altered by outside influences is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists.”

              and

              “The concept of FMS has proven controversial,[13][14] and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does not include it.”

              There is actually no absolute way to ‘prove’ whether any given memory is ‘true’ or ‘false’, and the concept has been abused.

            6. It’s called brainwashing, Valkov:

              Bruce Hines, a very highly trained and experienced auditor and Sea Org member for 30 years, shows what the False Memory Syndrome from Scientology’s False Purpose Rundown does to a person.

              Go to 3:24.

              In addition to what Geir says about the emeter being used on OT 3, I think this is also clearly an example of false memories and false identities being implanted on OT 3. Bruce Hines details how false memories and false identities and false purposes are implanted on the FPRD in the video above.

              You can deny it all you want, Valkov.

              But it is right there in front of your face.

              Once again.

              Alanzo

            7. Al, I get what you’re saying, except it doesn’t really fit with my reality of how people are. You seem to think ‘people’ are very suggestible. I think some are and some aren’t Here’s what I mean: I haven’t run OTIII so I don’t ‘believe’ it. I have no reality on it one way or the other. (Neither have you run it, have you?)

              Of the people who have run it, some say they got gains from doing so and ‘believe’ the narrative, because it seems they remember it the same way LRH did.

              Others say they got gains from it, but DO NOT believe the narrative. Geir appears to be one such.There are others.

              Some did not report any or much gains from the level and do not believe the narrative, or apparently did not contact any material one way or the other doing the process.

              There doesn’t seem to be much basis for speculating about it and drawing firm conclusions one way or the other.

              Believing/disbelieving are not the only alternatives, are they?

              I suppose for people with a low tolerance for ambiguity, they are?

              So I don’t really see the point here. It’s like, who cares whether it is factual or not? Why bother to even take a position on it? Geir has a stake in it and can contribute an opinion because he lived it, he did the upper levels and can contribute something substantive, which he did in his OP.

              What’s your stake in it? And why does it make any difference to you whether I believe your take on it or not?

              I certainly don’t care whether or not you believe my take on any subject. And ‘authority’ means shit to me. Bruce Hines has interesting things to say and that’s great, but do I ‘believe’ what he says? The question itself is meaningless to me.

              I know what I know. I also know what I don’t know.

              Do you know what you don’t know? That’s what has always puzzled me about you.

            8. Valkov –

              I have seen your stance soften a bit toward me and the ideas I place here. You take more time now to address the ideas in my posts directly, which is a nice improvement.

              As more of your opinion leaders like Marty have softened their stances, you have followed along. You are willing to acknowledge certain, limited, failings of Hubbard now, instead of viciously personally attacking anyone who would ever question him. This is also an improvement.

              You may never be willing to see that if there was a way to manipulate and control the human mind, Hubbard tried it out in Scn tech and policy on Scientologists. But as more and more people around you are seeing that, and beginning to acknowledge it, I think you will be able to as well.

              While you may still believe in L Ron Hubbard, and believe that Scientology technology only exists “to free mankind”, despite all reasons you should not, I still believe in you.

              Alanzo

          2. By the way Per, I got what you said – the read itself doesn’t prove anything.

            But when you are talking about past lives, isn’t the emeter the only thing which gives a clue that something is “there” to run? And when the needle FN’s, TA raises and lowers, etc, isn’t this the only way to tell if the incident is “real”?

            What about this scenario: Let’s say you get an LFBD on a past life type question. PC starts looking, TA starts rising, then the PC says there is nothing there. TA keeps rising, and you get the same LFBD again.

            Would you take what the pc says, that there is nothing there and move on? Or would you keep the pc on that question – solely and only because of the emeter phenomena that you are watching?

            Alanzo

            1. No of course not. I would do as descibed in basic auditing and in my other amswer – please look it up !!
              Love
              Per

            2. I’m not going to assert that what you are saying hasn’t happened Alanzo. I once gave a small demo of auditing to a woman I worked with. She knew nothing about Dn/Scn. We were sitting on the floor in my living room. Thinking I’d run something very light, I asked her to recall a time that was really real to her. She told me about having had an abortion. She was a bit distressed about the matter. After telling me about what had happened to her, I asked her if there was something similar that happened before that and she started weeping, eventually relating the story of how a child had been taken from her – this was a past life she was recounting (she was a young woman that had never had any kids). I was a bit surprised that someone “off the street” would so easily do this. There was no meter involved. Just a little anecdote. Doesn’t prove anything either way as to whether the memory was false or true, but I had not led her other than by asking for something earlier similar – she could just as well have said no, there’s nothing earlier or given something else in her current life. But no, whamo – into this huge upsetting incident she goes. I personally don’t think this was some imaginary incident she decided to invent and dramatize on the fly to satisfy me. It taught me to be careful what you coffee shop 🙂

  6. The problem with how the emeter is used in Scientology is that it is a device which ends questioning for Scientologists (along with the socially coercive techniques on “Q&A”, Man’s Deadliest Disease”, “PTSness” and others that Hubbard put into the environment of a Scientologist) .

    A past life memory, at best, can only be said to be “both true and false”, or “neither true nor false”. It can never be said to be TRUE as in “Empire State Building true”.

    But the use of the emeter in Scientology is designed to give Scientologists CERTAINTY, and this CERTAINTY is the death of the path of truth. Ending questioning, the emeter locks in things in a person’s memory as “true facts” which should never be considered as facts. People build whole false identities in their own minds about their past and who they were, and who they are today.

    This is very dangerous, and it can lead to catastrophic delusions like the ones Rex Fowler had when he murdered his business partner while on OT 7.

    Your post, Gier, about the emeter being a huge source of validation for the incidents generated by the OT 3 story, is an example of false memory syndrome at work in Scientology.

    The answer is to begin questioning again. And to separate Empire State Buildings from those things which exist only in the mind.

    Alanzo

  7. Science have that the dinosaur were wiped out on planet Earth 65 million years ago. Being that carbon dating is slower than what science has it, that could put it at 75 million years ago. Dinosaur bones are radioactive, they even paint these bones with lead because they are radioactive. Scientist try to explain this by saying Earth must have been hit with a gamma burst. But if that was the case, Earth would have become a cinder ball in orbit with it’s oceans vaporized and very sterile, and there’d be no life on earth today.
    Back in 89 I saw a tabloid headline stating “God destroyed the dinosaur with Atom bombs”. I was also on the CL VIII course at the time and in one lecture LRH talked about the ‘bypassed case’. The process read, the process ran, TA action occurred, the whole 9 yards. But it wasn’t running on the pc case. The pc’s case got bypassed. The NCG (No Case Gain) is a small fraction, but the bypassed case percentages seems to me to be quite high.

    1. Welcome 🙂

      There was supposedly a population north of 250 billion on Earth according to LRH. NO evidence of any past civilization has ever surfaced. Still very small creatures from that time has been unearthed. It smacks of fiction. Science fiction. Just like LRH could have come up with the name “XENU” by stopping in Estoril/Lisabon on his way to Las Palmas. You may know that Xenu is the name of part of that city.

      Could LRH have been inspired by the new scientific theories at the time that a great catastrophe wiped out the dinosaurs some 75 million years ago (the time believed at the time he wrote OT 3)? I mean, I can come up with fantastic theories of what happened to the dinosaurs at the time that is supported by CURRENT evidence. I can come up with at least ten different wild guesses – none of which are in contradiction with Current science. The real test of a theory is whether it makes predictions that are not yet seen but will be seen. So far, LRH’s OT 3 theory has made zero confirmed predictions.

  8. Gayle Smith aka TroubleShooter

    You do not seem to understand the refs that I gave to you to read or you chose not to read them or you did yet chose to pluck out a line and run with it without regard to a large body of data of which those two other refs were a part. You are an untrained OT aren’t you Geir? I don’t say that with distaste to most OTs who are untrained, never had to take responsibility for anothers’ case through the lower Bridge or through Clear. I can tell that from your writing. You are untrained. You also appear to me to be desperately trying to cause something I just don’t know what it is. I don’t know what has you so wound up Geir but I refuse to engage further in a conversation with someone whose intention is to degrade, judge and enturbulate and that is what I feel you are doing. If I’m wrong then it’s my loss but I don’t think I am. See you later, maybe.

      1. Geir, you can characterize it as elitist as a way to dismiss the fact that all Gayle was saying was that many of your viewpoints show that you are lacking in training and experience in auditing pcs.

        More significantly, what she said in the following is something you should really take a look at because there have been times when I too have perceived it the way she does and could have written exactly what she wrote:

        “You also appear to me to be desperately trying to cause something I just don’t know what it is. I don’t know what has you so wound up Geir but I refuse to engage further in a conversation with someone whose intention is to degrade, judge and enturbulate and that is what I feel you are doing.”

        Nevertheless, I like to think that whatever truth there is to the above at times, it is not you at your best, to put it mildly.

        1. What Gayle did was an AdHom. A pretty good example at that. I am sure you will defend her in this nevertheless while in other instances you would shout AdHom! Right?

          My point was not addressed at all.

          1. I thought she addressed your point here: “You do not seem to understand the refs that I gave to you to read or you chose not to read them or you did yet chose to pluck out a line and run with it without regard to a large body of data of which those two other refs were a part.”

            I believe she was accusing you of the fallacy of Quoting out of Context: “selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning.” http://fallacies.findthedata.org/q/55/1157/What-is-the-contextomy-Fallacy-of-quoting-out-of-context-fallacy

            Below is the complete text of the section of the bulletin you quoted from (i.e. the section titled “Imaginary Incidents”), which you quoted only part of. The part you omitted clearly shows that it is the pc who comes up with the imaginary incident, not the auditor – as you seem to be inferring LRH was doing by giving the OT III incident to pcs as “an imaginary incident”. In addition, running imaginary incidents only applies to certain types of pcs, as described in the first paragraph. Thus, that bulletin woudn’t even apply to most pcs, and certainly not to all OT III pcs, obviously.
            —————————————————–
            “Sometimes a pc cannot confront the actual incidents that are keyed-in by life or auditing. Such a pc will not go backtrack. In this case the running of imaginary incidents is quite productive. Sometimes the preclear will run them, quite astonishingly, with somatics. But he is not being required to face any reality about them and the auditor is not insisting that any reality exists concerning them. In a surprisingly high percentage of times, however, he will be running actual incidents. So long as he does not have to admit that these incidents are actual he can do something about them.

            “It should be understood that no amount of imaginary incidents can supplant the running of real incidents. The first value that this technique has – the invitation to the preclear to run avowedly imaginary incidents in his past – is to build up, the preclear’s confidence in the auditor. The preclear begins to feel that he will not be censured for indulging in fantasy.

            “When the preclear discovers that he has an auditor who not only will listen to imagination but who encourages it, the affinity level rises and the preclear’s ability to differentiate in terms of reality will itself rise.

            “The auditor must never, after the incident has been run, then insist that the incident was real. This would be a break of faith. He and the preclear have entered into a contract that what is being run is pure imagination, and the auditor must not break his contract.

            “To run imaginary incidents, the auditor discusses with the pc how they will be running imaginary incidents and gets the pc’s agreement to do so.

            “The auditor then asks, “What imaginary incidents or pictures have you touched on?”

            “All the pc’s responses to this question, with their meter reads are noted by the auditor. He then takes up the best reading incident or picture and runs it out R3RA Narrative Quad, first checking interest. Lesser reading items are then taken up.

            “This action is done until the pc is brighter and more able to confront actual incidents as they come up in auditing.
            “In doing this remedy be certain the pc understands R3RA procedure and has no misunderstoods.”
            —————————————————-

            1. No Miraldi, she did not address my point. This is classical AdHom. Further defense of that on your part is embarrassing. Sorry.

            2. You are not addressing my point whatsoever. You are merely repeating your assertion that Gayle did not address your point, in spite of the fact that I quoted where she did.

              Furthermore I said nothing about any Ad Hom. So that is Straw Man on your part to say I was defending it. These are unworthy debate tactics.

              Once again, it doesn’t appear that your intention is to have a true discussion but merely to reign victorious, or some other motivation that neither Gayle nor I have been able to figure out.

            3. I am not going to discuss this further with you because the whole discussion is based on an AdHom and Red Herring by Gayle. Case closed. Respect that.

            4. This is another tactic you sometimes use that is unworthy of you – resorting to an authoritarian cut off of the comm when you don’t have any further defense for your argument. But it’s fine by me because I don’t wish to take it further either as I don’t see that it would go anywhere. Peace. And have a Happy Dianetics Day. 🙂

            5. For Christ’s sake, Marild!

              I will feed you this one in tiny bits and with chopsticks:

              No amount of context around my OP (as replied by Gayle) will counter the FACT that false incidents may very well read on an e-meter and hence an e-meter read does NOT constitute proof of the factuality of the incident run. Even bringing in the WHOLE of Scientology as context will ONLY strengthen hat point of the OP – as Per so eloquently pointed out. Whatever else the issues says about the reasons for running imaginary incidents and what is underlying them etc, etc still does not counter the fact that the Incident run and responding on the e-meter may very well be FALSE. That is the Whole Point. Do you get this? And only this?

              So, plain as day, Gayle did not address THAT point – which is the whole point of the OP. Instead she brought up me and my experience and training in auditing tech to somehow confuse the discussion. This is called Argumentum ad Hominem – a logical fallacy that you have so aptly pointed out in the past but which in this case you refuse to recognize for Lord knows what reason.

              And when a discussion derails (like this one right here and now), I am at liberty to cut the discussion before it becomes ridiculous (like this one right here and now).

              So, my dear Marildi. Put This One To Rest. Like right Now.

              And to soften the harshness and to end this discussion on a more up-beat note, here are three hugs and a happydance:

              *hug*
              *hug*
              *hug*
              *happydance*

            6. Geir, thanks for this comment. Even with your scolding tone, I felt respected and granted beingness. 🙂

              I do get your basic point. And I’m happy to let go of the other ones.

              However, hang on to your hat now – I think a more significant point than yours was the one made by Phil seiflein at the top of the page, where he said: “…it’s totally real to me that case is at some points very much held together by ridges, flows, and dispersive explosions regardless of the story.(The Hindus describe it in their process of creation very well) It’s clever creative therapy – and, probably why dianetics works on false track p.c.’s, too. Some can get very carried away by their creations; all the better.…”

              In other words, even if the OT III incident did not actually occur, it may have been a very clever process that LRH developed with that story that factually enabled most pc’s to release a lot of charge – for whatever reason the charge was there to be released. I say many and not all pc’s because I know there have been some who didn’t feel the incident was theirs – and it probably wasn’t.

              And although I have no argument about a read not proving anything, the fact that mass gets pulled in and then released by the pc IS something that the meter proves, simply according to the way it works as an instrument with regard to metering changes in resistance (mass). And for most pcs the result of running OT III is very valuable gains (albeit subjective ones until possible future research shows them to be objective).

              Thanks too for the hugs. Three warm honey hugs and a happydance back atcha. 😉

            7. And that is another discussion altogether and perhaps worthy of another thread. My whole point and only point and singular point here is that an e-meter read does not in any way shape or form prove that the OT3 incident is factual. I understand that you got that point. Just needed to say that one more time. Because there is NO evidence that LRH was not smoking something weird while he wrote the back story to OT 3.

              I have no doubt that the auditing does something. And for me it was excellent – and very probably because of what Phil pointed out – which is why I validated his point. Gayle’s was a Red Herring, or a green one.

              Another *hug*

            8. Geir, glad you took the opportunity and got to make that specific point one more time. And I again acknowledge that it is clear and valid.

              You know what’s funny about the two of us? My immediate thought to Phil’s post was that LRH may very well have purposely and ingeniously made up a story that would direct the pc’s attention to a certain type of charge that he (LRH) had found no other way of contacting and addressing. Your thought, on the other hand, was that LRH must have been smoking something weird. This is a great example of how different “mindsets” can look at the same data quite differently. Anyway, just wanted to take the opportunity to state my thought one more time. 😉

              Another *hug* back. 🙂

            9. Marildi –

              The OT 3 Incident IS an incident that LRH gives pcs to run. It is a reversal of the auditor’s code where the auditor is not to evaluate for the pc’s case, or tell him what to think about it.

              He did this first with “What to Audit” and his principle incidents on the track, but OT 3 is most definitely a Hubbard-generated incident that he tells ALL PCs to run on OT 3. LRH violates his own tech, including the reference you cite, in doing this.

              Alanzo

            10. Marildi – LRH was dead serious about the OT 3 incident. It was never a “clever trick” – and this is corroborated by scores of people who worked with LRH at the time. Hubbard even wrote an ethics order on Xenu and named him as a Swiss banker in his current incarnation, etc, etc. He really meant it. I know the dead seriousness of LRH from many sources, and that is why I didn’t automatically jump to his defense and concluded that he was probably just smarter than all of us. I apply Occam’s Razor, and it being the 60’s and all…

            11. As regards the OT III story, it seems that you are right for once (joke :D).

              However, my dear Geir, I believe that I am the one who is correctly applying Occam’s Razor when it comes to an overall view of LRH and his works. Consider the excerpt I just posted in reply to Ferenc’s post. I don’t think that you are the type of uninformed critic who would disagree that LRH truly was (to quote from that same excerpt) “one of the most brilliant philosophers of all time who has come up with technical developments which are truly amazing…a most brilliant CREATIVE technical genius” – which tells me and Mr. Occam that he was indeed (to quote you now) “just smarter than all of us” – at least most of us, most of the time.

              And there is ample testimony from up-close observation, including that of Phil Spickler and Otto Roos (both had long-term personal and professional experience with LRH over many years) that it was case that got in LRH’s way – not greed or personal aggrandizement or evil intentions. IMHO, it just doesn’t fit with a simple Occam’s razor picture to conclude that LRH as a being would have been capable of developing all he did to help people if he had such base motivations.

              Mind you, I agree with you and many others that the tech needs to be appraised and thus improved upon, and I am thankful that you and Anette and others are going after the CoS.

        2. Also Marildi, remember that we can generate dozens of very highly trained auditors who would fully agree with Geir’s conclusions that something reading on the emeter is not a valid proof of the truth of its existence. I am almost positive that Carolyn Leiktemen, Class 9 and David Mayo, Class 12, and maybe even Karen DLC, Class 12 would agree with Geir. Even our own Per agrees with Geir.

          So Gayle’s post was nothing but ad-hom, an attempt at avoiding the point under discussion and attacking Geir’s training level as a non-confront.

          You would think that highly trained auditors would be able to confront better than that. In my experience, in most but not all, the higher the trained and audited Scientologist, the more they have at stake if their worldview is questioned, and the less they can confront factual data that runs counter to their beliefs.

          I hope that isn;t the case with you, Marildi, and if so, that it goes away fast for you. Life is too short to be stuck in a cult mindset.

          Alanzo

        3. Gayle: “You also appear to me to be desperately trying to cause something I just don’t know what it is. I don’t know what has you so wound up Geir but I refuse to engage further in a conversation with someone whose intention is to degrade, judge and enturbulate and that is what I feel you are doing.”

          Chris: The only thing here that is wound up is Gayle’s comment. The tension is palpable. Do you see how unsteady and unstable the true believer persona is? This poor person has gone immediately PTS to Geir’s suppressive blog comments. Any number of Scientologists would have this same reaction to seeing what is written on this blog, wouldn’t they? The reason is a personal fixation and identification with the belief system of Scientology. This is an untenable position to be in outside the compound walls. This is where you also see other cult members withdrawing from a world which doesn’t understand or agree with their belief system. FLDS is another example.

          1. Chris wrote:

            Do you see how unsteady and unstable the true believer persona is? This poor person has gone immediately PTS to Geir’s suppressive blog comments. Any number of Scientologists would have this same reaction to seeing what is written on this blog, wouldn’t they? The reason is a personal fixation and identification with the belief system of Scientology. This is an untenable position to be in outside the compound walls. This is where you also see other cult members withdrawing from a world which doesn’t understand or agree with their belief system. FLDS is another example.

            Outside the compound walls there are all kinds of things that do not fit into the ideology. And there is no way for the ideology to understand, assimilate, or make sense of what’s out there, except to call it “PTS”, “SP”, or “SINFUL”!!!

            What can not be done by the true believer is to confront what’s outside the compound walls with a reasoned conclusion, based on sound evidence, which directly addresses the thing they find so screechingly horrible.

            Ad hom, non-confront and illogical argumentation is the hallmark of a cult mindset.

            I hope and have faith that someday Gayle will break free of her chains.

            Alanzo

      1. LOL! I have to admit you are funny, Al. 🙂

        And God bless LRH for his development of Dianetics. 😉

  9. Hi Geir,
    Nice post.
    There are objective reports of benefits from the use of symbols or other representations of problems in other forms of counselling, too. Perhaps this is true of OT3, despite the story itself being a fabrication. It is likewise true that an overemphasis on symbols and imagination can lead to a distorted concept of reality. What causes this? Is it lack of a balance of mass with significance or just a person getting socked in their head too much for answers without looking out in the world?

    When answers don’t come easily, IMHO, it is through living itself that we must find these. Those that habitually take shortcuts and seek instant gratification and answers from others, rather than simply living their own lives, bar themselves from personal progress.

  10. Isene, your OP was spot on. The discussion was terrific and most interesting, thanks all.

  11. Its funny that this subject just came up here, because 2 days ago, someone was sort of interviewing me over the internet, largely about the question of the validity of the OT III story. To be fair, there are really 2 distinct components to OT III: The story of the incidents, and the material one processes. For me personally, I don’t find any substance I can much relate to from what is true for me. Anyway, I have excerpted the part of the interview that is relevant to this thread:

    Q: OT3. – Do you offer it in your practice?

    A: No.

    Q: Does that “incident” make sense to you?

    A: It doesn’t happen to ring true for me. Like with anything else, I do leave myself open to the possibility that it could resonate with me at some time, and if it does, than I’ll run it accordingly.

    Q: Well said!

    A: Thanks for the acknowledgement, I do take much satisfaction in helping others to succeed in accomplishing THEIR goals for processing.

    Q: I just don’t happen to like OT3 story (along with XXXXXX)*
    Isn’t that a complete BS?

    A: It does appear that way to me.

    Q: Thanks!

    *(I have edited out the mention of “confidential material” here, in deference to anyone who might find it inappropriate).

    Love, Dex

    A: You’re welcome!

  12. Re: OP

    I would like to add some info about still not covered in this thread.

    ◦ Late Class VIII auditor & C/S Lawrence West (a.k.a. Larry Dahlkist) have developed a non-evaluative procedure ( i.e: without the story) to run OT III:
    http://squirrel-tech.org/west/trn_005.html

    ◦ The book Forbidden Archeology – The Hidden History of the Human Race documents evidence for extreme human antiquity. (Note: Some skepticism is recommended. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo).

    “Actually, over the past 150 years archaeologists have found abundant evidence showing that human beings like ourselves have existed for hundreds of millions of years.”
    Pages 390-395: http://www.mcremo.com/YASBLT_forbiddenarchaeology.pdf

    The book: http://www.humanityunitedforum.com/Michael%20A.%20Cremo%20Richard%20l.%20Thompson%20-%20The%20Hidden%20History%20of%20the%20Human%20Race%201998.pdf

    1. Fabulous contribution, Ferenc. I recall reading (or it may have been in a lecture) where LRH talked about humans having been on planet Earth for much, much longer than scientists claimed. This wouldn’t be the only instance of LRH being way ahead of his time (such as he was with prenatals, for example, which are now generally accepted by the establishment). And the article by the Class VIII was especially informative. I would like to quote this part of it:

      “Recently through the debrief of Otto Roos and the Los Angeles court case, we have been given a glimpse of the actual personal life and case state of LRH. He is a guy who could be one of the most brilliant philosophers of all time who has come up with technical developments which are truly amazing. Before I say what I am going to say next, I would like to make it clear that I totally respect, admire and appreciate the technical developments of LRH.

      “We now know that his case was a mess during this period of time when he developed the evaluative levels. Ron used various drugs and medications during the 50’s and 60’s. He participated in experimental auditing which left a tremendous amount of BPC. As we now know, he was seriously physically ill during this period of time. So what we have is a most brilliant CREATIVE technical genius, who at the time is in the least desirable case shape of anyone on the planet, giving us his case to run.”

      Thanks for the links, Fabulous Ferenc. 🙂

    2. Thanks for the link to Cremo’s book, it was a very interesting read.

      I don’t think that lends any credence to there being 250 billion people on earth 75 million years ago though. It does do a nice job of showing how science has force-fed itself on its ideas of human evolution.

  13. In his Journal 67, L Ron Hubbard said of OT 3

    . . . The material involved in this sector is so vicious that it is carefully arranged to kill anyone if he discovers the exact truth of it . . . so in January and February of this year, I became very ill, almost lost the body, and somehow or other brought it off and obtained the material, and was able to live through it.

    Accordingly, how can it be reasonably asserted that OT 3 is anything other than a literal truth? If, as some would have us believe, OT 3 is a metaphor, then the Scientology Axioms must collapse. In the Axioms one will find the stipulation that for something to be as-ised, those events which hold the charge in place must be duplicated with the exact time, form, place and event. The masive 4th Dynamic Engram as described in the OT 3 narrative is too important and deleterious to humanity’s freedom for it to be anything other than an exact truth. L Ron Hubbard wouldn’t risk his premature death to deliver falsehoods in his high-level spiritual scripture, surely.

    1. The axioms of Scientology are only valid within the metes and bounds of Scientology. It is a carefully defined belief system in the great traditions of belief systems.

    2. Crepuscule, I understand where you are coming from. Take a look at the link below, which Ferenc provided in his post a bit above yours. The link is to a write-up that was done by a Class VIII after doing a lot of research. From it I got a better understanding of the whole subject, including the fact that the OT III incidents may be real for some pcs but not others, which is the main reason there is such a controversy, IMO. Here’s a small quote from the link:

      “At some point when the Pre-OT is running well on this procedure and is very stable and confident, he can be introduced to LRH’s incidents with the R-factor that these represent what one individual found while running OT III and they may or may not be the incidents…he is running. Incidents I and II are just part of the case history of one particular Pre-OT [meaning LRH].” http://squirrel-tech.org/west/trn_005.html

      1. Huh? I can’t see where Lawrence West addresses the point I made in regard to the Scientology Axioms requiring that incidents holding charge in place must be duplicated with the exact time, form, place, and event. He does strike upon the idea that OT 3 requires that a Scientologist be told what to think, but avoids obnosing that a Scientologist is told what to think from day one. Engrams, for example, do not exist, yet any progress on the Scientology Bridge requires the neophyte to believe in them – despite scientific evidence to the contrary – lest they spend the rest of their days word clearing.(Interesting to note that one of the first things a new Scientologst learns is that they must “clear” their “bank”. Coincidence? I think not.)

        The telling a person what to think continues, even in the squirrel process described in your link. Mr West makes the point about not giving the PC Listing and Nulling items but yet he goes on to advocate that the pre-OT be given entities and their clustered formation. No amount of semantic gymnastics can get around the fact that prior to even Mr Wests non-Standard solution, no pre-OT has even heard of these things until they are introduced in OT 3. That, however, is beside the main point I was making with regard to the Axioms. Specifically, if the Axioms are valid, then OT 3 cannot be a metaphor . . . and nor can it be anyone else’s case.

        1. Crepuscule: “Engrams, for example, do not exist, yet any progress on the Scientology Bridge requires the neophyte to believe in them – despite scientific evidence to the contrary…”

          Not true about belief being required. Many, many pc’s have run engrams without knowing anything about them or about Dianetics or anything else in Scientology. This has been the case in Book 1 seminars, especially, for decades. Also, what “scientific evidence to the contrary” you are referring to.

          It does happen to be the case that in NED (New Era Dianetics), a pc is hatted on a Dianetics CS-1 with regard to engrams, etc. but that is done because it became evident that an educated pc has less trouble and runs faster. However, as I already noted, it has been shown over and over that engrams come up in session regardless.

          You also wrote: “Mr West makes the point about not giving the PC Listing and Nulling items but yet he goes on to advocate that the pre-OT be given entities and their clustered formation…no pre-OT has even heard of these things until they are introduced in OT 3.”

          I disagree that Mr. West advocates “the pre-OT be given entities and their clustered formation”. He simply advocates doing what is essentially a CS-1 with the pc, and then says to do the following:

          “Begin with audited OT III (solo later) by having the Pre-OT locate a reading pressure on or in his body. Next, have him get the date of the incident that made it a cluster and have the Cluster run the incident. This should blow the Cluster and if not, you can get an earlier similar cluster making incident and repeat the steps of date, locate, type and run the incident.”

          I don’t see how the Axioms are negated in any of the above. But I do agree with you where you say that “if the Axioms are valid, then OT 3 cannot be a metaphor”. And in fact, that is apparently why some pc’s have had trouble on OT 3 while others have not – it seems that the incident did not happen to all pc’s. LRH may have concluded that himself, considering the fact that he later wanted a pilot done to take pc’s from OT II straight onto NOTs, according to Dan Koon who was there. Dan also said that DM never got the pilot done, however.

          1. Why does he implant the notion that there are entities or clusters there as a source of “pressure to the body”?

            1. Geir, what’s the point of your question – to introvert the poster?

              Oh let me channel LRH and tell you! Is that what you are asking for? On the one hand, how would anyone here know for sure why LRH did that?? On the other hand, the process of learning scientology is no different than the process of learning anything, any subject, in the world. Physics, cooking, auto repair, psychology, chess, philosophy, ad infinitum.

              Any learning proceeds by communication and ‘implantation’ of central, ‘core’ ideas and proceeds from there. All education proceeds by ‘implantation’ of ideas.

              LRH observed early on that people got ‘case gain’ just by listening to lectures, with no processing at all done on them, as shown by before and after testing. He said this around 1955. And he pointed out that this apparently contradicted the injunction “not to evaluate for the pc.”

              All he was saying s that ‘education’ is itself a valid therapy.

              Presumably by the time a person gets up to the OT levels, s/he has developed enough -self-determinism and independence of thought that tip-toeing around her/him is no longer necessary?

              Did you not find this to be true?

            2. The question goes to the squirrel version of OT 3 that supposedly does not suggest for the PC what to run.

            3. My answer would have been basically the same as Valkov’s – it’s a matter of hatting. No different from the hatting on engrams on a Dn CS-1, before one does NED. This is hatting for NED for OTs.

              And Val made a good point about training/hatting alone being a source of case gain and a valid therapy. The fact that people do get case gain on Scn data, as with auditing, aligns with the Axioms with regard to truth and as-isness.

  14. In Berkeley Calif in 1965-66 I started running into people who had had in some cases, quite a bit of auditing. I started hearing verbal data that later was confirmed, more or less, by LRH writings and lectures.

    Among this data was the idea that a person had not just one or 2 ‘memory banks’, but up to 12 or 13 memory banks, and that most of these were banks of ‘borrowed’ memories or facsimiles. In the end only ONE of these banks was a bank of his own memories/facsimiles. There rest were all begged, borrowed, stolen, etc from others and were not the person’s own memories.

    From what I’ve heard, this is exactly the point of OTVIII – to finally get it sorted out, who you are NOT, by sorting out and identifying the ‘false’ or misowned banks of pictures and validating the one which is really your own.

    This is why I appreciate posts by Geir based on his actual experiences and perceptions. But much of the ensuing commentary takes off on various tangents and pet theories and speculations not so based on actuality. Some comments are of course germane and by folks who do ‘know’ something.

    But I don’t see how people who haven’t audited OTIII or OTVIII etc can do much but speculate.

      1. p.s. The video you posted on your previous comment (to Alanzo) didn’t play and had this note: “Video player is too small”, probably because your post was on the last comment tier, which is too narrow. So I’ll post it again here:

    1. Actually Val –

      Brainwashing tech is easy to spot if you know what it is. You do not have to have done OT III or OT VIII to be able to recognize the generation of false memories and false identities in order to control a person’s mind.

      You yourself have said that you never did any FPRD, but that you could see that David Miscavige used the FPRD to brainwash people.

      How were you able to make that statement if what you said in your post is true?

      Alanzo

      1. Al, about me:

        “You yourself have said that you never did any FPRD, but that you could see that David Miscavige used the FPRD to brainwash people.”

        I do not recall saying this.

        However, it is possible to judge something like this from the first-hand reports of others.

        But I would like to see the post where I supposedly said what you have ‘quoted’ me as saying, as above.

      2. Al, I’m continuing the discussion here because there is more ‘room’ here, based on your post awhile back: Valkov –

        Al said, “I have seen your stance soften a bit toward me and the ideas I place here. You take more time now to address the ideas in my posts directly, which is a nice improvement.”

        Perhaps you have changed too, Al. But it is a nice ack.

        About ‘brainwashing’ and FMS, they are not the same thing. I don’t know how you got the idea that I “….. may never be willing to see that if there was a way to manipulate and control the human mind, Hubbard tried it out in Scn tech and policy.”

        I was interested in the tech from the start precisely because it was about how minds worked and how minds can be ‘manipulated’. “Manipulate”, by the way, is a word you may want to look up to get a greasp of its full senses.

        LRH talks about why a person should know as much as possible about the mind in the intro to Dianetics 55, and I agree with what he said about it there. Especially with the deluge of propaganda we are subjected to from all sides, today.

        As for ‘brainwashing’, I have been a source for accurate information about it, based on studies done of returning North Korean POWs after the Korean War, for about 4 years now, on The Scientology Forum, on Marty’s blog and on this blog as well I believe.

        “Brainwashing” and FMS are not the same thing, although FMS can be implanted in a person who has been successfully brainwashed. Or a person who has been successfully hypnotized to a sufficient degree.

        Did LRH know about all that? Of course he did. Did he use what he knew? Of course he did. Did he always use it for the ill of others? Of course not! That’s the doctrinaire critic’s moronic one-sided view that I have disagreed with all along and still disagree with.

        It seems to come from people who first idolized LRH then flipped and started demonizing him.

        I never did either. We are talking about real life and real people here, not “angels and demons” as separate beings.

        1. Valkov wrote:

          Did LRH know about all that? Of course he did. Did he use what he knew? Of course he did. Did he always use it for the ill of others? Of course not!

          Did he ever use it for the ill of others?

          1. Al,
            I would speculate that he did. We are talking about malice here, right? And I imagine that LRH did feel and express his malice sometimes. Instances have been documented by first-hand witnesses. He did kick the cat at times, and did abuse some people. Also, he was impulsive and had a bad temper. He also had impulses to help others which he acted on too.

            I have never denied any of this; however I have perceived you as denying LRH’s good side. If you wonder why I have been contrary to some of your posts, you need only look in the mirror.

            What you do overlook too, is that you have made many posts that I have not argued against or objected to at all.

            1. Val wrote:

              What you do overlook too, is that you have made many posts that I have not argued against or objected to at all.

              So the only time you ever answer me, or comment at all, is to tell me that I am “dumb as a rock”, or “stupid as a brick”, etc. Yet you know say that there are all these posts of mine that you agree with?

              Would it kill ya to pipe up every once in a while and tell me I’m smart as a whip?

              Obviously.

              Gotta tell ya. That line really doesn’t make any sense, Val.

              Alanzo

            2. I don’t necessarily agree with those posts I don’t comment on. I simply don’t find them objectionable. Also, many are outside the realm of my experience, although they do sound intelligent.

              In fact I’ll say right now that I think your posts have grown more intelligent over the past 3-4 years, since the old Scn Forum days. And many of them are very intelligent.

              Now, having told you that I more than half expect you will say something moronic for which I can lambast you once more…..

              Remember that part of Bullbaiting where the coach tells you he’s going to have to pass you if you keep your confront up much longer, and ooops! you lose it……. 🙂

            3. All right. So what I am picking up from you, Valkov, is that you are saying that you and I have been in much more agreement than you have been letting on.

              Why is that?

              Why would you be secretly agreeing with Alanzo, while publicly lambasting him as an idiot?

              I’m not understanding yet. Please help me here.

              Alanzo

            4. No, we are not more in agreement than I have posted, secretly or otherwise. I think my post says it all. I leave you alone to post what you seem to know, and object when I find something you post objectionable or offensive. When you post something very illogical, I may also point that out, An example might be when I commented to Spyros about the STCC.

              In the situation of a course of study, there are 3 major things to look at: 1. The course materials, 2. the teachers/instructors/supervisors, 3. the students. There are other factors that could figure into any outness that is occurring, but I would examine those 3 first. Any one, or 2, or even all 3 could be the cause of problems, but it is illogical to jump to the conclusion that 2 and 3 are fine and it must be the #1 that is the problem.

              In fact #1(the course materials or subject matter) might be fine, but are being mistaught, or the students may be an inappropriate public for the course, ie the course was sold to them as an easy beginning course when it really isn’t. In that case it is really not the student’s fault or the teacher’s fault either when students start quitting. But neither is it the fault of the ‘course’ itself.

              To claim that “the course is no good like everything else Hubbard created!”(or words to that effect) is an illogical and biased statement.

              I’m sure that if you soak your head in the cold water of your toilet long enough this will come clear to you.

            5. “I’m sure that if you soak your head in the cold water of your toilet long enough this will come clear to you.”- Oh, man, No condescension there, LOL! Some people sure do seem to be dramatizing a need to judge others for what they express!

              Iamvalkov, how long a duration toilet head soaking do you feel is optimum for clarifying of concepts, and is there a special type of toilet, or toilet water that you recommend? Fluoridated water? Distilled? PH factor? I want to be careful not to “squirrel” the procedure 🙂

            6. Dexter, I think it’s their way of communicating and getting along in their apparent “love-hate” relationship. 😉

            7. Dex, it takes a long as it takes. In Al’s case it could take a long time or require several soakings. The water should be cold for best results and the toilet should be flushed first so it is clean.

              However I think it may not be needed much longer. Al has been displaying increasingly long streaks of rationality and clear thinking as he confronts his sordid past as a Scientologist. He mainly lapses in response to some of my posts, which somehow seem to bring out the doctrinaire judgemental critic valence in him with all it’s black-and-white generalized denigration of others as stereotyped “scientologists”

              The reference resulted from this string of posts:
              https://isene.me/2013/05/02/what-can-you-control/#comment-38132

              It is part of the ongoing “Al and Val Show”. In the past, Vinnie would join in occassionally and we would all tap dance on each other’s heads.

            8. Valkov wrote –

              I’m sure that if you soak your head in the cold water of your toilet long enough this will come clear to you.

              So I pulled the string and it looks like it’s just more abusive bullshit from a dramatizing Scientologist.

              I figured as much. Thought I’d check for signs of life anyway.

              Whatever Valkov. Whenever you’d like to come out from under that slimy Scientology rock, and be a member of the human race again, you let me know.

              Alanzo

            9. So Al, is that the only part of my post you’re going to pick up on? You’re not going to respond to my logical discussion of logic? I consider that a relapse, a falling off the wagon, on your part!

              Who was it that just recently queried whether I was only picking up on those posts of yours that I could rag on you for? 🙂 “So the only time you ever answer me, or comment at all, is to tell me that I am “dumb as a rock”, or “stupid as a brick”, etc.” You know this is not true.

              OK, the “Al and Val Show” goes on!

  15. I wrote about this somewhere else recently. If you were going to piss off someone, would you really make sure that it was one of the most powerful intergalactic overlords in the universe. Seems like a silly move to me.

    1. What if I told you that Xenu was who pisses off Hubbard from the start?
      You may think that Hubbard was looking for something and then he made a silly move… well, that’s what this article says about playing with LSD:
      http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII/bts-or-dts.txt

      Considering myself a person of empirical researchs who has experienced with marijuana on the past track, I would say that the experience wasn’t the silly move, that was “the wall of fire”. I would say that the silly move was the later seriousness and rationalized paranoid delusion that follow up and wanted to stick into others minds.

      OT III is to Hubbard,
      what eloquent speech and higher tolerance, plus organized support with influencer people, would be to Timothy Leary.

      P.d: I like Timothy Leary. You know, that “Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out” thing is really an “Op Pro by Dup” if you practice sometimes for a while.

        1. Should have said when I was young and reckless. 😀

          Is the scilo-slang thingy that catch me sometimes when I’m writing.

  16. I’ve never believed the OT 3 story yet have done it twice to good results.
    My thought as to why it works is the material of PAB 12, once the most powerful
    tech in Scn. Looks to me that this is somewhat akin to creative processing.

    From pab 12:-

    ” The basic cycle of life itself in this universe is the cycle of action of
    an explosion”

    “The explosion is apparently a very definite basis in all engrams and,
    for our purposes here, can be considered to be basicbasic. And it could be remarked with this PAB that basicbasic for all cases has been discovered and is being delivered into your hands to be run,”

    “What exactly is the cycle of the explosion? One gets the preclear to
    get nothingness, then a growing expanse of whiteness, then turn the whiteness black, have the black dwindle and get nothingness again. You will readily see the similarity of this to Black and White Processing and, indeed this is the furthest extension of Black and White Processing but is many times more effective and usefull.”

    “….It does not matter how poorly the preclear runs this. It does not matter if the nearest approach to whiteness is simply the idea that something might be white if he could see it”

    Note that there was a whole book dedicated to black and white processing, Scn 8-80

    PAB 12 recomends running explosions between each step of the Six Steps to Self-Auditing.

    Incident 1 :-

    “1 Patter: LOUD SNAP, WAVES OF LIGHT, HORSES DRAWING
    CHARIOT RIGHT TO LEFT, CHERUB COMES OUT,
    BLOWS HORN, COMES CLOSE, SHATTERING
    SERIES OF SNAPS, CHERUB FADES,
    RETREATS, BLACK MASS
    IS DUMPED ON THE THETAN.”

    Note that this involves whiteness [ waves of light] and blackness
    [ black mass]. Sound effects are added which seems appropriate for an explosion.

    Also note that inc 2 involves lots of explosions. So if the theory of this PAB is correct entities, single unit beings, get run on explosions as much as needed.
    __________________

  17. Geir:

    “LRH was dead serious about the OT 3 incident. It was never a “clever trick” – and this is corroborated by scores of people who worked with LRH at the time. Hubbard even wrote an ethics order on Xenu and named him as a Swiss banker in his current incarnation, etc, etc. He really meant it. I know the dead seriousness of LRH from many sources, and that is why I didn’t automatically jump to his defense and concluded that he was probably just smarter than all of us. I apply Occam’s Razor, and it being the 60’s and all…”

    “My whole point and only point and singular point here is that an e-meter read does not in any way shape or form prove that the OT3 incident is factual. I understand that you got that point. Just needed to say that one more time. Because there is NO evidence that LRH was not smoking something weird while he wrote the back story to OT 3.”

    – – –

    Geir, I see when you used the Ockham’s razor and I would prefer to use the Hanlon’s razor. There are beauty in simplicity, and my advice to every reader on this topics si that: Use the Hanlon’s Razor.
    When you use it, there’s no way on discussing the “Hubbard’s malice” or anyone else “intentions”, not even leaving that to personal opinion (whitout facts, only speculative) , and if there could be a nice mental exercise trying to defends Hubbard “rare” postulates to most “inside-the-bounds” scientologists, my conclusion is that there have a more powerful value to always think the opposite, if only like a mental exercise. Why Hubbard has to be smarter? I see the core on this topic, most people defend the leader even if they don’t know a clue of logic, because that’s the egoist (1st dyn) reaction to defends themsleves in the middle of their (unstable) belief system’s core. I could extend on the belief system topic, so I will feed something short:

    – Is a well known story that Hubbard came up with EXCALIBUR because of the effects of “drugs” and it was accidental. He saw things that even himself couln’t explain. He reached some place that would be debatable on spiritualist circles, shamanism and entheogenic perspectives. Here is the experience, and beyond all doubts, there are experience and may be relative to ESP researchs. Point.

    – Serious spiritualist research could have been done. ¿Was it? I’m not skpetics on this, but there’s something called “inter-subjective reality”. If one is going to unveil the secrets of the spirit and how the mind works, ¿Wouldn’t be serious techinques and demonstrations, or at least consistent logical speculations, on how the information from “the other side” come to this world and if the datum coming up is reliable? ¿Wouldn’t that be the basic of basics? Anybody with moderate insight could understand this concept: If I found something big or something amazing is revealed to me, ¿Do I need to confirm if that’s the truth (reliable datum) on inter-subjective ways so it could be achieved by others? You need other people to confirm what you had found, if not that’s would be a “cult’s one-sided revelation” by some man like those who wrote the bible. So here’s the reaction to the experience. Point.

    – OT III could be something like Excalibur itself, something so amazing that could blow your mind if you read it, and only for special elitist friends that share Hubbard POV or similar subjective experience.

    Nothing is about “demonize” or “idolize”, simply: You are not so smart. com

    Greetings
    Elías

    1. So, Elias, are you saying that the more logical (Hanlon’s razor) viewpoint is that the OT III story was a revelation thatg LRH experienced, but only those with a similar esoteric experience would be able to understand the truth of it? Or did you mean something else?

      I can see that English is not your first language, so parts of your post were not clear. Please summarize your main point. Thank you. :).

      1. If we are talking about belief systems then, yes, this is what best fits now with my own belief system. The main point is:

        “the OT III story was a kind of revelation that LRH experienced and passed through, then tried to systematize it like a process for others. Those with a statistically similar mental background would get similar experience easily and achieve the same truth LRH had found. The rest, statistically, would hit and bounce on cognitive dissonance. And the statistics showed that this was a big failure.”

        I could show you my previous belief system cognitions if you want to know why now this is my stable datum. I used to think that OT III story was science fiction on purpose, occult literature scheduled to cause some effect. That there was a symbolic language and mystic veiled background that connects past and future on a “akashic eternal timeline” wich the initiate has to live on live, passes through the unknown, reaches something, grabs something, decodes and apprehends some concept on his own. And that Hubbard had discovered the initiation procedure because the ancient disembodied masters had given that revelation to him while he was out of his body on the other side. This is the “Hubbard the clever and shrewd mystic” version. I had never saw evil on Hubbard, just the human temper and impulses he had according to his objective biography and testimonies. I think he just was crazy, but in a good sense. Sometimes geniality and craziness are attached to each other. But when it comes to separate the facts from the geniality/craziness, that I assume is the main purpose of Geir on this post, for intersubjective scientific and social goals, then the relativity of subjective and biased claims must be discarded as intellectual dishonesty.

        So, I still don’t see inherent evil on Hubbard. That is not the point and never will be. That’s why I applied Hanlon’s razor on him, as many other cognitive tools that came up even from Hubbard itself. Then I used to clear Hubbard’s goofs in his own words and statements. Reductio ad absurdum. I always see that something true, like a valid objectively system, would judge his own discoverer and/or researcher. If you can’t, that’s not a valid objectively system. May be something else, may have some speculative value to be distilled, but it won’t be honest science. Hubbard, by his moves, was not a scientist, he could be labeled as a great and awesome mystic or parapsychologist if you want. At least, a great literate, a philosophical researcher, etc.. Even a “Bodhisattva” with “Satori” insight. I’m just observing the thing as there are. Is a scientology phenomena that scientologist can’t see Hubbard as what he was. And he was a man of his time, and can’t be taken out of context, never.

        I also believe that the inherent postulates on social and human technology, as Scientology would have, should be tested with the sciences of complexity and complex thinking as stated Edgar Morin. That’s to say something academically useful. 🙂

        -“Mr Hubbard: do you think you are quite mad?”-
        “Oh yes! The one man in the world who never believes he’s mad is the madman.“ LRH

        1. Elias, thank you very much for this fascinating viewpoint. You must have studied quite a lot, this lifetime and previous ones. And what a broad perspective you have, to be able to see LRH in the widely different frames of reference. You gave me a better insight into him, and in general a greater respect for how deep and wide knowledge is. Wow, you are a unique poster here.

          Thanks again. I like your lightness, and sense of humor too. 🙂

  18. This appears to be an excerpt from a letter by David Mayo written in 1996. It is on his blog “What Do We Know” which has several articles by him, and it is reported that he is now responding to comments which he wasn’t doing before.

    This was passed along on the Power of Choice (a freezone group) Facebook group’s page.

    This particular piece is about NOTs and also speaks to the issue of OTIII:

    http://community.freezone-tech.info/david-mayo/1996/05/david-mayo-on-the-origin-of-nots/

  19. I just had a “wognition” – I did “create my reactive mind…mocked it up totally” and here is how Scamonology works: Dianetics states: “you will get rid of your reactive mind…this is what I am going for…but the “EP” changes because it never happens…so this is FRAUD!
    I don’t know that Hubbard changes it …so I start the Bridge to get rid of my bank!
    1. I put $200K on account to go clear.
    2. I spend 10 years on the Bridge – I run out of any “pain and unconsciousness” in this life – so I start making up stuff from past lives * no proof of past lives anywhere on this planet – ever*
    3. I am “mocking up” my bank – and I grind and grind and grind …until I say “I am mocking up continuously my reactive mind…constantly creating it…and I can now control it”.

    That is the lower bridge – a con job from L Ron Hubbard…OT levels – same stuff….and the reason you don’t feel good, feel banky and unsettled constantly is because Scientology constantly invalidates and nullifies you…suppresses you and will destroy you to get your money and free labor. The legal dox protect them…the religious cloaking protects them…it is a total con job!

    Some day someone is going to get them legally for complete and utter fraud!

    1. Insouciant : The legal dox protect them…the religious cloaking protects them…it is a total con job!
      Some day someone is going to get them legally for complete and utter fraud!

      Hear, hear! The sooner the better.

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s