“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

A premeditated series of occurrences?
    Scientology: The 80's conspiracy(?) (1)
    
A brief introduction  &  The tale of Ron DeWolf
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here !

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

        
“Thus, the first basic principle of Black Dianetics: So long as a natural phenomenon remains the knowledge of a few and is denied to the many it can be utilized to control the many.”
        
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from‘Journal of Scientology Issue 4-G’ [ca. early Oct 52])  


Back to “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order” index page


A premeditated series of occurrences? - The 80's conspiracy?  
                                                                             (page 1, index page)

Here I address some of these occurrences that may give indications as having been staged in some manner with the sole purpose to intentionally discredit the subject of Scientology in the eyes of the media and public awareness. In every case there is some person(s) behind it. The person(s) and the occurrence are being looked into.

 
Index:

A brief introduction and overview
(page 1)
The life and goings of L. Ron Hubbard Jr. (‘Nibs’) aka as Ron DeWolf
 
     Introduction;  A chronology of events  (Includes:  The 50's;  ‘Casualties’ (1959-60);  Nibs Hubbard: Statements made ... and withdrawn again, not once but twice (1967-69 & 1972-73);  The Clearwater Hearings (May 82);  Ron DeWolf applies for his ‘inheritance’ (Nov 82);  The Penthouse occurrence (1983-84);  Ron DeWolf again applies for ‘inheritance’ after official news of the passing of his father (Jan 86);  Ron DeWolf renouncing all of his claims (May-Jul 87));  Is Ron DeWolf a reliable witness?;  Nibs is being edited ... (an anecdote)
The source of the ‘Affirmations’ (aka ‘Admissions’) (1947)
(page 2)
     Foreword; What are they? Overview and summary;  (a) The involvement of one Gerry Armstrong;  (b) Court proceedings and overview of developments during 1980-84 &86;  (c) Mention of the ‘Affirmations’ in 1987 (Ron DeWolf);  (d) The ‘Affirmations’ emerging in the year 2000;  (e) Views from a Swedish Psychiatrist (2005);  ‘Hitler's diaries’ versus ‘Affirmations’;  Inconsistencies (Includes: Allowing a biographer access to ‘damaging’ papers? - L. Ron Hubbard versus biographies;  Conspiracies;  The ‘Affirmations’: The domain of the imaginary vs The position of the Church of Scientology;  The ‘fear’ of one Gerry Armstrong;  A prank?;  Are the ‘Affirmations’ at odds with the published writings of L. Ron Hubbard? (1) - “Men are your slaves. Elemental spirits are your slaves. ...” & (2) - Who actually wrote the ‘Affirmations’? - A note about Gerry Armstrong);  The incidence of the November 1984 tapes, and the defence of Gerry Armstrong;  Overview of the responses received from Gerry Armstrong (and others) concerning this write-up and further evaluation of his person
 
‘Bare-Faced Messiah’ (1987):  The No. 1 book of the anti-Scientology movement  or  A matter of sheer anti-propaganda? (author: Russell Miller)
(page 3)
 
     Foreword;  L. Ron Hubbard: Devil or Saint? - A matter of choice ...;  “The Mystery of the Missing (sic: Inadequate) Referencing”;  The matter of “The Missing Interviews”;  ‘Freedom of Information Act’ versus Copyright infringement;  Various passages worthy of particular mention found in this publication ...;  The appearance of Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty (war record of L. Ron Hubbard);  L. Fletcher Prouty, plans for an official biography and the Church of Scientology (early 80's);  Who is Russell Miller?;  Outcome ...;  Follow-ups ... (includes Russell Miller, Luke Muelhauser and Chris Owen)
Scientology: A religion created for the sake of making money?
(page 4)
       Foreword & The Don Lindsay write-up;  The Don Lindsay write-up analyzed;  Religion or science?;  Was it costly from its first inception?;  ‘The work was free. Keep it so.’;  What is the verdict?;  Science versus Pseudoscience or Who is Don Lindsay?;  Follow-up: Don Lindsay ...



 
Back to Main Index A brief introduction and overview

Without any question the early 80's were the most tumultuous time in the history of Scientology. We have the reorganization implemented by Church management during 1981-82 that were rather far-reaching (see here, separate window). Then the US Mission Holders Conference held in San Francisco on 17 October 1982 tells where we are at (see here, separate window). Followingly we see that very many Scientologists are basically purged from the organization. Crude and unjust ethics actions without any recourse were seen occurring particularly during late 1982 and throughout 1983. At this time we see a new rather rigid regime getting established that does not allow and as it seems wishes to prevent anyone speaking or acting against them. It is rather suspect here that so very many old-timer Scientologists were purged, a lot of competence and know-how got lost. This all is pretty much confirmed as rather many persons since have spoken out about these happenings. It is as if this all was done deliberately to draw a lot of attention for this period in time. Why would that be? Well, for one, to draw away the attention from other particular occurrences in time in where the new line in regards to technical matters were set!
These occurrences being:  (separate windows)
    “Analysis of HCOB 24 Jan 77 ‘Tech Correction Round-up’  or  A prelude to a deliberate ‘change of direction’?”
  “Overview of Tech changes during 1978-82 vs A lost Bridge”
And as it appears people did get distracted.

The person that inherently can be held responsible for this Bridge turnaround and its technical changes listens to the name David Mayo (active as Senior C/S International during 1978-82), although there are indicators that he himself had been lead behind the curtain regarding the authority leading up to these technical changes. In March 1983 he as well is being purged and then subjected to the worst sort of defamation of his person ever seen in the history of the Church of Scientology. He was a person of no little repute and thus the measures taken against him had to be extreme. (see more here, separate window)

At this time a continuance of further developments were about to hit in particular the media. The Church of Scientology for one ended up in court a variety of times that attracted a lot of attention. There are 4 that need particular mention due to the damage that they caused. But there is a lot more to these happenings than just that. It is these that are being addressed in what I have given the page title “The 80's Conspiracy?”. They hit the media in the 1982-87 time span.

Go to index


 
Back to Main Index The life and goings of L. Ron Hubbard Jr. (‘Nibs’) aka Ron DeWolf

Introduction
A chronology of events
            - The 50's
- ‘Casualties’ (1959-60)
- Nibs Hubbard:  Statements made ... and withdrawn again, not once but twice (1967-69 & 1972-73)
- The Clearwater Hearings (May 82)
- Ron DeWolf applies for his ‘inheritance’ (Nov 82)
- The Penthouse occurrence (1983-84)
- Ron DeWolf again applies for ‘inheritance’ after official news of the passing of his father (Jan 86)
- Ron DeWolf renouncing all of his claims (May-Jul 87)
Is Ron DeWolf a reliable witness?
Nibs is being edited ... (an anecdote)

 
Go back Introduction

This may also be a bit sensitive. Various chronologies and overviews that I have seen posted at various places on the Internet and elsewhere are often gloriously missing out on various expects and happenings involving the person Ron DeWolf. As a rule this is for propaganda reasons. The anti-Scientology movement followers are very avid and quick to brief you about the things he had said that were not in favour of Scientology or its founder, but conveniently they also choose to not tell you that he withdrew the things he had said about equally often. If confronted with this argument they are then equally quick stating that this is only because the Scientology organization exerted their control (or sorts) over him, and thus should be disregarded from. This too is a rather convenient rebuttal. The Church of Scientology on the other hand has only made some official statements, or published counter articles if the situation required such an action. Otherwise they have been very quiet about him, and in fact have edited out any and all reference to Nibs Hubbard out of the present version of the materials. Pretty much to the point that as if he never would have existed. Not even video recordings have been spared (see last section entitled: “Nibs is being edited ... (an anecdote)”).
It is because of these reasons that what you find are just bits and pieces, information taken out of context, left out sequences, or simply missing information. It suffices to say that you may have to do some serious digging if you wish to find a more complete tale of his life and goings. I have attempted to present the happenings as they occurred chronologically. These are assembled from the available sources.

 
Go back A chronology of events

 
Go back
The 50's

Nibs in 1957
‘Nibs’ Hubbard , July ’57

He was the firstborn child of L. Ron Hubbard (born 5 May 1934). From the beginning in 1949/50 till 1959 he had been an active participator in the subject of Dianetics and Scientology and its organization. His name and his wife's (Henriette) are noted as witnesses in the founding of the first 3 organizations in December 1953. The Scientology periodical Ability makes frequently mention of him during 1956-59, a couple of times even with a photograph. Frequently he functioned as a sideman or the soundman at Dianetics and Scientology conferences, but also as organization secretary. It would appear that he also made himself particular repute as an auditor. In ‘Ability 33’, [Jul 56] we see him referred to as “one of the world's more famous auditors”. Page 5 of this issue of Ability was dedicated to ‘his nibs’ and laid out various of his achievements and goals. Accomplishments that, as per the article, “made Ron Senior sit up and take notice”. He has also been active as instructor/supervisor at courses (amongst other 18th A.C.C. in Jul-Aug 1957, 19th A.C.C. in Jan-Feb 1958 & 21st A.C.C. in Jan-Feb 1959). In this capacity of being an instructor he, together with John W. Galusha, compiled the course booklet: ‘Scientology Training Course Manual - Field Validation & Hubbard Apprentice Scientologists’ (1957), which publication effectively put in the line of becoming well trained on the so-called TR's. Things however were in for a change as rather abruptly, in late 1959, he dissociated himself from the Scientology organization and his father, and left. He simply took his belongings, told no one about it, and went elsewhere never to return to the organization.

 
Go back
‘Casualties’ (1959-60)

This incidence of the departure of L. Ron Hubbard Jr. is recorded in HCOB 19 Jan 60 “Casualties”. The introducing 4 paragraphs of this technical bulletin state a particular situation that was relating to a new discovery. These paragraphs read:
        
“There are a few casualties along the line of getting off overts*, and by my telling you about them, you may be able to prevent others and to better understand what is going on.
        
 
Only about eight people have ‘run for the brush’ to date because of an unwillingness to reveal their overts against Scientology. There may be a few more but the data is not to hand. The overwhelming majority of Scientologists have embraced these new techniques and measures with enthusiasm.
 
 
Factually, those that blew were not in possession of much data on overts. I feel that if they had been they would have stood up to it.
 
 
In early November I ordered all organizations to give an E-Meter check on all staffs preliminary to auditing these on the new overt/withhold—responsibility combination. I also forbade Central Orgs to employ persons with hidden social crimes that might be used to hurt Scientology (blackmail) until expiation could be accomplished and auditing completed.”          LRH
 

*  overt, overt act:
A harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group. When a person does something that is contrary to the moral code he has agreed to, or when he omits to do something that he should have done per that moral code, he has committed an overt. An overt violates what was agreed upon. An overt can be intentional or unintentional.


The HCOB then continues with:
        
“This began by suspending one Doug Moon in HASI Melbourne until he had been cleared since he was such a social liability. ...
        
 
The day I returned to Saint Hill Norma Webb, a Peter Stumbke and another non-Scientologist named Dinah Day resigned and ran away.
 
 
On November 23rd at the urgings of Nina West, close friend of Webb, Nibs Hubbard* deserted his post in Washington and left no forwarding address. It transpires that he had been caught up in the Moon—Webb—West connections. He tried to find nerve to face an E-Meter the Saturday he left but did not report for his scheduled session with his Washington auditor on that day. He has since been heard of here and there borrowing money and staying out of sight.”          LRH
 
A last sentence in this HCOB tells:
        
“As Nibs Hubbard was probably being blackmailed it is creditable that he removed himself from post before he could be made to harm the Washington Organization.*”          LRH
        

*+*  The last name of Nibs (=Hubbard) + this whole last sentence of this HCOB (here above) have been edited out in a reissue of this HCOB that was released 30 March 1991. It thus does not appear in the version found in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes, it only appears included in the previous 1976 release of these volumes. Thus far I have been unable to consult an original mimeo print-off* of this reissue of this HCOB, and it may carry some notices. Please contact me if you would have a copy of this.

Notice:  The person that is shown the edited version found in these volumes will not know that it has been edited. And this actually violates the long since established rules of editing of references as per HCO PL 2 May 72 “Numbering of Mimeo Issues” (this is explained on page “LRH vs Dictionaries”, consult here (separate window)).

Another piece of information we get from HCOB 9 Feb 60 “Cancellation of Certificates”. Its first sentence reads:
        
“Nina West's certificates and awards in Scientology and Dianetics are hereby cancelled, due in part to evidence of use of PDH* on Central Org Personnel.”          LRH
        
*  PDH:
Pain Drugs Hypnosis’. A person is put into a trance through use of pain, drugs and hypnosis and is told things. Roughly it means you have become stimulus response without really having control of yourself anymore.

Does this PDH may explain why he behaved erratically (changing his mind time after time) in later years? It has been suggested by some.

 
Go back
Nibs Hubbard:  Statements made ... and withdrawn again, not once but twice (1967-69 & 1972-73)

1967-69:  It is reported that in 1967 he had made “statements to the Internal Revenue Service” and made a “sworn testimony against the church”. Then “on September 22, 1969” he “then changed his mind” and “recanted” these.

1972-73:  During 1972 it is reported that he again made allegations against Scientology. These too were then recanted this time in a “videotaped interview, Nov. 7, 1972”. He reportedly has said on that recording: “I felt it was about time that I quit fooling around and being a child and quit messing about and lay the facts on the line and say what I have been doing is a whole lot of lying, a whole lot of damage to a lot of people that I value highly”.
It is further reported that during “the weeks and months to come, DeWolf corrected other statements he had made over the years.”. Noted are: “On January 26, 1973, he wrote a British author,”withdrawing claims and “that permission to use these earlier claims was withdrawn”. And: “On February 5, 1973, DeWolf wrote to New York radio station WBAI to tell them that his statements made on August 17, 1972, were false, vindictive, malicious, unfounded in fact, and unsupported in documentation. He asked that the program not be rebroadcast or reused.”.

♦ The above listed data from 1967-73 has been summarized and is extracted from an article that appeared in magazine ‘Penthouse’, Jan 84, consult here (pop-up window). If you have alternate sources for this information from that time period (1967-73), the actual video recording or other, please contact me.

In 1972 L. Ron Hubbard Jr. (‘Nibs’ Hubbard) changed his last name in ‘DeWolf’. The variation ‘De Wolf’ was the maiden name of his great grandmother from his fathers side. In a newspaper article Nibs revealed that he had done so due to having been subjected to harassment by the Church of Scientology (see ‘County, Press-Enterprise’, 13 Nov 82).

 
Go back
The Clearwater Hearings (May 82)

The initial establishing of the Scientologists in downtown Clearwater (Fl) in late 1975 had already been met with some mistrust by its citizens. During the late 70's and early 80's Scientology was getting various further unfavourable attention (raid on the Scientology's headquarters in Washington, DC and Los Angeles, July 1977; Guardian Office incidents, 1979-81). The city commissionaires of Clearwater and their mayor that felt alarmed by the growth of the organization in their town then approached the attorney Michael Flynn to help them to perform an investigation of this Scientology. This resulted in the Clearwater Hearings that convened 5 to 10 May 1982. They were held in public and were even locally broadcasted life on television and could be viewed in its local library. Ron DeWolf testified on 5 & 6 May of these hearings. Basically his testimony appears to be an attempt to utterly demolish the reputation of his father, he called him a liar (99% of all his father had said about himself was a lie), violent (hit his wife), a drug user/abuser/pusher, that the creation of Scientology only and always had been about the money, and so on. It may be found noteworthy that Ron DeWolf attacked with full force by discrediting about any and all relating to his father. His testimony was thus no mild criticism.

 
Go back
Ron DeWolf applies for his ‘inheritance’ (Nov 82)

   

“Son of Scientology believes Hubbard dead or ill  
Petition filed requesting estate trustee

The oldest son of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology, believes his father is either dead or mentally incompetent, according to a petition filed in Riverside Superior Court.
The son, Ronald E. DeWolf, also claims in the court papers filed Wednesday that officials in the church have stolen millions of dollars, gems and securities either from his 71-year-old father or from Hubbard's estate in the last 12 months. DeWolf, 48, of Carson city, Nev., is asking the court to appoint him as trustee of his father's affairs to protect the assets.
DeWolf, a former Scientologist who now manages an apartment complex in Carson City, claims the worldwide organization is now run by David Miscavige, described in the petition as a ‘22-year-old with a ninth-grade education.’ He alleges Miscavige and another church official, James Isaacson, forged Hubbard's signature to loot the accounts.
‘I am not attacking LRH (L. Ron Hubbard) in a legal sense,’ DeWolf said yesterday in a telephone interview, ‘because no one has ever been able to do that successfully . . . The only way he can contest all of this is to show up physically in court. But I expect he may have trouble doing that because I don't think he is alive.’
The son said he has not seen his father since 1959, but DeWolf said he has kept track of the inner workings of the secretive church ‘through conversations with attorneys, friends and a loose-knit network of former cult members.’ ...
Hubbard laid out secret plans for his death, according to DeWolf. Hubbard instructed Douglas to ‘bury him in the date fields’ in the area and not to disclose his death. ‘shortly thereafter,’ DeWolf states in his petition, ‘my father disappeared.’”
     (from ‘County, Press-Enterprise’, 13 Nov 82)
   
 
   

“Hubbard wife to oppose try to rule church founder dead 

The wife of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of scientology, filed notice yesterday that she will oppose an attempt to have her husband declared legally dead or mentally incompetent. ...
The notice was filed in Riverside County Superior Court in an effort to prevent Hubbard's son, Ronald E. DeWolf, 48, of Carson City, Nev., from being appointed trustee of Hubbard's estate.
     (from ‘County, Press-Enterprise’, 20 Nov 82)
Although she has not seen Hubbard since 1979, her attorney Litt said: ‘She hears from him regularly by correspondence and she is comfortably supported by her husband on a monthly basis.’
Litt said Mrs. Hubbard's action is not meant to substitute herself for DeWolf as a trustee.
‘But, under California statutes,’ he said, ‘if a trustee were to be appointed, she would be the presumptive person to be trustee since state statutes give preference to a spouse.’”
   

This all actually introduced and started the time period in which serious questions are being raised about if in fact L. Ron Hubbard still would be alive. Attention was given to it on television shows and newspapers.

The ‘Los angeles Times’, 21 Nov 82 writes in an article:
    “Is L. Ron Hubbard, the reclusive founder of the Church of Scientology and the writer of the science fiction novels, dead or alive?”
In the same article it is responded to with:
    “Not so, retorted the publishers of several of Hubbard's manuscripts ...
The publishers insist that Hubbard is still writing, not just books but correspondence.
But no one, including top church officials, has produced Hubbard. And the mysterious founder of Scientology and its allied philosophy, Dianetics, is not talking.”

It wasn't resolved till a rather peculiar way was chosen to provide proof for that he still would be alive. This in the form of 3 produced letters with specially prepared ink in February 1983 (see my article about this: “‘L. Ron Hubbard Breaks Silence’ (February 1983)”, consult here, separate window).
And as a result of that Ronald DeWolf's petition was denied.

It later nonetheless did result in that:
   

“The wife of the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, has filed a $5 million suit against Mr. Hubbard's son, charging ‘massive fraud’ in his 1982 effort to have his father declared legally dead or mentally incompetent.
The suit charges that Mr. DeWolf and his Massachussetts attorney, Michael Flynn, attempted a ‘massive hoax’ while trying to have Mr. DeWolf declared trustee of the Hubbard estate.”

(from ‘New York Times’, 24 Oct 84)

 
Go back
The Penthouse occurrence (1983-84)

An exclusive interview with L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. was published in ‘Penthouse’, Jun 83. A counter article as presented by Heber Jentzsch, President of the Church of Scientology, was then published in ‘Penthouse’, Jan 84. The interview with L. Ron Hubbard Jr. is found transcribed at various locations out on the Internet, whereas you will actually fail to find the counter article! (I did not find it posted anywhere on the Internet, whereas anti-Scientology sites happily distribute the former article). For this reason I present here in the below an accurate transcript of each of them. I present both of these here so that a comparison can be made, after all the January 1984 article would not have been there if there was no June 1983 article. Either way, if you consult the L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. Interview article, then consult also the counter article! Also keep in mind that Ron DeWolf renounced it all in May 1987. (pop-up windows)
  ‘Penthouse’, Jun 83 “Penthouse Interview: L. Ron Hubbard, Jr.”
    ‘Penthouse’, Jan 84 “Penthouse Feedback”
The text of the January 1984 article was also separately reissued by the Church of Scientology as a pamphlet under the title “The Truth About L. Ron Hubbard”.

 
Go back
Ron DeWolf again applies for ‘inheritance’ after official news of the passing of his father (Jan 86)

   

“Hubbard's Son Planning to Seek Inquest, Contest Will 

A Boston attorney representing the estranged son of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard said Wednesday that he will request a coroner's inquest into the death of the reclusive multimillionaire and plans to contest the will Hubbard signed the day before he died. ...
In the letter, made public by his office, Flynn said he wants to know whether the science fiction writer's vast wealth ‘would provide a motive for individuals close to Hubbard to engage in potential wrongdoing.’
Flynn insisted that he was not accusing anyone of wrongdoing but said Hubbard's closest associates should be ‘made to answer questions surrounding’ the death on a remote ranch in Central California. ...
Hubbard's will was dated one day before his death, according to Whiting. Flynn said he will attempt to have the will invalidated on grounds that Hubbard may have been coerced or mentally incompetent. ...
Church officials said that although he had suffered a stroke the week before his death, Hubbard was lucid when he amended the will, providing additional money to some family members. Hubbard also left the church he founded three decades ago ‘tens of millions of dollars.’ DeWolf apparently received nothing. ...
Getting Ready to Die
Church spokesman Hoden said Hubbard's will was dated shortly before his death because he had made a decision to leave his body and was getting his affairs in order.
Four days before his death, Hubbard also signed a certificate saying it was against his religious beliefs to have an autopsy performed. No autopsy was conducted, and his remains were cremated.
     (from ‘Los Angeles Times’, 30 Jan 86)
   

It be noted here that the above article does state some things that could be considered somewhat odd or suspect. For example “he had made a decision to leave his body” (thus to actually die). I've listed and investigated various additional arguments that could be forwarded in regards to these circumstances in an article that I wrote about this: “The official version (Jan 86)”, consult here (separate window).

Either way Ron DeWolf's bid for an inquest had been rejected for reason of :
    “‘It is our belief that the physician of record has sufficient knowledge to reasonably state the cause of death,’ Whiting said. ‘There is no information obtained during the inquiry to suggest death resulted from other than the cause stated by the physician.’”
(from ‘Los Angeles Times’, 5 Feb 86)

 
Go back
Ron DeWolf renouncing all of his claims (May-Jul 87)

A book was published in 1987 in where Ron DeWolf was noted as the co-author. This was ‘L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?’ by Bent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard Jr. a.k.a. Ronald DeWolf, issued in 1987. However in court affidavits prior to its release Ron DeWolf had dissociated himself entirely from the book. In an affidavit dated 20 May 1987 he writes: “To the extend that any portion of the book is based on my previous manuscripts, ..., the book is complete and utter fantasy without the slightest figment of truth.”.
    “Affidavit of Ronald Edward DeWolf, dated 20 May 87”
  “Affidavit of Ronald E. DeWolf, dated 1 Jul 87”
These affidavits basically renounce all his earlier statements about his father and Scientology.

Bent Corydon then wrote in the Preface of the book:
        
“L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. was contracted as co-author of this book and co-operated for more than half of its writing, providing information. He was then offered an undisclosed amount of money by Church of Scientology representatives to settle his claim against his father's estate. There was, however, also a requirement that he must cease any assistance on the book and remove his name from it.”
        
If this is true then it would appear that Ron DeWolf preferred money above telling the truth. If it is not true then he only would have disavowed his claims and this publication.

In a 1992 reprint of his book Bent Corydon adds the following:
        
“In the case of L. Ron Hubbard Jr.'s 1986 ‘legal settlement’ with Scientology, he had accumulated sizable hospital bills due to recent emergency surgery. This left him weakened and heavily in debt. Concerned about the welfare of his family he finally agreed to a ‘settlement’. This included his signing various prepared documents. I don't believe for a moment that Ron Jr. ever considered these prepared statements to be accurate representations of his thoughts and beliefs. The man was under duress.”
        
Again we have the issue forwarded here of choosing finances above truth. Considering as well the previous instances that he has withdrawn his claims consequently in 1969 and again in 1972. There is no mention of any financial settlement for these previous withdrawals.

It is reported that Ron DeWolf died on 16 Sept ’91 (the only source being Wikipedia, although it is not referenced). Some persistent rumours tell that he died because of the injuries he developed while being run over by a car when crossing a street. Another source says that he would have died from cancer.

 
Go back Is Ron DeWolf a reliable witness?

An article by Dennis Wheeler that appeared in ‘The News-Herald’, 7-13 Jul 82 “Son of Scientology” said:
        
“And not all professionals in the ‘anti-cult’ field trust DeWolf, either, Scientology officials, while reluctant to admit DeWolf's very existence, when faced with his accusations distribute a transcript of a videotape which DeWolf made in 1972. On tape, DeWolf says he had no personal knowledge of any wrong-doing or illegal acts or brutality against people by members of Scientology, and that he lied in earlier testimony.
        
 
DeWolf now says the tape was made ‘under duress...I did a lot of talking to a lot of people, and nobody believed me. They thought what I had to say was as far out as Scientology itself. But I can't expose L. Ron Hubbard without exposing myself. So I had to reach a point where I was ready, willing, and able to in actual fact let everything – everything – hang out. The whole ball of wax – the good, the bad, the beautiful, the ugly...It wasn't really until 1978, in fact, that I got out from under it. I didn't have all kinds of counselors or ‘deprogrammers.’’”
 

One may however consider the credibility of a person that actually has withdrawn his claims about equally often as he has made them. I actually received an interesting response to this on a discussion forum. There it was proposed that Ron DeWolf would have withdrawn his stories as he could have been subjected to fair game from the side of the Church of Scientology. Interesting is though that Ron DeWolf went forth and back not just one time but a variety of times. In 1982 he went for the legacy of his father, and again in 1986, to only recant all of his stories in 1987. In his affidavit dated 20 May 87 he stated that these “were simply no more than wild flights of fantasy based on my own unlimited imagination”. He may or may not have done that because of a financial settlement (according to Bent Corydon).

Then it should be contemplated upon that in spite of that he once figured that his “father was a sick, sadistic, vicious man”, that he nonetheless wanted to receive the legacy of that same father. We should also not overlook that very little in his tales have been confirmed by others or by observed fact. You see, if his tales are to be true we would actually expect to find traces of many incidents backing up and confirming the truthfulness of the claims he has made, but we don't find that the interpretations forwarded thereof are supported by any properly verified sources.
That what make his previous highly accusative and discrediting testimonies also less credible are actually the very compulsiveness of these testimonies. It is like if he pushes them deliberately over the edge. There is a presence of this factor that can be perceived as a well considered exaggeration. He did not say that his father told some untruths about his past. No, he instead said that 99% of his tales about himself were lies. He also claimed that his father stole about all his materials from others, not just some things. Regarding all the materials that are found in the subject of Dianetics and Scientology it should appear rather obvious that L. Ron Hubbard had particular qualities, and a rather large quantity of the published writings are not particularly found elsewhere. One could thus contemplate a bit about why his testimonies were delivered in this way.

It is noted that those that oppose the subject of Scientology use the statements of Ron DeWolf as credible arguments till this day. But they fail to tell how often he had changed his mind, and in particular that he withdrew it all once again in 1987. Also they are quick to tell that his claims have been confirmed by many sources, then failing to disclose what these sources actually are. Futile reference may be made to disputable sources such as Gerry Armstrong but he too appears to have succumbed to the lure of money.
Nonetheless it is interesting to see that since then various opponents to the subject of Dianetics and Scientology use or implement his arguments in their own tales attempting to discredit either the subject of Scientology or the person L. Ron Hubbard. All in the ‘good’ faith as if Ron DeWolf would have been a trustworthy and stable person, and thus utterly ignoring the tool of evaluation in their presentations.

 
Go back Nibs is being edited ... (an anecdote)

In July 1958 when L. Ron Hubbard gave the Clearing Course lectures, it was his son Nibs that assisted him on the podium. In the 1987 video release he can still be seen. However in the 2006 DVD release he is gone.

1987 video release
2006 DVD release

For me this is pretty much up to the point of getting ridiculous. First it was the hand of Nibs that brought the books onto the podium and then took them away again. Suddenly now it has become an invisible hand doing these things and rather mysteriously pushed the books on the podium and subsequently removed them again. The edited version looks rather humorous when viewed. And then, who would actually recognize this as being Nibs Hubbard? Would anyone? Pictures of him are indeed very scarce. Thus in regards to that it does not bear any particular significance to have had him edited out from this video. It has now drawn the attention because it was edited like this. Instead the focus has now gone to why the present Church of Scientology does this. It also raises the question that if this can be edited like that, then what else has been edited that we have not discovered yet?

Either way as from the perspective of the intent and purpose of the subject of Scientology and Dianetics there is in fact some oddness or rather inconsistency involved with this. One could simply define the expression ‘as-is’: “To view anything exactly as it is without any distortions or lies, at which moment it will vanish and cease to exist.” (from ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’, 1965). This indeed is very basic for these subjects.

 

Vocabulary:

     ACC:
Advanced Clinical Course’. 1. Basically a theory and research course which gives a much further insight into the phenomena of the mind and the rationale of research and investigation (PAB 71)  2. L. Ron Hubbard's special courses personally taught by him, and sponsored for him by an HCO office. (HCO PL 24 Feb 60).
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     Black Dianetics:
1. Hypnotism. (5109C17A)  2. There are those who, to control, resort to narcotism, suggestion, gossip, slander–the thousands of overt and covert ways that can be classified as Black Dianetics. (Journal of Scientology Issue 3-G, Sept. 1952, Danger: Black Dianetics!)
     HCOB:
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line.
For more information go here (separate window).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     original mimeo print-off:
Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (separate window).
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     Snr C/S Int:
Senior Case/Supervisor International’. The highest ranking technical (relating to auditing) person within the Church of Scientology after L. Ron hubbard.
     ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOB's are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     Training Routine (TR):
Training regimen or routine. Often referred to as a training drill. TRs are a precise training action putting a student through laid out practical steps gradient by gradient, to teach a student to apply with certainty what he has learned. In particular these are for training of an auditor in regards to communication. The ones presently in use are OT TR 0, TR 0 confronting, TR 0 bullbait, TR 1, 2, 2½, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 100, 100-A, 101, 102, 103 & 104. (for more data see ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ & HCOB 17 Jul 69RB)

Go to top of this page


Copyright © 2009, 2012  Michel Snoeck.  All rights reserved.
This page revised: 4 August, 2014