>> Do you want to help me with my research? << Consult my want list
here !
Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are marked.
The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard (page 5)
This particular study aims to give an overview of the various thoughts and theories that go around in regards to the whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard. The years 1972, 1977 and 1982 are the one's that often are named in relation to that someone other than L. Ron Hubbard had taken control over the subject of Scientology. The focus is put on the published sources and the things they relate, and to follow the tech line.
The main focus has been put on from which time on basic tech may have been counteracted. In particular that which has not been reversed since.
Original FPRD Series written: 5 to 17 Jun 84 FPRD released: 5 Jun 84 (per ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 Edition)) Course checksheets issued:16 Jun 84 Available service: since about Sept 84
In below link you can consult a list which contains all the references that came with the FPRD Series and related:
First mention of FPRD & introduction (includes notes on ‘Expanded Dianetics’)
The earliest published mention of FPRD I found in ‘The Auditor 193 (US Edition)’, [Sept 84], it said:
“Ron has recently made another incredible technical breakthrough! He has researched and developed a dynamic new auditing procedure and a mighty new Rundown coming to you soon: FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN™ auditing. And this Rundown includes new LRH breakthroughs direct from the realm of high level OT Research!”
We are further informed that:
“Right now technical personnel are in training on this rundown and its materials and will be delivering the rundown and course at ASHO VERY SOON”
‘Advance! 84’, [ca Oct-Nov 84] dedicated 2 pages for its release (quotations from HCOB 5 Jun 84 and some promo). Then we had to wait for ‘The Auditor 195 (US Edition)’, [Jan 85] that had a ‘Special Auditor Supplement’ dedicated wholly to the FPRD. It had an overview (HCOB 5 Jun 84 -False Purpose Rundown Series 1- “False Purpose Rundown” quoted in full), success stories and the usual promotion. The basic idea of the FPRD was:
“Where a being has accumulated nonsurvival purposes and intentions, he will be found to be having, doing and being far below his potential. Having committed overt acts (prompted by false, nonsurvival intentions and purposes), he then restrains himself from action. Achievement, stability, certainty, respect for self, and even the thetan's innate power can seem to deteriorate or disappear altogether.
And it can be found that many of these contrasurvival purposes have been fettering the being for a VERY long time. Recent upper-level research breakthroughs have led to the development of a new rundown designed to slash straight through to the root of such false purposes and unwanted intentions and BLOW them.”
(from HCOB 5 Jun 84 -False Purpose Rundown Series 1- “False Purpose Rundown”)
The marketing went for the name False Purpose Rundown. Although I am told that at the time the Evil Purpose Rundown had been considered as a possible name. However from a connotative point of view probably not very wise though and it had been abandoned. Indeed False Purpose is more neutral than Evil Purpose.
The False Purpose Rundown is usually referred to as the ‘FPRD’. The False Purpose Rundown (FPRD) was first introduced in 1984, although previously its principles were already in use in Expanded Dianetics (XDN). Be it noted though that XDN was not listed on the Grade Charts issued from March 1982 to 1991. The FPRD is specifically designed to detect evil purposes or evil intentions. It is also that action that in particular is in use today by the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF).
The claim is also that “this Rundown includes new LRH breakthroughs direct from the realm of high level OT Research!”. It is quite unclear to me what new breakthroughs would be found in the FPRD from high level OT research, as the basic outset is Sec Checking focusing on just what the person did to another (Flow Two).
There are some discussions ongoing insofar if L. Ron Hubbard would have been responsible for its writing or not. After all it was already in use as Expanded Dianetics (XDN). To this effect the course checksheet lists the following 7 lectures, that includes all the XDN lectures:
“TAPE: 7203C02 ESTO 3, EVALUATION AND HANDLING OF PERSONNEL
TAPE: 7203C30 EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURE I
TAPE: 7204C07 EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURE II
TAPE: 7204C07 EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURE III
TAPE: 7204C07 EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURE IV
TAPE: 6110C03 THE PRIOR CONFUSION
TAPE: 6403C19 FLATTENING A PROCESS”
The bulk of the remainder of the material studied on this course are the FPRD Series references alongside with various issues from the 60's-70's.
Arguments have been made regarding it containing too many contradictions with previous used technology. The FPRD can also be noted for that it became an action that could be done at any point on the Grade Chart. XDN was done as part of your path on the Grade Chart, it was part of clearing your past in regards to things that appeared to slow down your progress. It was also fact that not everyone was required to do this step. FPRD may have turned to other purposes, separate from your path on the Grade Chart.
There is another rather significant difference with the original XDN compared with the FPRD. This is about flows. There are 4 flows: (from HCOB 4 Apr 71 “Use of Quad Dianetics”)
“F 1, FLOW ONE, something happening to self.
F 2, FLOW TWO, doing something to another.
F 3, FLOW THREE, others doing things to others.
F 0, FLOW ZERO, self doing something to self.” LRH
XDN takes evenly care of all 4 flows. The FPRD however appears to primarily focus on Flow Two. This is actually interesting, as this outset points in a particular direction. Which is Security Checking.
It has been brought to my attention that the FPRD by various is not considered being a rundown per se. The word rundown for this auditing action may even be considered a sort of a misnomer. It is argued that this FPRD isn't run as a level. It's a way of basically running a Sec Check. Also any Sec Check can be run ‘FPRD style’. Basically a C/S can compile any kind of tailor made FPRD list for a preclear. After all these lists are just a collection of questions.
Remember also that the FPRD focuses on “F 2, FLOW TWO, doing something to another”. It is not an all-round action as the XDN that addresses all flows.
‘Senior Security Checker’ versus ‘FPRD’
The FPRD was developed alongside with another course. Course checksheets for these were issued on the very same day:
This “Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course” was actually a prerequisite for the “Hubbard False Purpose Rundown Auditor course”. So they came hand in hand.
‘The Auditor 195 (US Edition)’, [Jan 85] in its ‘Special Auditor Supplement’ said: “The Hubbard Senior security checker Course contains all the recently restored LRH tech on Sec Checking – the tech that delivers relief and freedom from the hostilities and sufferings of life!”. It then makes the claim: “Over two decades ago, Ron developed sec checking to a high skill. Now all this vital tech – plus all developments and discoveries on the subject since – is available on this comprehensive new checksheet.”. An interesting claim as history tells us that very few references (if any) relating to sec checking released during the period 1972-76 were actually attributed to L. Ron Hubbard.
Integrity Processing Series 1-21 and related
( issued: 2 Dec 72 / 16 May 74)
Integrity Processing Form 1-12
(issued: 24 Dec 72 / 11 Jun 76)
The bulk of the above were compiled and issued by others (issued or reissued as BTB's, also indicating that the initiative was not from L. Ron Hubbard). Most of them however do say that they were “Compiled from LRH briefings and materials”, although as indicated on various of them this was dating back to 1961-64. Thus the claim that “Over two decades ago, Ron developed sec checking to a high skill.” can not positively be supported for 2 reasons. It is referring to the wrong time period (early 70's instead of early 60's), further L. Ron Hubbard was not personally involved with these series of issues that were released in the early 70's as shown.
It even gets more contradictive when we learn that L. Ron Hubbard had abolished Sec Checking for security efforts in 1968 as it was not deemed very workable. Nonetheless it is then claimed that “Over two decades ago (early 70's), Ron developed sec checking to a high skill.” ?
Course length estimates:
“Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course”
- One week or less full time
“Hubbard False Purpose Rundown Auditor course”
- Two weeks full time
Further annotations on the FPRD & studies
A site on the Internet forwards some interesting studies and reviews on the FPRD:
It has been figured by some that it would not have been a coincidence that this FPRD came about in 1984. This may have been due to that in the 2 foregoing years many staff and publics had been put through some ordeal or were expelled (see previous section “‘The dawning of ‘Religious Technology Center’ and new management (1982-83)’”. These had been very hectic and insecure days for many. It also had caused that the public lost confidence for the changes implemented in management and the new management itself. Some method was required to remove the insecurity from people, and get those back in that had been scared away. Hence we may have ended up with the FPRD to take care of that. Also considering that those that became aware of that they had done wrong would be fairly easy to manipulate and get into line. It could have been a measure to get control over this thus created situation.
The problem is also that apparently L. Ron Hubbard had already “concluded man can not be trusted with justice” (from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”). The reality is that man does as he pleases if he is urged or has a motivation. I mean to say that this confessional data can and has been misused. In spite of that it says in HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals”: “Overts disclosed in sessions may not be used for justice
purposes. Therefore only crimes discovered by routine investigation
are actionable.” LRH. L. Ron Hubbard had effectively taken away the possibility that this could occur since 1968, and confirmed this in 1970 when explicitly stating that HCO Confessionals were not allowed! What practicality had changed since 1968? Had anything changed with:
“1.
We have no interest in the secrets and crimes of people and no
use for them.
2.
Low level cases do not react on actual crimes and so the
‘security’ furnished is often a false security.
5.
There is public criticism of security checking as a practice.” LRH
Either way since November 1974 we got it reinstated. Then 10 years later we get this whole development of series of FPRD confessionals lists during 1984-85 (FPRD Series 10-A to 10-K, see my FPRD Series list). All this seems quite contrary to what was found, established and confirmed during 1968-70. It went from forbidden to a necessity.
A thin line between that which is revealed in auditing sessions and may turn actionable on the person
“Overts disclosed in sessions may not be used for justice purposes. Therefore only crimes discovered by routine investigation are actionable.” LRH (from HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals”)
Then HCOB/PL 7 Jan
85 “HCO Confessionals” says:
“There has evidently been some confusion among a few auditors, Sec Checkers and C/Ses as to the proper administrative handling of overts and withholds gotten off during sessions.
Overts disclosed in the course of Confessionals done for investigatory or justice purposes (generally called ‘HCO Confessionals’) are always the subject of Knowledge Reports to HCO and are actionable on the person.
Overts and withholds divulged during routine auditing may not be used as grounds for ethics actions on a preclear. This is part of the Auditor's Code and has been well known to auditors for many years.”
But then it says in the section following:
“One does not send someone to HCO for an overt or crime gotten off in routine auditing. HOWEVER, EVIDENCE OF A CRIME KNOWINGLY WITHHELD BY A PC UNTIL HE IS IN SESSION IS ACTIONABLE BY HCO. In other words, the purpose of auditing is not to provide a means for an out-ethics person to ‘avoid the Ethics Officer.’”
Justified with:
“Actually, the end result of ‘waiting until one is in session’ to reveal a crime is often far far worse than any ethics or justice action one might receive at the hands of HCO! I recall a person a person who knowingly withheld a serious crime he'd committed until he got an auditing session. no ethics action was taken by HCO. He was not brought to justice for it in any way. And he went straight ahead and tried to punish himself most severely. He wound up in the hospital for an operation that he need never have undergone. He promptly started administering his own punishment.”
So how are you going to determine which is which? This is largely made subject to the adjudication of the terminals involved with the confessor.
The line gets thinner and thinner:
“HCO Confessional actions can include running a False Purpose Rundown form or other related rundowns that address O/Ws and nonsurvival intentions.”
Nonetheless we are reassured:
“The fact that a Sec Check or False Purpose RD form is being done as an HCO Confessional does not mean that the procedure is changed. The auditor's procedure is the same. But the overts are reported to Ethics for handling and are actionable. It should be clearly marked on the Knowledge Report that it is from an HCO Confessional action.”
And:
“I depend on auditors, C/Ses and HCOs to intelligently and effectively apply the data in this HCO PL to assist the pc in keeping his hands clean and his case advancing.”
Obvious risks are involved if you make this line this thin.
Remember though:
“Thus neither Tech nor Qual should assist investigations but should work on the case against proper C/Ses to get off the overts and withholds for the case benefit.” LRH (from HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals”)
Related information concerning the use of confessional data can be found on my “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2)” page, chapter “(6) HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports” vs acquiring information about people & control”, see at section “A note about HCO PL 2 March 84 ‘O/W Write Up’”, or click here (link will open in separate window). Applicable is also its following section entitled: “Today's reality”.
The official version of the death of L. Ron Hubbard (Jan 86)
Official announcements and referrals from the Church of Scientology
The book ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 release) makes mention of this as follows:
In chapter 3: “L. Ron Hubbard: The Founder of Scientology” on page 132:
“Having fully completed his research and seen its broad application expand to six continents and over 60 countries around the world, improving the lives of millions of people, L. Ron Hubbard departed his body on January 24, 1986.”
In chapter 35: “L. Ron Hubbard, A Chronicle” on page 634:
“1982 - 24 JANUARY 1986:
Ron establishes a California home on a ranch outside of San Luis Obispo. ...
On 24 January 1986, having accomplished all he set out to do, Ron departs his body.”
In chapter 36: “Important Dates in Scientology” on page 650:
“24 JANUARY 1986
L. Ron Hubbard departed this life at his ranch San Louis Obispo, California, leaving a legacy of his life's work that lives on around the world.”
A much more detailed account is found in the periodical ‘International Scientology News 8’, [ca Feb-Mar 86]. In fact it was fully dedicated to the event of his passing and what next to do. There are 2 articles of particular interest: (links will open as pop-up windows)
By the way these speeches at the Hollywood Palladium must have been put together very rapidly, i.e. within 3 days of the passing of L. Ron Hubbard. It seems though that one was fairly well prepared.
There is also ‘SPD* 145’, 15 Jul 86 “Issue Line For Source Data” (issued by then Snr C/S Int Ray Mithoff) that relates directly about these matters. It was revised reissued on 17 Jul 87 by the then Snr C/S Int Jeff Walker. These relate some interesting information. Amongst other it relates about the creation of the LRH Technical Research and Compilations (RTRC) unit. Further the issue lays out how things were to develop from there on out. It set the line to follow. Does anyone have any of these for me in the original English? Then please contact me!
It may be seen as odd that no notices or messages appeared in any of the other Scientology periodicals about this happening. About all we see is that Write to L. Ron Hubbard is replaced with Write to ED Int notices.
The ‘last’ Flag Order
Then there is the occurrence of the socalled last Flag Order (‘FO 3879’,19 Jan 86 “The Sea Org & The Future”). An FO that later had been retracted by Mr. David Miscavige, for reason that it was so claimed that it had been manufactured by Pat Broeker who had appointed himself and his wife respectively as first and second Loyal Officer. It is actually quite a strange FO, it was printed in full on the frontpage of ‘International Scientology News 8’, [ca Feb-Mar 86]. It is strange as it was basically the message that could be deemed to be coming from a retiring L. Ron Hubbard that was saying goodbye. He also promoted himself to Admiral in this writing. Then it all being dated 5 days prior to his actual passing (indicates foresight). My attention was drawn to this FO at Flag prior to it having been cancelled. I perceived it at the time with skepticism, didn't know what to really think of it. It made however no particular impact on me. To date no one seems to know the fate of Pat and Annie Broeker who had been, as the tale goes, so trusted with L. Ron Hubbard. Some have reported that after the retraction of the FO 3879 they had been for a while on this Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF), since then they have not been heard of again.
The matter is actually how and why this could have been issued, and it only being cancelled more than 2 years after the fact? So, why did it happen? And, how could it have happened?
The incidence of the three wills (1979, 1982 & 1986)
There is also this instance of 3 wills having been drawn up. The last one only dating to just one day from his passing. Some questions have been raised against in particular this 3rd and last will. There appear to exist reports concerning that L. Ron Hubbard was under the influence of a drug called Visteral and therefore such a will signed while under the influence of such could not be considered valid.
Transcripts of each of these wills and the adherent documents appear at very places out on the Internet. I however consulted and verified with microfiche copies of the original documents.
Below I relate about the noteworthy passages as found listed in each of these wills:
15 December 1979 Will
The third article devised and bequeathed to Mary Sue Hubbard: “all of my tangible personal, residential and household effects of every kind, including furniture, pictures, books, silverware, silver pieces, household furnishings, clothing, jewelry and automobiles”.
Its fifth articles refers to the L. Ron Hubbard Inter Vivos Trust Agreement established earlier that day. Assigns himself the Trustor and Norton S. Karno as its Trustee.
The eleventh article nominates and appoints Norton S. Karno as Executor of the will. In case he would be unable or unwilling to perform this duty Michael M. Smith will act as such.
This will was witnessed by Pat Broeker, Anne Broeker, and Diana Voegeding (signatures appear on will).
10 May 1982 Will
This new will makes no mention of Mary Sue Hubbard receiving any “tangible personal, residential and household effects”.
Its fourth article relates about the establishment of the Author's Family Trust of which he assigns himself being the Trustor and Pat Broeker as its Trustee.
The eight article nominated and appointed Patrick D. Broeker as Executor of the Will. In case he would be unable or unwilling to perform this duty the will lists two other persons which will be selected in order of priority: 1. Lyman D. Spurlock, Jr; and 2. Norman Starkey.
This will had been witnessed by Patrick. D. Broeker and Annie M. Broeker, both who's signatures appear on the will.
14 November 1983 First Codicil to Last Will and Testament
This adds amongst other an eleventh article to the 10 May 82 will.
Eleventh article: “I hereby direct that my body be cremated and the ashes buried at sea. I direct that my personal representative take all steps necessary to carry out the foregoing as soon as possible following my death. Under no circumstances shall my body lie in state or be subjected to an autopsy.”.
Witnessed by Patrick Broeker and Anne M. Broeker (signatures).
23 January 1986 Will
The second article says: “I hereby direct that my body be cremated and the ashes buried at sea. I direct that my Personal Representative take all steps necessary to carry out the foregoing as soon as possible following my death. under no circumstances shall my body lie in state or be subjected to an autopsy.”.
The third & sixth article are almost entirely dedicated to copyright & trademark issues.
The fifth article noted the establishment earlier that day of the Author's Family Trust-B. Assigning himself as the Trustor and Norman F. Starkey as its Trustee.
The ninth article nominated and appointed Norman F. Starkey as the Executor of the will. Successor Executors were appointed in case of that this person would be unable or unwilling to perform this duty in the following order of priority: 1. Anne M. Broeker; 2. David Miscavige; and 3. Terri G. Gamboa.
This will is witnessed by Anne M. Broeker, Patrick D. Broeker, Stephen J. Pfauth, and Raymond Mithoff (signatures).
20 January 1986 Certificate of Religious Belief
This directs: “Based upon my religious beliefs, I object to any and all post mortem anatomical dissections or other autopsy procedures being conducted on my body. Such autopsy procedures would violate my religious convictions.”.
Witnessed by Patrick D. Broeker, Anne M. Broeker, and Stephen J. Pfauth (signatures).
Summarized and compared:
15 December 1979 Will:
10 May 1982 Will:
23 January 1986 Will:
Trust created:
‘L. Ron Hubbard Inter Vivos Trust Agreement’
‘Author's Family Trust’
‘Author's Family Trust-B’
Trustee:
Norton S. Karno
Pat Broeker
Norman F. Starkey
Executor of the will:
Norton S. Karno
Patrick D. Broeker
Norman F. Starkey
Successor Executors: (in case first choice unable or unwilling)
Michael M. Smith
1. Lyman D. Spurlock, Jr
2. Norman Starkey
1. Anne M. Broeker
2. David Miscavige
3. Terri G. Gamboa
Witnessed by:
Pat Broeker
Anne Broeker
Diana Voegeding
Patrick. D. Broeker
Annie M. Broeker
Anne M. Broeker
Patrick D. Broeker
Stephen J. Pfauth
Raymond Mithoff
Mary Sue Hubbard:
Mary Sue Hubbard receives: “all of my tangible personal, residential and household effects of every kind” (article 3)
No mention
No mention
Copyrights & trademarks:
No mention of copyrights or trademarks
Article 5 is mostly missing because of missing page, it may or may not be discussing the disposition of the copyrights and/or trademarks (although it is not very likely as article 2 does not mention it either)
Includes extensive mention of copyrights & trademarks in article 3 and 6
As it seems, at such time that the Trustee changed a new will was drawn up.
A few things to ponder about ...
#1. A question asked would be why Mary Sue Hubbard has not been considered as a Trustee or anything else on any of these wills? After all she was also fully involved and Trustee for each of the 3 very first Scientology corporations that were founded in New Jersey in December 1953 (see my page “Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard - An Introduction”, chapter “The founding of the ‘Church of Scientology’ and its ‘Creed’”). And why not any of his then living children (Diana, Arthur & Suzette)? Well, I just thought I ask!
#2. Why is it that Mary Sue Hubbard first was entitled to receive “all of my tangible personal, residential and household effects of every kind” in the 1979 will, but not so in the 1982 and the 1986 will? What urged for this change?
#3. It is not until the 23 January 1986 will that the issue of copyrights & trademarks is taken up in great detail (or may be some notice could be found on the missing page of the 1982 will about this, although no notice is made about it either in article 2 of that particular will). Either way a good question would be, why suddenly all this attention on these copyrights & trademarks? After all it was already fully provided for in various policy letters written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1958 (see my page “The copyrights issue and related matters”).
#4. An issue may also be why we suddenly have this 14 November 1983 addition to the 10 May 1982 will, this about “I hereby direct that my body be cremated and the ashes buried at sea. I direct that my personal representative take all steps necessary to carry out the foregoing as soon as possible following my death. Under no circumstances shall my body lie in state or be subjected to an autopsy.”. If this was an obvious matter then why was it not included from the start in the will? Then we have the 20 January 1986 ‘Certificate of Religious Belief’ that says: “Based upon my religious beliefs, I object to any and all post mortem anatomical dissections or other autopsy procedures being conducted on my body. Such autopsy procedures would violate my religious convictions.”.
It does eliminate the possibility to actually verify that we had the real L. Ron Hubbard here. These last 6 years of his life there had been quite some controversy about if he still would be alive. Then at his supposed deathbed we are once again left with questions. Rumours could have been enervated so easily. Some as it appears went through a lot of effort to keep various things in mystery.We have two options here of how to interpret this, two fairly evident options. It was L. Ron Hubbard or it was someone else. The question is if L. Ron Hubbard would have opposed to the possibility to actually expose a possible imposter. Obviously there was a lot at stake here.
It has been reported that fingerprints had been taken from the deceased and compared with those that the FBI had on file. The outcome of this however may not be so reliable. Per what I know this was not performed in any official capacity at all. It was not in an autopsy. Also various could have been staged. Another question to ask is why the FBI would have had the fingerprints of L. Ron Hubbard on file? You see, there is no record of documents that would indicate that the FBI would find this a necessary measure. FBI records actually show he was never under investigation or sorts that would require his fingerprints to be taken. Thus, the claim of using FBI records with supposed fingerprints turns very suspect indeed.
#5. The involvement of in particular Pat Broeker in all of these consecutive 3 wills, the adherent codicil and certificate. Then per the 10 May 1982 will he was apparently was selected as the Trustee of the Author's Family Trustas well as nominated and appointed as Executor of the Will. All this could be perceived as contradictive to the claims made by Mr. David Miscavige in FO 3879 Cancelled’ (Cancelled 18 April 1988) “The Sea Org & The Future, Cancelled”:
“In a further attempt to boost his status, Broeker had claimed to have worked closely with LRH during several years prior to January 1986. Thorough investigation has since revealed the fact that during the time period Pat Broeker asserted he was ‘working close to LRH’, Broeker was absent for extended periods of time under false pretenses and was in fact almost never at the same location that LRH was.
Additionally, when he was with LRH prior to 1986, he was there only as domestic staff, not in any technical or administrative capacity.”
These various wills do span the period December 1979 to January 1986. A case can also be made with ‘SPD 145’, 15 Jul 86 “Issue Line For Source Data” that made Pat Broeker ultimately responsible for the further development of the technology as compiled from LRH notes, directives and such. And last but not least that what is quoted in ‘International Scientology News 8’ [ca Feb-Mar 86]: “There are several other OT levels that it is my job to compile. It essentially consists of taking what LRH has written, putting it into paragraph form and adding the appropriate HCOB references that go along with each level.” (Pat Broeker at the Hollywood Palladium, 27th January, 1986).
#6. For which reason was Mary Sue Hubbard not invited for identification or seeing the physical remains of her husband, or if she would be unable to do so, any of the children? It is reported that the body had been cremated less than 24 hours after his passing. This is indeed rather quick, in fact it may be a little too quick. It is a rather usual procedure to have a display of the body prior to a cremation in where various invited have the opportunity to pay the last respects, and to say farewell to the deceased. For which reason was all this omitted? The second article of the 23 January 1986 will reads: “I hereby direct that my body be cremated and the
ashes be buried at sea. I direct that my Personal Representative
take all steps necessary to carry out the foregoing as soon as
possible following my death. Under no circumstances shall my
body lie in state or be subjected to an autopsy.”. In fact this is all it says in this article, it says nothing about skipping the usual procedures earlier mentioned. Nonetheless at the event at the Hollywood Palladium, 27 January 1986, in where the passing of L. Ron Hubbard was revealed to the Scientology public, we have this attorney Earle Cooley announcing:
“It is not surprising that when LRH discarded the body that had served his being well for almost 75 years in this lifetime, he left some very specific instructions for its handling at its disposition. Thus, last Friday night I was furnished with a copy of his will in which LRH provided that he was to be cremated promptly and his ashes scattered at sea. I was accorded the honor and the responsibility of making certain that these instructions were carried out. ... I personally made all necessary arrangements and by 3:40 p.m. on Saturday, January 25th. Less than 24 hours after LRH discarded his body. I bore personal witness to the fact that his instructions were precisely carried out. ...”
Sound snippet (1:52)
(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)
These “instructions” however were not that“specific” as this attorney wants to make us believe. It is rather a free interpretation that was made from these few lines in this will. Do mind that “as soon as possible” is not synonym to “promptly”. The former does allow for flexibility in regards to paying respect to the deceased by the direct family and have a display of the body, where the latter does not. That which was resorted to in fact sounds suspect.
But then if there was no actual body to be shown, indeed you may have a reason to handle as has been done.
#7. Strictly taken which “religious beliefs” exist that would oppose to an autopsy? The subject of Scientology is about the spirit, then what significance does a body (as for autopsy) actually have? The physical remains have no effect on the spirit. Then the spirit has left the body, why having concerns about some ‘body’? In addition a proper and standard autopsy may easily expose a possible imposter. Then which is preferable, a body verification (autopsy) or not?, this taking in consideration the consequences and that which was at stake.
These various surrounding incidents relating to these matters are not always consistent. I only touched some of the issues that it proposes. One may even get the impression of some sort of power struggle.
1973 - The turning point?
(Includes: ‘Full publication reference list’)
“It is time we spent time on improving auditing skill.
We have the technology. We can make clears and OTs with it as you will find out. Our only remaining problem is getting it applied skillfully.” LRH (from HCOB 8 Mar 62 “The Bad ‘Auditor’”)
This skill was required for to respectively being able to duplicate, learn and finally apply it. For this reason the Primary Rundown (1972) actually was created. Introduced as a very vital breakthrough, and then suddenly its importance was placed in the shadow when the definition of Fast Flow training got reversed.
Now, what should be considered is that all that was added to the technology prior to 1973 can be judged to be improvements or betterments to what already had been established. It did not violate already established stable datum's. Various of the new technology however that were introduced after this time (i.e. Aug 74: PRD importance put aside, Jul 78: NED, Sept 78: NOT's, and change in definition of Clear, Nov 81: Dianetics placed after the grades, Mar 82: OT IV-VII dropped) indicate that they very well may actually altering already established standards to the point that it actually seems to demolish the previously existing technology! It is quite vital and important to realize and investigate this and to be able to distinguish this very difference! Things since the early 70's appear to have developed in a somewhat different direction.
Publications reference material overview: (link will open as a pop-up window)
“HCOBs – Hubbard Communications Office Bulletins. These are the technical issue line. They are valid from first
issue unless specifically cancelled. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs.” LRH (from HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”)
“So technical progress has been:
CLASS VIII - 1968.
COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.
This is quite an achievement.” LRH
(from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)
An adaption of this LRH ED had been released in the ‘The Auditor 56 (US Edition)’, [ca Oct 70] in an article on its frontpage that received the title: “The Scene
Has Changed” and subtitled: “The Full Tech From 1950 Is Back in Use”. And this actually is quite noteworthy. This article as printed in The Auditor can be consulted in full here. (this title seems to have been taken from ‘LRH ED 120 Int’, 27 Aug 70 that elaborates on this)
“Scientology was developed by L. Ron Hubbard, an American writer and philosopher.
It was completed after 35 years of research.”
Interestingly enough this chapter and its text remained upheld in its last 19th edition (December 1980). Indeed the reoccurring mention of the year 1970 in this regard is rather of a confirming nature.
‘The Auditor 62 (UK Edition)’, [ca Apr 71] notes on its frontpage:
“April 1961 ... the birth of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, a beginning of thoroughly effective training for auditors and the certainty of Scientology technology around the world. Auditors could now be personally trained by Ron to go out and audit in every corner of the world.
April 1971 ... Scientology technology has advanced a long way since that time. Ron has developed the Complete technology and Scientology organizations around the world are delivering it.”
With a few notices made about:
Interiorization Rundown - A remedy designed to permit the preclear to be further audited after he has gone exterior (see HCOB 2 Dec 70 “Exteriorization Summary” and its revision HCOB 17 Dec 71 “Interiorization Summary”)
Expanded Dianetics - April 1972
Primary Rundown - March-May 1972
Administration:
“HCO PL – Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter. This is a permanently valid issue of all third dynamic*, org
and administrative technology. These, regardless of date or age, form the know-how in running an org or group or
company. The bulk of hat material is made up from HCO PLs.” LRH (from HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”)
A notice found in HCO Information Letter 1 Nov 62 “Scientology 1970”: “Ron has been working for some time now on the shape and structure of Scientology Orgs. to be expected in 1970 and as he says himself ‘it suddenly appears that this will materialize long before 1970.’” (quoted in ‘Ability 143’, Nov 62)
“It took 20 years to find out how to run orgs.” LRH
(from HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”)
Lectures:
“TAPES – These are an issue line of both policy and tech as designated and are recopied at Pubs Org and issued for
courses, congresses and other purposes.” LRH (from HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”)
Publications: The final book on the subject of either Dianetics or Scientology that was attributed to have been written/compiled by L. Ron Hubbard himself was issued in November 1970 and this was ‘Scientology 0-8, The Book of Basics’. With the notice here that the first chapter “‘A Description of Scientology’ was compiled by staff book
editor, SPO A/S, from writings and lectures of L. Ron Hubbard.”. This release is referred to in the Technical Bulletins volume VII: 1970-1971 (1976 release) as: “Scientology 0-8 is a compilation of the fundamental philosophic materials and technical basics of Scientology”.
The status quo of anno 1972 – Following the Tech, Admin and Publication line
Technical wise: The development of the technical side of the subject had been ongoing since its commencement in 1950 (or rather 1948). The Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (7 May 61-13 Dec 66) had put everything in the proper sequence. In 1965 the final definition of Clear was confirmed and established (HCOB 2 Apr 65 “The Road to Clear”). In 1968 Standard Tech was established with the Class VIII Course lectures (24 Sept-15 Oct 68). Standard Dianetics was rekindled and established in 1969. OT I-VII were all released during 1966-70. OT VIII had been announced at least since October 1968 (see ‘Advance 2’, [ca Oct 68]). This OT VIII was never officially released although I have it confirmed from various sources that a pilot (or test run) had been received by various on the vessel Apollo. Throughout the whole of the 70's though one could prepay for the OT VIII which as yet was not released. The lower grades were streamlined (Expanded Lower Grades 0-IV) in 1970. Lastly were issued the Primary Rundown (PRD) and Expanded Dianetics (XDN) both in April 1972. XDN also was said to handle any and all unresolved PTSness*.
Administration wise: Administration technology had been streamlined by the release of the Flag Executive Briefing Course (FEBC) during 1970-71 and the Establishment Officer Series (EstO) in early 1972.
The major technical and administrative achievements can also be found in chronological order and with relevant timing details at below link:
Publication wise: The bulk of the basic books had been published during the 50's. ‘E-Meter Essentials’ was released in May 1961. Various compilation publications also had seen the light, for example ‘Child Dianetics’ in October 1951, and ‘The Book of E-Meter Drills’, issued in February 1965. The very last book released on the subject of either Dianetics or Scientology that was fully attributed to L. Ron Hubbard was issued in November 1970 and this was ‘Scientology 0-8, The Book of Basics’. Even this publication was an update on various of the information of which much was already found in the earlier books.
The in September 1973 released ‘Mission Into Time’, was already earlier published (or at least in part) in a limited circulation in 1968 entitled ‘A Test of Whole Track Recall’. December 1974 saw the release of ‘Hymn of Asia, An Eastern Poem’ which is claimed to date back to 1955-56. Further compilation books issued were ‘Dianetics Today’, released March 1975 (‘Compiled and edited by The LRH Personal Compilations Bureau’; ‘Edited by: Jill Steinberg/Alethiea C. Taylor’) & ‘The Volunteer Minister's Handbook’, released December 1976 (mainly consists of collections from references and lectures, including BTB's and BPL's; compiled with ‘the editorial assistance of: Pat Brice, Alethiea C. Taylor, André Clavel, Teri Armstrong, Ernie Ryan, Maggie Sibersky, Barbara de Celle, Cliff Von Shura, Pat Broeker’). Both of these last books are not in print nor in use today. ‘The Volunteer Minister's Handbook’ though has been replaced in 1994 with ‘The Scientology Handbook’ which is as it says ‘Based on the Works of L. Ron Hubbard’.
As a matter of coincidence during the Freewinds events held at Flag (Clearwater) in early July 2007 we saw the release of a large folding chart of “GUIDE TO DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY BOOKS AND LECTURES BY L. RON HUBBARD” (updated version). It starts at 1948 and the interesting thing is that it actually stops at 1972. When consulting the review notices found at the last releases from 1962 to 1972 (see tables here further below) we do seem to get the impression that we had all the necessary tech and the admin tech by then! It seems like a finished cycle of action, what else was there still to expect and left to handle technical wise?
Or is this may be enervated with the release of HCOB 30 Jul 73 “Scientology, Current State of the Subject and Materials”. This was also published as an article in ‘Advance! 20’, Aug-Sept 73. It is introduced in the “To the Reader” section as: “We are proud to bring you in this issue of Advance! an extraordinarily new article by L. Ron Hubbard entitled, ‘Scientology, Current State of the Subject and Materials’. This is truly an epochal statement by Ron. He sums up where we have arrived so far with Scientology and points the direction of new advances. He indicates there are 15 levels above OT VII just waiting for more people to fully obtain OT VI and OT VII.”. An interesting notice as this is the only reference in existence (at least from these early days) that actually refers to such OT-levels. Curiously enough written and issued at a time that L. Ron Hubbard had disappeared and no one knew where he was.
This was not elaborated upon till 27th January, 1986 in the Hollywood Palladium where Pat Broeker said: “New OT IX and X have also been finished and written up. There are several other OT levels that it is my job to compile.” & “We have a thick sheaf of LRH's notes for New OT XI, XII, XIII and so forth and then a stack about 5 feet high comprising the materials of subsequent OT levels!” (quoted in ‘International Scientology News 8’ [ca Feb-Mar 86]).
But Pat Broeker is also long since gone.
From “GUIDE TO DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY BOOKS AND LECTURES BY L. RON HUBBARD”:
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE
TECHNICAL MASTERY OF THE MIND, SPIRIT AND LIFE
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE Saint Hill, England . May 1961 - December 1966 . 447 lectures
Here is where Ron perfected every breakthrough, plotting the anatomy of the mind and spirit and mapping the route to higher states-from the technology of SOP Goals as the fastest route to Clear to the ultimate development of the Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart. In 447 immortal lectures, Ron provides a grasp of all the factors that can affect the thetan and the exact technology to resolve them, with the how and why of each: rudiments, pc indicators, every phenomenon of metering, the tech of overts and withholds, how to handle resistive cases, perfect assessment, flawless listing and nulling-every skill that is part of a standard session, leading to absolute mastery in application.
Here, too, is where Ron advanced from that purpose to the Scientology Organizing Board-a literal Grade Chart for the Third Dynamic to build flourishing and expanding organizations to create a new civilization. This, then, is where one acquires the knowledge which gives a command over the entirety of life and one's own eternity-knowledge sought by beings for eons uncounted, and found today only on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. And here, finally is where you learn to apply that knowledge with uncompromising certainty, both in session and in life. For when you do, you'll know that you made it ... that you've become a Duke of the Auditor Elite.
1966
FROM THE FLAGSHIP APOLLO
STANDARD TECH - STANDARD ADMIN
CLASS VIII COURSE LECTURES Flagship Apollo
September-October 1968
19 lectures These lectures are only available for course room study at Advanced Organizations.
These confidential lectures instill the uncompromising, unvarying standard of technical application taught on the Class VIII Auditor Course. Ron details the dramatic history of this sector of the galaxy, what happened to it and its planetary populations and how Scientology contains the only solution to this Fourth Dynamic engram. These lectures hammer home the necessity of perfect rendition of every auditing basic, thereby establishing 100 percent Standard Tech and the guarantee of full and complete results on any case.
FLAG EXECUTIVE BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES Flagship Apollo
November 1970-January 1971
7 lectures These lectures are only available to staff.
Here is Third Dynamic auditing technology, bringing administrative tech to the level of Class VIII auditing-precision, with predictable results every time. These lectures announce a breakthrough in management technology, the Product Officer/Organizing Officer System of production which creates executives who can run any organization and make it expand. In short, these are the principles for managing anything from a life to a civilization and making it flourish.
ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER LECTURES
Flagship Apollo
March 1972
12 lectures These lectures are only available to staff for course room study.
After observing the Product Officer/Organizing Officer System increase production in a variety of areas, Ron made a further breakthrough, codifying a third factor necessary to the creation of a perfect organization. This is the development of the Establishment Officer System. Using it, executives build stable, rapidly expanding organizations by bringing into being terminals in those organizations who are stable and productive. In a society almost devoid of skilled administrators, the technology taught in these lectures is capable, by itself, of rejuvenating the culture.
EXPANDED DIANETICS LECTURES
Flagship Apollo
March-April 1972
4 lectures These lectures are only available for course room study by students on the Hubbard Expanded Dianetics Auditor Course.
From the original breakthroughs of Dianetics, Ron kept researching and refining the technology and adapting it to handle a wide range of conditions. The result was new technology that handled specific case conditions-Expanded Dianetics. Here, Ron details discoveries handling psychosis, ending unresolving PTS conditions, resolving emotional stresses, freeing a person from stuck points on his time track and other case aspects, by getting to the root cause of a being's self-imposed restraints. This is Dianetics technology to free any individual from the very basis of insanity.
1968
1970
1972
Chronological overview with annotations (Includes: Rougher times & attention on Sec Checking, Confessionals and reporting; Into artistry (music, film, and returning to writing fiction); The move ashore; The Tech line; Theorizing about Clear and OT; Photographic record)
I propose a bad scenario here. If incorrect it will enervate itself. Don't just accept, think with it and criticize it.
L. Ron Hubbard disappeared mysteriously for about 10 months during 4 Dec 72-mid Sept 73. Various witnessed that the person that returned was not the L. Ron Hubbard anymore that they used to know, he looked differently, behaved differently, didn't seem to recognize some persons, etc. Some on the Internet explain this by claiming that he received a PDH implant and all that. However would it not be more logical and down to earth to say that he was simply replaced by someone else (imposter). The lecturing days were basically over after April 1972. The tapes that are listed for1973-75 no one knows actually very much about. Neither of these tapes have ever publicly been available in any form! Why for example would the 9 registered talks he gave to the Apollo Stars be kept a secret? The book ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 release) does not even list them anymore! Now, could they have been retracted as they may(?) expose a possible imposter? These are questions that I am forced to ask.
Regarding the many speculations that exist about what happened to L. Ron Hubbard, it is likely so that people appear to have chosen their personal authorities and heroes. Many Scientologists haven chosen L. Ron Hubbard as being exactly that. A Scientology old-timer wrote to me: “In my view all those speculations are just non-confront or a rejection to face logic because we want to hold on to our picture of our personal authority and hero. We want to think that LRH was full OT or as you say, a free thetan. Therefore we try to find explanations for his non-OT behaviour after 1974. Some say that he had an impostor, others think he died in 1982 and it wasn't his body found dead in the ranch in January 1986. It is all speculation and in my view pretty far fetched. It is an attempt to hold onto our picture of LRH as the big thetan, the full OT.”.
It is not my intent to propose an answer. Basically my only concern is the matter about what is the correct tech. It forced me to put some things to the test, this is why I have been digging into history, and this is why I have performed my research. May be it can be seen as an attempt to restore lost tech. I do believe we can benefit from to get for example the Primary Rundown back into use. Also I think we have the right to receive a proper explanation about what actually happened with the original OT levels IV-VII, and for that matter also the original OT VIII. They should not have been allowed to disappear so very silently.
Rougher times & attention on Sec Checking, Confessionals and reporting
There is also the indication that things had gotten cruder within the Scientology organization since.
Remarkably coincidental is the occurrence that since the exact day that L. Ron Hubbard disappeared, and was then out of reach for about 10 months, a new series of socalled Integrity Processing (=Security Checking) started to be released (Integrity Processing Series 1-21 and related: 2 Dec 72 / 16 May 74). Simultaneously issued with form to be used with these (Integrity Processing Forms 1-12: 24 Dec 72 / 11 Jun 76). However it was not officially allowed until November 1974 that HCO could perform Security Checks this after that it was specifically cancelled in 1968 and confirmed cancelled in 1970 as they were not deemed reliable. Nonetheless we see an interesting and quite excessive development of Sec Checking procedures coming into being during these few years. That which in particular makes this peculiar is the fact that in the few years prior to that 2 references were issued that actually seriously limited the use of Sec Checking, (HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished” & HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals”).
January 1974 had introduced the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF). Due to records that were confiscated in raids undertaken in the 2nd half of the 70's in the Church of Scientology material surfaced that exposed highly immoral behaviour and actual attempts to frame people by staff working in the Guardian Office. As an example we have Operation Freakout (April 1976), a plan although never carried out would have attempted to frame Paulette Cooper. Early 1977 we have this List 1 Project that was sending “literally hundreds of well meaning staff and public falsely as ‘List 1 R/Sers’ and ‘Suppressives’” to this RPF (or may even have been expelled in some cases) basically because of a misinterpretation of a read on the E-Meter. It was corrected, but not until about a whole year had passed. Here we are actually missing out on the interference of L. Ron Hubbard. A sort of similar witch hunt occurred in the period 1982-83 when again lots of people were either send to the RPF or simply were excommunicated without even any justice hearing convening. L. Ron Hubbard also here remained in seclusion and was so we are told writing fiction stories. In regards to the whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard we also are missing out on his interference for example concerning the 1981 Cramming Series that were issued in his name, to only get cancelled 10 years later because they were confirmed not written by L. Ron Hubbard. We don't get the impression here that L. Ron Hubbard was in control, involved or available in this time period.
All these occurrences have urged people to think over things carefully. The problem is that various of these reappearances of that which had been abolished prior to 1973 in fact had been misused since. It is all so very predictable. L. Ron Hubbard must have foreseen this danger, which is why they actually had been abolished.
A brief chronology:
When:
Introduced:
Reference:
July 1968
Abolished practice of Fair Game
HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”
(also as FO 1063, same date & title)
August 1968
Abolished Sec Checks
HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”
October 1968
Forbade the use of the term Fair Game
HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game”
November 1968
Abolished practice of disconnection as a condition
HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”
“Policy Changes
by Scientology Organizations
1968”
“Cancellation of disconnection as a relief to those suffering from familial suppression.
Cancellation of security checking as a form of confession.
Cancellation of condition known as fair game.
Prohibition of any confessional materials being written down or otherwise recorded.”
‘A Report to Members
of Parliament on
Scientology’ (issued 1969)
November 1970
“HCOs may not do Confessionals or ‘Sec Checks’.
HCO may only do Meter Checks.”
HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals”
January 1971
“Lists of withholds required of a crew member or staff member without proper sessioning are now illegal.” & “Challenging people out of session as ‘having withholds’ is illegal.”
HCOB 2 Jan 71 “Illegal Auditing”
December 1972 - June 1976
Integrity Processing Series 1-21 and related (issued: 2 Dec 72 / 16 May 74) Integrity Processing Form 1-12 (issued: 24 Dec 72 / 11 Jun 76)
January 1974
Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) for handling those with False or Evil Purposes
‘FO 3434’, 7 Jan 74 “The Rehabilitation Project Force”
November 1974
Confessional Lists for use by HCO reinstated
HCO PL 13 Nov 74 “HCO May Do Confessional Lists”
March 1982
March 1984
Alright to Sec Check, give Confessionals, etc. in the No-Interference Area
HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone” &
HCOB 27 Mar 84 “Stalled Dianetic Clear: Solved”
July 1982
A more advanced Knowledge Report system established
HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports”
September 1983
The Practice of Disconnection reinstated
HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”
March 1984
O/W Write Up format established
HCOB/PL 2 Mar 84 “O/W Write Up”
June 1984
False Purpose Rundown (FPRD) (=Sec Checking) which was focusing on that one had done to another, ignoring the other 3 Flows (i.e. self to self; another to self; another to another)
HCOB 5 Jun 84 “False Purpose Rundown”
January 1985
Opening the line for routine auditing confessions to be made subject to possible reporting and made actionable by HCO
HCOB/PL 7 Jan 85 “HCO Confessionals”
Into artistry (music, film, and returning to writing fiction)
The L. Ron Hubbard that returned was rather artistic oriented. Starting already in September 1973, the very moment he returned, he got into music. Then we learn from the liner notes of the record released by his Apollo Stars about “his early days as a professional singer”! Indeed this is a very, very strange notice! Who knows, may be this L. Ron Hubbard had been exactly that? Then in Spring 1976 this L. Ron Hubbard went into more artistry and established Universal Media Productions in Clearwater Fl, with the intent to produce Scientology films. At least till 1978 it was all about filming. 2 feature films saw its release. About that time we also see him returning to writing in the area of Science Fiction. An unexpected and sudden return to something that was abandoned since November 1950. Something that was potential to actually threaten the reputation of Scientology technology by association only. It started with a screenplay entitled ‘Revolt in the Stars’ (1977). Then ‘Battlefield Earth’ got written during 1980 (he even composed and released a music album for that), then we have the dekalogy ‘Mission Earth’ written during the 1st half of the 80's and released only till after his passing. During these various intervals more musical creations appear on for example ‘Ron's Journal 28’ (1976), ‘Space Jazz’ (1982) and ‘The Road to Freedom’ (1986). We also see the release of a whole variety of technical films with screenplay of this L. Ron Hubbard during the late 70's and the whole of the 80's.
These new artistic tendencies also would defy any theory about some PDH implant, as this would not have provoked artistry, quite the contrary, it would actually have permanently killed it.
The move ashore
Another significant happening is the move ashore. Suddenly it was deemed alright to do that, as if it now was deemed safe. That these plans may have emerged with the establishment of the Flag Service Org in September 1973 matching the return of this L. Ron Hubbard should be noteworthy. A bad scenario would tell that it is easier to infiltrate or control an organization when it is located on land then one that is at sea. The move ashore is claimed to have been for expansion purposes although we have indications that may(?) point in another direction. Last but not least that the returning L. Ron Hubbard was a singer, or a musician, and not a sea captain. Thus going into land had turned a necessity may be for such a simple reason.
The Tech line
Then David Mayo turned Flag C/S in September 1973 (matching the exact time of this L. Ron Hubbard returning), is this a coincidence, also in regards to the role he later played with NOT's? Is it possible that David Mayo has been had with an imposter believing it was L. Ron Hubbard?
The very first sign of valuable workable Tech being put aside is the Primary Rundown in August 1974, at which time the in July 1972 established definition for Fast Flow Training was retracted. Then GPM's may have been sort of put aside as early as 1975 (it was left out in the definition of Reactive Mind in the ‘Technical Dictionary’). New Era Dianetics was thought up and released in July 1978 knocking out Standard Dianetics. September 1978 came with a new definition of Clear (essentially knocking out Grade V, VA, VI & VII), matching its timing conveniently with the birth of NOT's. It all came simultaneously with the development of the procedure that would determine if you really were a Clear (Dianetic Clear Special Intensive, now known as Clear Certainty Rundown). January 1980 came with the OT Drug Rundown. The later Solo NOT's (September 1980) was a further development. The December 1980 Grade Chart proposed an Alternate Route to Clear, some were said still needing to do Grade V, VA, VI & VII, although in reality these grades were basically abandoned. November 1981 moved Dianetics (now NED) to be received after the Grades, that note a serious involvement of David Mayo all the way. March 1982 then celebrated the rechristening of this OT Drug Rundown, NOT's and Solo NOT's as New OT IV-VII, removing therewith the original OT levels IV-VII rather silently! It all seems like a genius plot full with false tracks all over the place.
Then we have the interview that David Mayo had with Russell Miller in August 1986 which does not give a flattering picture of this L. Ron Hubbard either. If David Mayo is truthful then are we may be dealing here with someone impersonating L. Ron Hubbard? An L. Ron Hubbard that is playing effect, acts irritated, unreasonable, yelling, even delusional (per David Mayo in interview with Russell Miller), getting into a motor cycle accident (late 1973), that gets strokes (1975 & 1978)? Is this the same L. Ron Hubbard that developed Dianetics and Scientology technology? Could it be?
That which makes these changes in the Tech line suspect is the simplicity that various of them act against earlier established basics. This actually is the VERY reason why it should be looked into!
“Any arbitrary entered into any line is a way to stop that line.” LRH (from HCOB 23
Aug 68 “Arbitraries”)
“Know your basics. They are in our very oldest books. All advances have been in how to handle basics better.” LRH (from OOD's 16
Apr 70 “Arbitraries”, issued as HCO PL/HCOB on 5 Nov 80)
Theorizing about Clear and OT
If you effectively wish to destroy the correct technology. All you basically got to do is to get people side-tracked. You promote a wrong route, but you confidently and convincingly state that it really is the correct route. You see, you don't forbid the correct route, you have to mislead. This is much more effective! Well, you then could alter the definition of Clear. You just say to the Dianetic Clears, you are now Clear, you don't need to become a Scientology Clear. Consequently you let them skip Grade V, VA, VI and the Clearing Course (Grade VII), and therewith the Basic Basic (first engram on the track) is not gotten rid of. You may are risking that people are being declared Clear, but that are not so in reality. Or you may tell that you are a Natural Clear or even a Past-Live Clear (let the person skip Dianetics all together), just go right on to OT! Now you are ready to go through OT I, II and III. So you have non-Clears on OT III. The prerequisite for OT III was Clear, you are not Clear, so what will happen? You won't get full OT's, you may very well get confused human beings this way. You may very well get some abilities of some sort, but the condition will not be stable. It may account for some of the problems that have occurred. What you may have here is basically a skipped gradient, and so you are not likely to get very far. Is this an imaginary tale? What do we have? We do have some indicators that could point in the correctness of some things in this tale.
Photographic record
Both L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard as well have basically been in seclusion, and have been shunning the public since at least 1973. The very last photographs that I ever have seen published from Mary Sue date to the late 60's. To be exact December 1968 (see ‘The Auditor 43’). Their children continue to make their appearance in the various magazines, but never together with their mother or father. If we then look at a publication such as ‘Images of a Lifetime: A Photographic Biography’ which is about L. Ron Hubbard, near the end of the book we see some photographs that are dated 1972, a couple dated 1974 and there it basically stops. The book actually stops tracking history there, we see no photographs from the later 70's and none from the 80's. The last 12 years are missing. Realizing that this was published as late as 1996 this may be found odd. The book also has not a single picture of Mary Sue or any of the children contained in it. It appears forgotten that L. Ron Hubbard actually was a family father, and he always had been very proud to say that. It is on his lectures and it is in particular in the periodical The Auditor. In particular in ‘The Auditor 43’ [Dec '68] we find a special colour photo supplement as a New Year wish introduced by L. Ron Hubbard wrote in his own handwriting as: “These are just some of my Favourite Things”. We see photographs of boats, photography, his wife with all their 4 children, not to forget the family dog Vixie. All with accompanying text from L. Ron Hubbard. L. Ron Hubbard credits his wife as follows: “Mary Sue, my dear wife, who has helped and contributed so much since the early days of dianetics.”. Then how can this book, without some of these “Favourite Things”, represent ‘Images of a Lifetime: A Photographic Biography’ ?
The Hubbard family, ca 1957.
A lovely action shot by Ron with Diana Hubbard leading the new donkey ‘Merrylegs’ while Suzette keeps a firm grip and Arthur surveys the test-drive with a professional eye. (1967)
Suzette, Diana, Arthur and Quentin Hubbard striding confident along the main entrance to Saint Hill Manor. (1967)
Additional interesting observations relating to these matters
The year 1968: ‘Fair Game’, ‘Sec Checks’ & ‘Practice of Disconnection’ abolished
Reference:
What it did:
HCO PL 21 July 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” (also as ‘Flag Order 1063’, 21 July 68 “same title”)
- Practice of Fair Game discontinued
HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”
- (HCO) Sec Checks forbidden
HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game”
- Use of term Fair Game forbidden
HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”
- Practice of Disconnection discontinued
This all coinciding with the release of for the first time in bookform ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ (released Jul 68) and announced as a new release in ‘The Auditor 42’, [ca Nov 68]. Can a line be drawn here between these? After all if you have worked out a proper way how to deal with anything that may cause unfortunate happenings for practices such as Fair Game, Disconnection, or HCO Security Checks, then automatically they tend to become superfluous. As an aside note ‘The Auditor 42’, [ca Nov 68] published in the same issue also the article ‘Ethics and Tech’ by L. Ron Hubbard; two articles from the editor about ‘What is Different About Standard Tech?’ & ‘The Miracle of Standard Tech’ (came with the Class VIII Course from Sept-Oct 68); and the announcement of the release of aforementioned ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’.
So Fair Game, Disconnection, and HCO Security Checks abolished. All these things abandoned in 1968, which is actually quite interesting as today the Scientology organization in particular has been criticized because of exactly these matters! Now why is all that?
Agreed is that Fair Game never officially has been reinstated as such as a practice. Nonetheless claims have been made as if it still was/is in secret use. That what is looked upon as Fair Game practice may very well be overzealous or overenthousiastic persons within the Scientology organization. To my knowledge the practice of Fair Game was cancelled. It was always addressed amongst staff as something that belonged to the past.
However where it concerns Sec Checks this had been officially reinstated by HCO PL 13 Nov 74 “HCO May Do Confessional Lists”, then 1984 with its FPRD extended on that. Also the Practice of Disconnection was officially reinstated as such by HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”.
Relevant links: (all links will open in separate windows)
How to determine if some is the real L. Ron Hubbard and when not?
We have actually 3 scientific basic methods to our exposal:
a) graphology
b) voice analysis
c) skull measurements (from photographs)
The last technique has been developed at a more recent date in the field of forensic science.
a)
It is reported that various legal documents dating from the early 80's have been examined for authenticity of the handwriting and signature of L. Ron Hubbard (letters written in 1983, and testaments and various). Inconsistencies have been reported.
b)
Various voice analysis also have been performed with various released tape recordings from the early 80's compared to L. Ron Hubbard lectures from the 60's. In particular named is Ron's Journal 38 “Today and Tomorrow: The Proof” released on New Year's Eve 1983. Inconsistencies have been reported. This tape in particular is interesting as this is the only place where L. Ron Hubbard supposedly acknowledges or refers to Religious Technology Center (RTC).
c)
To my knowledge skull measurements have not been tried.
We don't know however how reliable and/or authentic these reports are that we find (or found) posted at some places out on the Internet. Proposed is to perform a fully documented and official investigation by renowned, independent and acknowledged experts in these fields of science. Extensive precautions should be taken to counteract any possible fraud as various interested parties are involved.
‘Old tech’ is ‘valid tech’
If we choose to be on the safe side, well then one has the option to receive the old material. L. Ron Hubbard has stated very clearly:
“Any process ever taught on the SHSBC or ever released in ANY book can be audited and be Standard Tech.” LRH (from HCOB 26 Feb 70 “Standard Tech and Invalidation”)
“The basics and fundamentals are stated early in the period of development and have not changed.
The ‘newest and latest’ is usually a recovery of basics and better statements of them.
That things which were true early in the subjects are still true.” LRH (from HCOB 12 Jun 70 “Programming of Cases”)
“Inevitably, when any new approach or process is released, some will instantly assume that all ‘older’ (actually more basic) data has been cancelled. There is no statement to that effect. ...
A subject can be reorganized and made more workable. That was done in 1969 for Dianetics. BUT IT HAD NEVER BEEN UNWORKABLE! ...
This idea that the ‘old’ is always cancelled by anything ‘new’ has its root in the idea that a later order cancels earlier orders, which is true. But orders are one thing and Tech basics another.” LRH (from HCOB 30 Jun 70R (Revised 6 March 1973) “VIII Actions”)
Rumours have been and are still going around as if L. Ron Hubbard was to return in some new body (as in reincarnation) to resume control of the organization the Church of Scientology. Various persons even appear to actually wait till he will return and that he then would rectify various matters within the organization and other. Now, where do these rumours actually stem from? Could there be found any truth contained within them? Some of the answers that I found can easily be referred to as outspoken surreal. One may even wonder what these got to do with the subject of Scientology itself!
Main sources for the rumours
2 main sources can be found:
♦
I have recollection of a Flag Order (or Base Flag Order) that was issued somewhere mid-80's. It may have been written and issued by the ED International. It informed the Sea Org members that they –after dropping their body (they died)– would be allowed to have a leave of absence (LOA) of 20 years. This then would give them enough time to find another body, get born, grow up, do whatever necessary to get in shape and return to the Sea Org to continue where one had left of. (anyone know about this reference, please contact me if you would have a copy of it, or have more accurate information about this release).
♦
Secondly we have these revelations from the former Senior C/S Int David Mayo that would be dating to as early as April 1982. In July 1983 David Mayo issued this Open Letter:
“Tech Hat assigned for the next 20-25 years
In April of 1982, I received a long and detailed letter from LRH. It assigned me the full responsibility for the tech and for his technical hats for the next 20 to 25 years. (After the passage of this 20-25 years, he stated that he would return in his next lifetime to reassume his tech hats). As I sought to carry out this assigned responsibility for the tech, it became increasingly obvious that there were points that must be corrected in the area of International Management of the Church of Scientology so that the purity of the tech could be safeguarded. Indeed, correction was mandatory to even keep the tech in existence at all! My efforts to bring about these corrections of Management resulted in hostilities and the cutting of my communication line to LRH. This severance of my line to LRH was done covertly by others. This was in August of 1982.”
(from “An Open Letter to All Scientologists”, July 1983)
This referred to “letter from LRH” however has never been produced by David Mayo. Although his then wife Merrill Mayo confirms the existence of this letter and claims to have read it: “LRH talked about his expectancy of leaving his body in the not-too-distant future. He said that the responsibility for the tech and for his technical hats for the next 20 to 25 years would be David's.” (from “Merrill Mayo's Open Letter”, ca 1983).
There is also a message from Julie Mayo (the later wife of David) that was posted in a newsgroup on the Internet on 28 April 1996. She says: “In April 1982, L. Ron Hubbard sent a very long and detailed letter to David Mayo concerning the future of the tech. A copy of the letter was sent to a good many other people: I was on the list, as Senior C/S INT Assistant; also CO CMO INT (John Nelson, at the time); Maureen Samuels (who was either CO CMO SU of CO CMO GOLD); and several others.”. One may wonder though what they all did with the letter as a copy of it never surfaced out in the open.
David Mayo further speaks about this in a tape recording that was distributed by his group Advanced Ability Center (AAC). This sound recording is dating to about August 1983 (6 weeks after the initiation of the AAC) in Santa Barbara, California:
“In April of 1982 after quite a lot of training on technical matters from LRH, he told me that he wanted me to take over the technical hats that he had been wearing and he wanted me to take responsibilty for the tech across the planet for the next 20 to 25 years. At which point he expected that he would be back in a new body and be able to take over his hat of researcher and founder again.”
Sound snippet (0:34)
(Note: All that I have of this pre-AAC-series tape, is a recording of a later held meeting (Oct '83) where part of the original tape was being listened to. Therefore this somewhat poor quality. If anyone can help me with an original and complete copy of this original tape, then please contact me!)
Then there was also this rumour within the Sea Org. Reference was then made to a passage in ‘LRH ED 339R Int’, 13 Mar 82 (Revised 12 July 1982) “Revision of the Birthday Game 1982/1983”:
“And some day--how many birthdays later?--you'll give me and yourselves and all your friends--a CLEARED PLANET!
And I'll go off with you to Target TWO and we'll clear another one!”
This was then interpreted by some as if L. Ron Hubbard would be coming back to reassume some hat. This is probably a bit farfetched though.
Now, if we apply this communication that has been relayed through David Mayo then L. Ron Hubbard would have had the time till 2002/2007 to come forward. Or if we focus on that Flag Order message till 2006. At least this is what various persons do figure. Either way it would appear then that this prophecy is slightly overdue!
Further it is reported/claimed that somewhere during late 1985/early 1986 David Mayo's group Advanced Ability Center had already been dissolved due to pressure of the Church of Scientology. His group was lastly heard of in 1993, newsletters continued to be published till that time. Then we find a David Mayo posting regularly on a few newsgroups on the Internet during the first half of 1996. After which he rather abruptly disappeared and he nor the Advanced Ability Center was ever heard of again. Since then his whereabouts or what he has been doing are shrouded in mystery and no one knows or can tell (or wants to). It would appear thus that all this with that Tech Hat did not work out all that well.
The work completed?
“So technical progress has been: ... COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969. COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.” LRH (from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)
The main issue here is that the question remains that if the job was done, then why would L. Ron Hubbard return? In regards to that we do have the 1972 status quo (see earlier chapter: “1973 - The turning point?” or click here, link will open in separate window).
Some rather surreal announcements were then made at the event in where, in a sort of official capacity, the supposed passing of L. Ron Hubbard was revealed to the Scientology public at the Hollywood Palladium in Los Angeles on 27 January 1986. From these we do not get any indication that he would be returning at some later date. Or at least this is not what the then current international management had as its message.
David Miscavige: “Approximately 2 weeks ago, he completed all of his researches he had set out to do. He has now moved on to his next OT, level of OT research. This level is beyond anything anyone of us ever imagined. This level is in fact done in an exterior state, meaning that it is done completely exterior from the body.
... The being we knew as L. Ron Hubbard still exists. However, the body he had could no longer serve his purposes. This decision was one made at complete cause by L. Ron Hubbard, although you may feel grief, understand that he did not and does not now. He has simply moved on to his next step. ... LRH in fact used this lifetime in the body we knew to accomplish what no man has ever accomplished. He unlocked the mysteries of life and gave us the tools so that we could free ourselves and our fellow men. L. Ron Hubbard completed everything he set out to do and more. ...”
Sound snippet 1 (1:24)
Sound snippet 2 (0:29)
Sound snippet 3 (0:36)
(Please note that above sound snippets 1 & 3 are longer than the printed text that you find here above)
Earle Cooley, Attorney: “And to make Scientology the principal object of his generosity, L. Ron Hubbard has given the ultimate expression of his love for you and his confidence in the present management of the Church. He has in effect told us, the Church is in good hands. You can do it all. Your future is assured, secureness knowledge, I choose to go about my work elsewhere.”
Sound snippet (0:33)
Pat Broeker: “Second thing I want to mention, is that for the first time, for the first time, since 1980, was the management of the Church able to be totally, completely wean from his having the takeover and straighten things out. Completely! What they produced was it allowed him to do his own hat. ... We also by the way have the OT level that is going to be done, immediately after every thetan discards his or her body. He wrote that up before he went. ... So you know it, now you know it. Now you're ready, or when it happens. He, he finished his job. There is, there is not, there is not much else to say except that, what he came to do, he did! Now, now that he's out there, now he embarks upon his further OT research, at a completely new level.”
Sound snippet 1 (0:52)
Sound snippet 2 (0:22)
Sound snippet 3 (0:44)
Then as a curiosity I may make mention here of a passage that appears in the odd publication ‘Hymn of Asia: An Eastern Poem’ (late 73; first published Jan 75). Some have figured that this book would be about L. Ron Hubbard himself. The first 3 lines of the book read:
“Am I Metteyya?
If you see me dead I will then
live forever.”
Some have interpreted these lines as if when he would die (this time around), that he would not again subject himself to taking another body. Note that the aim of Buddhism or Buddha (Metteyya) is to break or eliminate the wheel of life (continuous cycle of birth, life, and death) or the need for reincarnation.
The story goes that Buddha had announced that he would come back to help other people to become enlightened as well although he had already achieved this aim to eliminate the wheel of life for himself.
Thus these lines could be interpreted as that this announcement of Buddha had now been fulfilled. He had returned, had then accomplished his goal to help the other people out of the wheel of life, and he would now leave this earth forever.
On guard forever?
Already in 1957 L. Ron Hubbard had proclaimed:
“I charge you with this - - look to source writings, not to interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots.
If I have fought for a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of Man, to keep it free from some destructive ‘pitch’ or slant, then you certainly can carry that motif a little further.
I'll not always be here on guard. The stars twinkle in the Milky Way and the wind sighs for songs across the empty fields of a planet a Galaxy away.
You won't always be here.
But before you go, whisper this to your sons, and their sons - - ‘The work was free. Keep it so.’” LRH
(from booklet 'Scientology: Clear Procedure - Issue One' (first published 1957))
And in January 1966:
“As orgs grow, my assistants grow also and become more competent and
refer less to me and work on delegated authority. My work is lighter the bigger we get so eventually I will hold only
titles with no actions or duties. This can be continued easily and so there is no need to reduce identities to simplify
lines. And there wouldn't even be a need to reorganize if I wasn't there in the flesh at all. All I need to do is work out
a succession of assistants to make the activities continue. There is no succession of myself to be worked out in any
identity regardless of what happens to me simply because I did the original work and as it is done there is no reason
to have a succession for it as it is itself. ...
This is not only today then, but tomorrow as well and the above identities are firm as identities whether I am here or
not. Even today 99% of my functions are done by delegated authority. The 1% left is heavy enough for 20 men but it
is getting lighter each year and so can be seen to be only a post in a few years and so it can continue. ... We won't vanish if I as a person vanish.” LRH
(from HCO PL 4 Jan 66 VI “LRH Relationships to Orgs”)
And in September 1966:
“In that new boards of directors are being elected for the various corporations and their branches, I am resigning the
title of Executive Director and in accordance with a resolution of the general meeting of charter members am being
given the title of ‘Founder’ instead. ...
This is not a retirement but is a resignation from all director posts and the conducting of organizations by myself.” LRH
(from HCO PL 1 Sept 66 “Founder”)
If we ponder about these words, then ... would it be likely that he would return after things had been wrapped up? For what reason? To patch up (once again) that which we allowed to go wrong? Do we really always need to have our keeper to remain close with us, in order that he (as in guru) can correct us, and where we can go to for advice, and to solve all our problems and complaints? Wouldn't all that actually be up to us? Now, wouldn't that really be our responsibilty? Is Scientology then not about taking responsibility for self?
So is it plausible that he would return? It may not be so likely at all. It may turn to be a rude awakening for some that it may be is time for them to take responsibility for self and the things that are happening around them, this all by themselves.
Nonetheless since that time there have been various claims and reports as if L. Ron Hubbard would have returned (none however arose from within the Church of Scientology). From Europe we have 5 or so, then 12 more or so surfaced from Russia. But then, how many have not claimed that they had been Napoleon, or Marie-Antoinette, or some other such icon in some past life? One of these supposed reborn LRH's has suggested that the subject of Scientology has since been surpassed, and accordingly a new technology has been forwarded. It all sounds a bit like the behaviour that we usually find within the various socalled New Age movements, but then the subject of Scientology is actually opposed to all of that. The deliberate New Age association in fact could be perceived as being a discredit to the subject.
Vocabulary: ASHO:
‘American Saint Hill Organization’. A higher level Scientology organization residing in Los Angeles. 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. BTB: ‘Board Technical Bulletin’, these are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology. Issue-type for technical matters not written by L. Ron Hubbard. C/S:
‘Case Supervisor’. 1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R) 2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545) FO, Flag Order: This is the equivalent to a policy letter in the Sea Org [SO]. Contains policy and sea technical materials. They are numbered and dated. They do not decay, HCO PLs and FOs are both in effect on Sea Org orgs, ships, offices and bases. Black ink on white paper. Distribution to all Sea Org members. It is vital for SO units to have master files and quantity of FOs from which hats can be made up for SO personnel and courses. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R) HCO PL (Pol Ltr, P/L or PL):
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’: since Jan 74 reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address administrative issues. LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. O/W: ‘Overt/Withhold’. org, orgs:
Abbreviation for ‘organization(s)’. OT (Operating Thetan): 1. Willing and knowing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time. And that would of course be mind and that would of course be universe. (SH Spec 80, 6609C08) 2. An individual who could operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn't have one. He's now himself, he's not dependent on the universe around him. (SH Spec 66, 6509C09) 3. A being at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life. Operating comes from “able to operate without dependency on things” and thetan is the Greek letter theta (θ), which the Greeks used to represent “thought” or perhaps “spirit” to which an “n” is added to make a new noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. (Book of Case Remedies, p. 10) 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. PDH, PDHed:
‘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. preclear (pc): 1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20) 2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69) 3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62) Abbr. pc. PTS (Potential Trouble Source):
Those who are connected to suppressive persons or groups and are potential trouble sources. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. R/S, Rock Slam: 1. A crazy, irregular, unequal, jerky motion of the needle narrow as one inch or as wide as three inches, happening several times a second. (E-Meter Essentials p. 17). 2. As a meter representation, is the result of innumerable committed overts in a certain direction, and when you've got that certain direction isolated, that is to say the items against which the overts were committed isolated you then have of course a rock slam. (SH Spec 203, 6210C11)
Rock Slammer: It means it's somebody who gets a rock slam when you ask them: “Consider overts against Scn” and that broadens out of course against Ron, against the organization or against an auditor. (SH Spec 198, 6210C04) Sec Check:
Abbreviation for ‘Security Check’. SHSBC:
‘Saint Hill Special Briefing Course’: This is a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprising of 447 lectures, its result is an adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. SO (Sea Org):
Abbreviation for ‘Sea Org(anization)’. This is the senior organization within Scientology that run the Advance Organizations and also see to it that Class IV organizations (lower level services) do function well. If needed they may send out missions to correct if things don't run smoothly. SPD (Scientology Policy Directive):
“Its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH which is issued in HCO PL form. Senior to all administrative issues except HCO PL's and any other issues or advices by LRH.” (quoted from The Organization Executive Course volume 0, 1991 edition, page 729 or 1986 edition, page 617) third dynamic:
There could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These we call dynamics. These are motives or motivations.
The ‘third dynamic’ is the urge towards existence in groups or individuals. Also referred to as the ‘group dynamic’. Withholds, W/Hs:
Something a person did that he isn't talking about. Basically, it is a no action after the fact of action in which the individual has done or been an accessory to doing something which is a transgression against some moral code consisting of agreements to which the individual has subscribed in order to guarantee, with others, the survival of a group with which he is co-acting or has co-acted toward survival.(from Marriage Hats booklet)
Sec-Checking (2): ‘False Purpose Rundown’ (FPRD) (Jun 84)
#1. A question asked would be why Mary Sue Hubbard has not been considered as a Trustee or anything else on any of these wills? After all she was also fully involved and Trustee for each of the 3 very first Scientology corporations that were founded in New Jersey in December 1953 (see my page “Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard - An Introduction”, chapter “The founding of the ‘Church of Scientology’ and its ‘Creed’”). And why not any of his then living children (Diana, Arthur & Suzette)? Well, I just thought I ask!
“It is not surprising that when LRH discarded the body that had served his being well for almost 75 years in this lifetime, he left some very specific instructions for its handling at its disposition. Thus, last Friday night I was furnished with a copy of his will in which LRH provided that he was to be cremated promptly and his ashes scattered at sea. I was accorded the honor and the responsibility of making certain that these instructions were carried out. ...
David Miscavige: “Approximately 2 weeks ago, he completed all of his researches he had set out to do. He has now moved on to his next OT, level of OT research. This level is beyond anything anyone of us ever imagined. This level is in fact done in an exterior state, meaning that it is done completely exterior from the body.
... 
Pat Broeker: “Second thing I want to mention, is that for the first time, for the first time, since 1980, was the management of the Church able to be totally, completely wean from his having the takeover and straighten things out. Completely! What they produced was it allowed him to do his own hat. ...