Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: The printed materials and the changes that the
     original setup has been subjected to during 1974-86

(1: An overview of the new rules of the game ... &
       2: A summary of changes observed with annotations)
(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.

        
“Only when I have personally written a bulletin, a policy letter or a Sec ED should it be signed ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ or ‘L. Ron Hubbard, Executive Director’.
        
 
When I have knowledge of or have okayed a bulletin, policy letter or Sec ED but have not actually written it, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (the name of the actual writer) for L. Ron Hubbard, Executive director’.
 
 
When I have not seen or okayed a policy letter or a bulletin or a Sec ED but it is published by the authority of a held post such as HCO Sec, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (actual name of person issuing) HCO Sec (or other title)’.
 
 
The field or public must not be led to believe that I have written or issued things I have not. Further, other people have authority, too.”
 
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs” - full text of the policy letter is given) (underlining is mine)  

 

Go to “Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after”  index page


The arrival of new information (1 & 2) -
The printed materials: New rules of the game & Summary of changes

A detailed rundown of any and all observations and findings that may shed some light on this.

 
Index:

    
The printed materials 1: An overview of the new rules of the game ...
  Solving a problem: ‘compilers’ turn ‘assistants’
             - Notes about BPLs & BTBs
- Planned operation and HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”
  An overview of issued/reissued references during 1980-81 and some examples
  About new LRH materials released since Feb 1986 (after the passing of L. Ron Hubbard)
  About old OODs, evals and advices issued after Feb 1986 (some examples)
  Changes in the issue authority and approval lines for HCO PLs and HCOBs
      (Includes: The ‘Boards of Directors’ (Feb 79-Dec 81); ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC) (Jan 82- ); Annotations)
  The establishment of the RTRC, the unit that wrote LRH issues (a chronology 1974-83)  (on separate page)
      - Foreword
- Pierre Ethier about Mimeo section, dictaphone recordings and RTRC
- Prologue to the birth of an ‘LRH technical issue compilation unit’ (1974-79)
- RTCU, RTC and ‘Mission Issues Revision’ (1980-82)
- Unlikely ‘written by LRH’ references (an array of references published with false signatures?)
- RTRC (1983- )
- The members of RTRC, setup and method of operation; Where is L. Ron Hubbard?
  If a reference is signed with L. Ron Hubbard, then can we still trust that he in fact wrote it?
      - An interesting example
- Some testimonies (David Mayo & Robert Vaughn Young)
  Do we need all these excess policy letters and technical bulletins?
 
The printed materials 2: A summary of changes observed with annotations
  LRH sources for new HCO PLs – Disappearance of information – Change of copyright
  Disputed sources for new LRH releases: ‘LRH notes’ and ‘LRH advices’
  Non-LRH and unverified sources used for new LRH HCO PLs – The ‘1981 Cramming Series’ dilemma
  About signatory section and composer initials
  Implementing (copying) texts into HCO PLs that is already presented in other existing HCO PLs/HCOBs rather than listing them as a source in a reference list, then at a later stage deleting the original source indication of these copied texts and obscuring their original source – Obscuring newly added information by not printing it in script
  The statement and promise of ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC)



 
The printed materials 1: An overview of the new rules of the game ...

Back to Main Index Solving a problem: ‘compilers’ turn ‘assistants’

 
Go back
Notes about BPLs & BTBs

The BPL and BTB issue-types came about at such a time that it was decided that the HCO PL and HCOB issue-types were to be reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only. This was realized in January 1974. New policy letters and technical bulletins now written by other persons were since issued on either of these. In addition any HCO PLs and HCOBs written by someone else and that was still considered having value were reissued on either of these new issue-types during 1974-75.
Then some time during the late ’70s it becomes rather clear that the BPL & BTB issue-type formats were to be discontinued, and by 1980 they were all declared void. And so at this point in time there would have been a situation that there were no actual issue-types around where policy letters and technical bulletins originating from others could be issued on.

The reason for this dislike for references not written by L. Ron Hubbard most likely had been stirred by the release of HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” that in its introduction was rather strong voiced when speaking out against references written by others! This HCOB was actually all about correcting 24 area's in where this had caused disturbance, although it was not actually pointing a finger at BPLs and BTBs! The area's that it said it corrected were about HCO PLs and HCOBs that had been manhandled in some way or had so-called non-LRH information slipped into them! It reads:
        
“Auditors and Scientologists for 27 years have tended to be suspicious of HCOBs and Policy Letters not written by myself.
        
 
Until a few months ago my opinion was that this, while flattering, was not entirely justified.
 
 
However, these last few months have sharply changed my belief into total agreement with all those who have expressed some fear of reinterpretations of bulletins by others. ...
 
 
So you were right!
 
 
A very few people (3 or 4) have wittingly or unwittingly brought about outnesses which could easily make the difference between successful case handling and failed cases.”
(from HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”)
 
It is easy to understand how this would have extended itself onto these BPL and BTB issue-types.

Sine then the concept had been rapidly spreading that only information written by L. Ron Hubbard will do! This is however not very feasible as so many area's that made up the subject of Scientology was simply not written by L. Ron Hubbard! This was very well known during the first 25 years of the existence of its organization. And so all this created a physical problem, as we had this information written and worked out by others, but we did not have an issue-type anymore to put them in!
Here thus we get into that this information would have to be reissued and somehow attribute them to L. Ron Hubbard, and then at the same time turn these original compilers into assistants. It is a solution that in fact had been introduced by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”. If you then also change the date of the reference, then no one will notice, éh? Of course you now really needed to physically get rid of all BPLs and BTBs that were around in all the organizations (people might start to ask uncomfortable questions), which is exactly what was done! By 1980 they were declared void and gone. Although this action in itself was already acting against existing policy regarding Qual Libraries (see earlier chapter in this study “The importance of the ‘Qual Library’”).
Well, talking about resorting to unusual solutions. In a pure practical manner it would actually solve the problem, although in reality it was still true that these releases were not written nor compiled by L. Ron Hubbard! To give these references a new date would initially cover up that it was once issued as having been compiled by someone else. This could have been an emergency measure taken, although it was then not a very smart move if this is why it was done. A consideration could also have been because of copyrights. You just put it all under the name of L. Ron Hubbard and change the text of these reissues a little bit. Rather effectively you would avoid at forehand any claims for original authorship.

And so in particular during 1980-81 we see the issuance of a rather large variety of HCO PLs that indicated the assistance of a some person. It's interesting to see that in the days a bit prior to 1980 that when it said on some reference ‘Assisted by’ that it really meant ‘Assisted by’. However since actually as early as late 1976 a practice started that a reference was written by the noted assistant and not the person it was attributed to, which would be the person L. Ron Hubbard. Rather ironic all this as here in reality it would have been L. Ron Hubbard that was the actual assistant. Then a whole lot of these releases were then some 10 years later massively cancelled confirming that in fact they had not been written by L. Ron Hubbard. We have these amongst other these HCO Admin(istrative) Letters issued during 1991-93 that indicated that “None of these issues were written by LRH and were falsely (or incorrectly) issued as policy (or HCO bulletin).”, or they indicated “None of these ... were written or approved by LRH”. Just these HCO Admin Letters that were issued listed already a whole total of 285 primarily HCO PLs and HCOBs that were cancelled because of these and other reasons. Consult the summary list here (pop-up window).

When we look at this, is it then surprising that people were protesting during these years. Many of the staffs and publics had been around for decades. They knew how things had been before. Any person that could not reconcile with the demands and/or the changes of the new regime, now firmly established in 1982, was then simply stripped from his/her rights and discarded of one way or the other.

Ironically a new issue-type for policy letters not written by L. Ron Hubbard was to (re)appear in February 1982, they were called Scientology Policy Directives (SPDs). (see chapter on this page “A closer look at ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ and its relation/difference with ‘Board Policy Letters’ examined”)

 
Go back
Planned operation and HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”

That it all had been a planned operation in advance may be easily confirmed with the issuance of HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”. First it says: “It is now forbidden to write an HCOB or an HCO PL and sign my name to it.”. A bit of a redundant message as this was already in working order since January 1974 at which time the BTB-BPL line got established. The following paragraph contradictorily then says: “If anyone helped compile it or wrote it, my name is followed by ‘Assisted by _____’ the person who helped get it back together at my directions.”.  The matter of these “directions” appears also to be rather shady. Also some “directions” don't actually change the original authorship. A few minor changes do not turn these into assistants! So what happened with: “The field or public must not be led to believe that I have written or issued things I have not. Further, other people have authority, too.”  LRH  (from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”).

In its application it appears that HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” established an approved practice in where others could issue material under the name of L. Ron Hubbard as the involvement of L. Ron Hubbard as a rule could not be and is not verified. Ironically 2 sentences later in this HCOB it says: “So from here on you are relatively safe.”. Considering the consequences of these changes then are we really that safe? There are examples as early as October 1974 in where actual writers of issues were noted as assistants, and where in L. Ron Hubbard was attributed its authorship. The release of HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” now had established an approved line of operation for that very practice. Following its release we see a vast increase of references that listed ‘assistants’, when they actually wrote and/or compiled them. The earliest examples (after the release of the HCOB) for these ‘assistants’ can be found in the contribution record of one Paulette Ausley (consult here, pop-up window). This person (acting as LRH Tech Expeditor) was found responsible for the infamous List One Project instigated during the early 1977's. This was about persons that apparently incorrectly were send to the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) because of a particular needle reaction on the E-meter (Rock Slam). (see details here, separate window). And then we see from her contribution record that this person was primarily involved in assisting and thus revising/writing HCOBs issues relating to E-meters. Apparently then we were not that safe! HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” was claimed to have been issued to settle things and perform a general cleanup of misapplications, but obviously it also introduced a disputable issue source line.

‘SPD 4’, 2 May 82 “HCO PLs & HCOBs, Who Writes Them” says:
        
“HCO Policy Letters (Green on White), and HCO Bulletins (Red on White) are issues reserved for the writings of L. Ron Hubbard Founder. If anyone helped compile it or wrote it then on the issue the name L. Ron Hubbard is followed by ‘Assisted by _______,’ the person who helped get it back together at his directions per HCOB 24 Jan 77 TECH CORRECTION ROUND-UP.         (D/WDC Chairman)
        
A redundant release actually as this message was already forwarded through that HCOB. Let's see it though as a reminder then ...

Detailed information about the matter with this information found in this HCOB can be consulted at link here below:  (separate window)
    “Authorship designations according to HCOB 24 Jan 77 ‘Tech Correction Round-up’”

 
Back to Main Index An overview of issued/reissued references during 1980-81 and some examples

We can also see that not many original newly written (or previously unpublished) LRH material was issued during 1980-81. That which was issued were either:

    ♦   Reissues of some old LRH HCOBs from the late ’50s given a new date (also taken from a few other issue-types);
  Written by someone else (1) – These someone else's were then indicated on the reference itself as assistants (‘Assisted by’). A quick scan through HCO PLs issued in that time period actually reveals amongst other 49 issues from Susan Krieger, 9 by Monica Quirino etc.. Nonetheless they were all attributed as actually deriving from LRH;
  Written by someone else (2) – No indication of the original writer or compiler, but fully attributed as deriving from L. Ron Hubbard;
  Orders of the Day (OODs) issued as HCO PLs – This was carried out by Sue Anderson, there exist 73 issues like that (some have been issued on both the HCOB and the HCO PL issue-type format). See full list here (pop-up window). We are also lacking any confirmation from L. Ron Hubbard that he wanted to have this done.

This can be easily confirmed with looking at some obvious examples. HCOB 18 Apr 80 “TR Criticism” was attributed to L. Ron Hubbard, but then the signing area noted ‘As assisted by Senior C/S Int’. Composer initials indicated also a ‘DM’. The introduction of the reference then reads: “This paper summarizes what I learned from Ron, and my own experience in teaching TRs and getting them done from a C/S (Case Supervisor) point of view.”. All this does confirm that someone else than L. Ron Hubbard actually had written and devised this. David Mayo at the time was the Snr C/S Int, and he is as the indications tell us the person that wrote this reference, nonetheless he was denoted as just an assistant.

Another obvious example is: HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling”. This release was originally written and compiled by Mary Sue Hubbard and issued as HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling”. She was denoted in this release as ‘CS-G’ which stands for ‘Commodore's Staff Guardian’. The composer initials indicated ‘MSH’. It was converted to being a BPL in 1975 as it was not written by L. Ron Hubbard. A later revision which had, so it claimed, been revised by L. Ron Hubbard on 29 Dec 1978, it however still attributed the issue to her as the authoress. Less than 3 years later it was revised reissued under another issue date as HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling”, although it still being the very same reference. The revision notes of this new issue confirmed that the original was in fact “written by Mary Sue Hubbard”and that it “contained correct and vital data on handling PTSness”. It must be noted here that the bulk of the data and text as found in this new issue was still actually deriving from Mary Sue Hubbard, nonetheless it was now attributed as if written and compiled by ‘L. RON HUBBARD’ and ‘Assisted by Mary Sue Hubbard’. Noteworthy is that the 10 Sept 1983 revision of this reference makes no mention anymore of Mary Sue Hubbard anywhere. The metamorphosis of this particular reference is discussed in detail here (separate window).

We even find a variety of references in particularly the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes that are attributed to L. Ron Hubbard that provide no information about assistants, but various of these references also very strongly suggest that they have not been written or have been originated by L. Ron Hubbard. The original mimeo print-offs of these then may cancel or replace some BPL or BTB.

So, what was/is actually going on?


Either way if we analyze it little further we find in addition that it clashes with the following:
        
“Only when I have personally written a bulletin, a policy letter or a Sec ED* should it be signed ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ or ‘L. Ron Hubbard, Executive Director’.
        
 
When I have knowledge of or have okayed a bulletin, policy letter or Sec ED but have not actually written it, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (the name of the actual writer) for L. Ron Hubbard, Executive director’.
 
 
When I have not seen or okayed a policy letter or a bulletin or a Sec ED but it is published by the authority of a held post such as HCO Sec*, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (actual name of person issuing) HCO Sec (or other title)’.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”)
 

 
Back to Main Index About new LRH materials released since Feb 1986 (after the passing of L. Ron Hubbard)

“Neglecting, advising against the application of, failing to enforce or tolerate the omission of standard Word Clearing and star-rate checkouts on all new or newly revised HCO Policy Letters, as well as the key HCO PLs of the Basic Staff Member Hat and the key policies of the staff member. In the Sea Organization this applies to LRH CBOs and Flag Orders as well as HCO Policy Letters.”          [attributed to LRH]
(from HCO PL 10 Jul 86 III “Admin High Crime”)

In 1991 this was also made part of the High Crimes as listed in HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB (Revised 8 Jan 91) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”. But it fails to indicate that it had been transported from this 1986 policy letter.

This HCO PL 10 Jul 86 III “Admin High Crime”, that was issued 4½ months after the announced passing of L. Ron Hubbard, introduced some new rules. It directed that “star-rate checkouts” are to be done “on all new or newly revised HCO Policy Letters”, this is definitely being forced upon us as when not complied with this it will be regarded as being guilty to a High Crime. At the same time we will have no access anymore to older versions of these particular policies, due to the fact that standard Qual Libraries simply are being destroyed and are thus disappearing. And all that means practically that we can not compare anymore with that which once was. All that the person will be studying is thus this new information! And if he gets to know about it through HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB (Revised 8 Jan 91) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” he will not know when it actually came about! Also that a guideline like this came about a whole 4½ months after the official demise of L. Ron Hubbard is thus hugely suspect, as there has not been such a rule before!

        
But even my closest staff and communicators when it hears of a new process or plan from me verbally, sees it in an HCOB or HCO PL a few days later.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 16 Apr 65 I “The ‘Hidden Data Line’”)
        
Policy letters and bulletins as a custom were given the date of the day they actually were written, and these went off to be typed out, mimeographed and issued to staff as soon as possible after that.
Is it somehow plausible that L. Ron Hubbard would have left material to be issued at some specific date? Why would that be, as this was not how this previously was done, so why now? Mind that this HCO PL provides for a new guideline, it wasn't there before! So is there any reason to assume that it would be worthwhile to release some policy at some set future date?

        
“HCO PLs and HCOBs are proven by time and are the senior data on which we operate.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)
        
Now, should a workable policy, which was “proven by time”, be put on hold instead of actually releasing it right away? So the proper question to ask here: “Where is this datum actually coming from?”.

Well, may be it is so that the work was not totally done, and L. Ron Hubbard left the remainder to be done by some other persons? It appears that this last option has been enervated by public announcements from ‘International Management’. We are really not being left with so many different options about this!
There exists a variety of mostly HCOBs that are issued under a specific date, but released several years later. It is imaginable that some policies or bulletins for some reason did not make it to the printing area to be typed out or mimeographed. In fact there appear to have been a couple of those during the ’60s, and they had been issued during the late ’80s as I recall. This is the human factor, things can be misplaced or any such thing. But this does not account for the about 400 pages of material as contained in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes and this in fact being dated after L. Ron Hubbard officially would have dropped his body. These comprise all of primarily HCO PLs & HCOBs dated from 1986 to 1991. Why would this be like that? Why could this be like that? Well, you may have to think this one over for a while ...

I listed below references as found in ‘The Organization Executive Course: Treasury Division, Volume 3’ (1991 release) on pages 211-297. Only those ones are listed that were either released or revised after the demise (24 January 1986) of L. Ron Hubbard.
  
    HCO PL Marketing
Series #
  Title   Credit given to
 p. 211     18 Oct 79R
Rev 14 Sept 88   
14  “Viewpoint”  L. Ron Hubbard   
 p. 220  5 Dec 71R Iss II
Rev 10 Sept 88
20  “How to Do Surveys”  PRO*, at LRH request 
 p. 224  7 Jan 72R Iss II
Rev 10 Sept 88
21  “Creating Survey Questions”  LRH Personal PRO
from LRH material
 p. 243    10 Sept 88   22  “Tabulating Survey Responses”       L. Ron Hubbard        
 p. 247  11 Sept 88 23  “Ethnic Surveys”  L. Ron Hubbard
 p. 249  13 Sept 88 24  “The Positioning Era”  Jack Trout & Al Ries
 p. 280  14 Sept 88 25  “Positioning Surveys”  L. Ron Hubbard
 p. 284  15 Sept 88 26  “Naming Services and Products”  L. Ron Hubbard
 p. 287  16 Sept 88 27  “Instant Impression”  L. Ron Hubbard
 p. 290  17 Sept 88 28  “Survey Network”  L. Ron Hubbard
 p. 292  29 Jan 91 29  “Repetition of Message”  L. Ron Hubbard
 p. 293  28 Jan 91 Iss IV 30  “Fliers, Definition and Use”  L. Ron Hubbard
 p. 295  28 Jan 91 Iss III 31  “Marketing Posters”  L. Ron Hubbard

Are we to assume here that the exact date of writing or compilation were not known for these references, and that they therefore simply have been given the date that they were released?

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index About old OODs, evals and advices issued after Feb 1986 (some examples)

How can we be sure of a thing like this. We see for example OODs (Orders of the Day) items, old evaluations or advices and other being issued as HCO PLs or HCOBs, this after the demise of L. Ron Hubbard. Pretty much an avalanche of these have been issued since already as early as 1980. p>

Here below I give 5 examples that were issued after 1986.

Release notices for the first example say: “(Originally written by LRH for the Apollo OODs of 19 Oct. 73. Issued as an HCOB on 25 Mar. 89.)”.
   ♦  HCOB 19 Oct 73 “Mistakes and PTSness”:
        
“In the vicinity of PTS people one tends to make mistakes, since PTS people make mistakes.”          LRH
        

The following 3 are found in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume XII, 1980-1984’ (1991 release) on pages 384-386. The release notices for these 3 all said: “(Released on 20 October 1986)”.
   ♦  HCOB 15 Feb 82 “Freedom of Speech”:
        
“You can say what you please but what you say does not have to please.
        
 
Just be careful not too many get unpleased.”          LRH
 
   ♦  HCOB 17 Feb 82 “Prejudice”:
        
“A fixed unqualified opinion, usually based on unhappy experience, substituting itself for reason.”          LRH
        
   ♦  HCOB 20 Feb 82 “Overts”:
        
“Perhaps commit overts because it is the only thing they can consider they have themselves done.”          LRH
        

A fifth one is found in ‘The Organization Executive Course: Executive Division, Volume 7’ (1991 release) on page 1049. But it is only the original mimeo print-off that notes: “(Released on 20 October 1986)”.
   ♦  HCO PL 28 Feb 82 “News”:
        
“News media is parasitic on those who make news. It is not true that those who make news need the news at all.
        
 
Who needs cancer?”          LRH
 

The last 4 of them were all enthusiastically introduced in the magazine ‘The Auditor’(Special Edition), #218 Eu/Af, Nov 86. They had them all printed in there in the LRH handwritten originals. Dates of when these were written appear to be known, respectively 15, 17, 20 & 28 February 1982. But why were they issued as HCOB/PLs? Who decided upon that 9 months after the demise of L. Ron Hubbard? How can we verify any such thing as L. Ron Hubbard was not being physically around anymore?

But this is even occurring as late as 2001!
      HCO PL 23 Nov 2001 “Inspection and Reports”
(Taken from an LRH evaluation of 5 January 1976.)

The question is: “How do we know that it was the wish of LRH that these were to be issued under the HCOB subsequently the HCO PL issue-type format? It may be interesting technical or administrative information but was it in fact his wish, or did someone else decided upon that?

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index Changes in the issue authority and approval lines for HCO PLs and HCOBs
(Includes:  The ‘Boards of Directors’ (Feb 79-Dec 81); ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC) (Jan 82- ); Annotations)
The rule used to be as follows:
        
“HCO PLs and HCOBs require passing by LRH or the full authority of International Board members as well as the Authority and Verification Unit.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)
        
This needs some explanation here. A historical notice basically as without that the text in the quotation will be misinterpreted. The reference quoted here above was issued in 1972, and at that time the HCO PL nor the HCOB issue-type format was reserved for just L. Ron Hubbard. Anyone basically could issue on these issue-types on the condition that you got it approved by either L. Ron Hubbard or those Board members and that AVU (Authority and Verification Unit). If it was written by L. Ron Hubbard it was just issued. There was thus no International Board or AVU that was verifying the references written by L. Ron Hubbard.


The ‘Boards of Directors’ (Feb 79-Dec 81)

In 1980 we see the release of ‘Flag Order 3789/CBO 657’, 22 Jun 80 “L. Ron Hubbard, Founder and Author” which was revised 7 May 81 at which occurrence it was simultaneously also released as HCO PL 7 May 81 “same title”. It was written and released by “THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA” and says that it was “In concurrence with expressed intentions of L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER”.  It lays out some rules for a new operating procedure in regards to authority:
        
“L. Ron Hubbard's role with regard to the Church is solely and only that of Founder and Author.
        
 
LRH’s identity of Founder is simply that. Any Plans, or Policy or Tech, or advices of any kind are approved by the Board of Directors prior to their implementation, and issued as the Board sees fit. The Board of Directors accepts, votes on and passes manuscripts for issuance of PLs and HCOBs.”
 
Thus not as L. Ron Hubbard sees fit, nonono ..., “as the Board sees fit”!  (underlining is mine)

To that effect we see a variety of references being published already as early as February 1979 and lastly in December 1981 that carry Boards of Directors of the Church of Scientology, or a variation of this, in the signature section of references. It is observed that the original FO/CBO release (22 Jun 1980) is rather late to inform about this as apparently it was already in use since February 1979. We could wonder why that is?

The bulk of the HCO PLs and HCOBs that carry this designation were published during May 80-July 81, at which time it was indicated as “Approved & Accepted by the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES of SCIENTOLOGY”, initials ‘BDCS’ or “Accepted by the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY of CALIFORNIA”, initials ‘BDCSC’.
We also see references released that say that it was done “for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY”. Compare this with what it used to say “for L. Ron Hubbard”. Quite a different thing. Still we do find references being published that do not actually make mention of any Board(s) of Directors. It is not really explained why this is. Why some references and some other references not? We may have to assume that these exceptions had already gone through the approval lines at a much earlier date, but were not released until at a much later date. We can only guess here.


‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC) (Jan 82- )

Dan Koon relates about his experiences in this ‘LRH technical issue compilation unit’ (RTRC) where they compiled references for L. Ron Hubbard. He says:
        
“The submission would then go to RTC for authorization. For tech submissions this meant it would go to whoever was Snr C/S Int, then to Inspector General for Tech (Ray Mithoff) and then Chairman of the Board (DM.) Submissions for policy letters went to IG Admin (Marc Yager) and the OSA submissions to IG Ethics (Marty Rathbun).”
        
* DM = David Miscavige.  * OSA = Office of Special Affairs.

The use of of Board(s) of Directors of the Church of Scientology (or variations) in references was dropped sine December 1981. The following month then the RTC was formed. This should not be a coincidence. The entity Board(s) of Directors of the Church of Scientology apparently had just gotten a name! Now, where the Boards of Directors printed their approval on their references, we find that this RTC had actually dropped that practice.
We also see that reissues of the references that originally had the Boards of Directors notices listed on them, that these were removed. So, we do not see them anymore in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ and the ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes.


Annotations

#1:  This HCO PL 7 May 81 “L. Ron Hubbard, Founder and Author” was cancelled by HCO Admin Letter 8 Mar 91 “Cancellation of Executive Issues”. The reason given for cancellation was: “None of the following issues were written by LRH and were incorrectly issued as policy.”. Basically it says here that it was cancelled because it was the wrong issue-type. But at that we don't see it reissued in some other issue-type format either. And again we are left to wonder why all this is? And why was it issued in the first place?

#2:  Then HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders” that had said: “HCO PLs and HCOBs require passing by LRH or the full authority of International Board members as well as the Authority and Verification Unit.” becomes another oddity, because it is considered valid till this day in its original form. Well, today there is no use for this sentence anymore. It already turned obsolete at such time that the HCO PL and the HCOB issue-type formats turned to be reserved for writings from L. Ron Hubbard only. Something that had been established by BPL 14 Jan 74 I “New Issues”. (more info here, separate window)
All this in spite of that it appeared (as the later ’70s and early ’80s clearly show) that it was reserved for L. Ron Hubbard in name only! See, you make it appear as if he had written something when he had not actually written it! Remember the ‘compilers’ that turned to be named ‘assistants’. It was a deliberate undertaking to seriously confuse the authorship on the issue line.

#3:  It should be understood that these Boards of Directors of the Church of Scientology basically was a working title of the entity that later would be christened the Religious Technology Center. This actually adds an interesting twist as commonly it is figured by the Scientology parishioner as if the RTC was something new. In fact it wasn't.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index If a reference is signed with L. Ron Hubbard, then can we still trust that he in fact wrote it?

 
Go back An interesting example

It is pretty much confirmed fact that this is guaranteed with references published in the early days. Full credit was given to original compilers of references. During since so about the late mid-’70s it becomes a matter of increasing uncertainty. HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”, which is addressed in the introductory chapter on this page, suddenly opened up a line that it becomes quite unclear if something really was written by L. Ron Hubbard or not. The early ’80s then messed up things considerably. An avalanche of non-LRH issues were cancelled and its data reissued during the early ’80s under a new reference date and fully attributed to have been compiled or written by L. Ron Hubbard.

Here in this little section however I'll give an interesting example of how awry things can go.
    
  
   Reference  Title
  ♦  HCOB 30 Jul 70 “The Tech and Ethics of Confessionals”
  ♦ BTB 30 Jul 70 (Reissued 6 Mar 77 as BTB) “The Tech and Ethics of Confessionals”
  ♦ HCOB 30 Jul 70 (Reissued 6 Jun 84)
“The Tech and Ethics of Confessionals”
  ♦ HCOB 30 Jul 70 (Cancelled 19 Jun 89)
“Cancellation of HCOB 30 July 1970 The Tech and Ethics of Confessionals”

The revision notes found in the reissue release of 6 June 1984 read:
        
“(This HCOB was written up from a briefing I gave on Flag in July 1970. It was originally issued as an HCOB but others reissued it as a Board Technical Bulletin on 6 March 1977. Relegating it to ‘BTB’ status caused the data to be dropped out of wide use. I have reviewed this and and it is an accurate compilation of my original briefing and is hereby reissued in its original form as an HCOB.)”
        
Written in the ‘I’ form. Lines attributed to L. Ron Hubbard.

Then the cancelling reference reads:
        
“This HCOB consisted of notes which were allegedly taken during an LRH briefing given on Flag in July 1970. The notes were written up and published as a bulletin without LRH's ever seeing or okaying them. The HCOB was converted to a BTB in 1977. In 1984 another, instead of cancelling it, erroneously had the BTB reinstated as an HCOB.”
        
This was issued by ‘CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL’ (CSI).

The reality of the matter is that ‘today’ we can not, I'll repeat, ‘today’ we can not positively determine that all that is in the present versions of the books actually is derived from, developed by, or written by L. Ron Hubbard, in spite of that it may say so on these references that it is. We are also missing out on a variety of information because of the stripping of all the revision notes, release data or other from the versions of the references that are found in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes, unabling us even to verify or track matters.

Yeah, but wait a minute here, you may say, all these occurrences were corrected! Were they? My research as found on my website unfolds that it was not. At present we simply have lost track.

 
Go back Some testimonies (David Mayo & Robert Vaughn Young)

David Mayo

A comment from David Mayo about these matters:
        
“As you know I used to be on the post of Senior C/S International, for a few years, not until over a year ago. And one of the main purposes of that post was to ensure the high standards and the high quality of the tech. There were some things which occurred which made it difficult to continue doing that at the time. And without going into those things particularly very much here, apart for one of them, which is the subject of how issues are written. You know HCOBs and issues. And you've probably seen various HCOBs or PLs that have come out over L. Ron Hubbard's name. And at other times you have seen issues that have come out as assisted by somebody. One of the things that I used to feel very strongly about at the time was that I felt that if I or somebody else was ordered to write an HCOB by LRH that it should state assisted by and who it was assisted by at the bottom of it. In other words it shouldn't, I felt, that an issue should state who wrote it. In other words if it was written by LRH it should state so and if it was written by somebody else it should state that. It doesn't mean it is not valid but I feel that the correct authorship should be assigned to these things. As a matter of ethics and as a matter of principle.”
(from Advanced Ability Center (AAC) lecture #1, “The Quality and Standardness of Tech”, given on 4 Dec 83)
        
        
sound  Sound snippet (1:38) 
        


Robert Vaughn Young

Then we have a Declaration from Robert Vaughn Young, a member of the Church of Scientology for a period of 20 years (1969-1989). He wrote in Section 29, 1st half:
        
“I have personal knowledge that material was written and issued under the name of L. Ron Hubbard that he did not author. While working at ASI, I personally wrote material to be issued under his name for several years. This ranged from simple messages to be sent to various organizational staff on events such as his birthday or a holiday, to my composing an entire large directive that was issued under his name. In these instances, they were done without his knowledge or consent. The directive that I wrote concerned the Scientology policy of ‘Disconnection’. The order to do this came from David Miscavige. Miscavige said that we had to reinstitute the Policy of Disconnection and that I was to write the policy for this. I wrote it and it went through several revisions. It was not sent to Hubbard for his approval, but was issued into the Church of Scientology.”
(from Declaration of Robert Vaughn Young in Support of Defendant's Opposition to the Motion of Bridge Publications, Inc. for Summary Judgment Against all Defendants for Copyright Infringement. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of February, 1997, Robert Vaughn Young; Civil Action No. 95-K-2143)
        
ASI: Author's Services, Inc.’, these were involved with dealings concerning L. Ron Hubbard's literary legacy. Incorporated on 13 Oct 1981.

 
Back to Main Index Do we need all these excess policy letters and technical bulletins?

Elsewhere I had written on my website: “There is a practicality about policy. It needs to be able to reverse unwanted, undesirable and non-survival tendencies or situations. Any of these policy letters were written at a certain time and developed in accordance to some problem or situation that existed.”

We also know already about But even my closest staff and communicators when it hears of a new process or plan from me verbally, sees it in an HCOB or HCO PL a few days later.”  LRH   (from HCO PL 16 Apr 65 I “The ‘Hidden Data Line’”). In addition has L. Ron Hubbard himself repeatedly proclaimed during the late ’70s that we now HAVE the technology!

The question is: “Are attempts being made to confuse us with excess references, more data, and more technical routines?” You see, the more data you get, the more confusing things tend to get! Apparently there was no use for these LRH references released (at least not) till after the demise of L. Ron Hubbard. These were not written based on some situation that exists now, these that were recently issued and taken from some evaluation or Orders of the Day from 20, 30, or even 40 years ago! So, why are these continue to being issued under the HCO PL or HCOB issue-type format? Why? Not everything that L. Ron Hubbard wrote was meant to be addressed as policy or a technical pursuit. All these that are being issued in the name of L. Ron Hubbard (at least those issued after his demise) are released under these issue-types according to evaluations of others! According to my knowledge there is no reference that actually says that some are supposed to do such a thing!

“Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can only assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has been done, which will be valuable—only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)

Go to index

 
The printed materials 2: A summary of changes observed with annotations

This section became a summary of various observations made in regards to how the source of the inflow of information changed and how one went about it. Various links are given to places on this website where various of these matters can be studied in more detail. A basic layout can also be found on below page:
    “A printing history of the materials of Scientology”  (separate window)


Back to Main Index
LRH sources for new HCO PLs – Disappearance of information – Change of copyright

Orders of the Day notices from the ship Apollo dating from the ’60s/’70s all of a sudden get released as HCO PLs. In fact 73 HCO PLs were added to the already existing amount of policy letters by one Sherry Anderson who was performing on some mission to go through these old Orders of the Day, pulling out some of what this person thought would be the interesting ones and determine if they are suitable to be published as policy letters. These 73 new policy letters (extracted from OODs) were issued during the period 4 Aug-5 Nov 80.
The problem here is that who asked for this to be done? Mind that there exist a practicability about policy letters. They came about at some point in time to offer a handling to address some situation or problem that existed at that particular time. But as the times they are a-changing would indicate that there is no necessity to rekindle some old Order of the Day notices from 10-20 years ago and award them a policy letter validity in present time.
The details about these converted Orders of the Day you can consult in link here below:
    “Orders of the Day (OODs) vs HCO PLs/HCOBs”  (separate window)

We see also various policy letters issued that were taken for example from the book ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ and various other such sources. As an HCO PL they were then simply dated 1980 or 1981, although them being older material, sometimes as early as 1952. These HCO PLs did not always say where the information was actually deriving from. A 10 years later in 1991 a variety of these newly created policy letters we see getting cancelled again.

We see also that various information was removed from already existing publications. For example the book ‘Science of Survival: Prediction of Human behaviour’, that was first published in 1951. The ’70s edition carried the notification: “Dedicated to DIANA HUBBARD” (daughter of L. Ron Hubbard), which line was removed since the 1989 edition. Together with that disappeared also a “Publisher's Introduction” (23 pages long), that had been part of the book since its first printing. It contained interesting research information which was written by the “Editorial Staff” of the “Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation”.
We have also ‘Scientology: A History of Man’ from 1952. It always had carried the line: “THIS WORK IS DEDICATED TO MARY SUE HUBBARD WHO HELPED”. We see this removed since the 1988 edition.
Then we have ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ from 1950 that had an appendix that carried “Advice to the Pre-Clear” (9 pages). The 1988 edition had that removed. It may be noted here that this new edition here actually kept intact its original dedication that read: “Dedicated to Will Durant”. Whereas these dedications for the family members of L. Ron Hubbard for the other 2 books had been removed.
Noting here that it had been announced on 24 Jan 1986 that L. Ron Hubbard had past away. It thus does not seem to have been a direction from the original author of these books that these changes would need to be implemented. Also it gives the impression that dedications particularly towards family members of L. Ron Hubbard are not given much credence anymore, this after the demise of L. Ron Hubbard. Nonetheless it does not mean that for example Mary Sue Hubbard had not “HELPED” with the book ‘Scientology: A History of Man’.

Now, each and every of these changes are coinciding with that the copyright for these publications had changed from ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ to ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’.
My findings unfold that this new copyright name introduced all sorts of editing done in these original publications. For what reason had they been edited like this and this after the official announcement of the passing of L. Ron Hubbard? We have not been given any explanation whatsoever about these matters! Mind here that the adjustments listed here above are just a pick out of many changes observed since.
The change of the copyright and various consequences observed is discussed in detail at the link given here below:   (separate window)
    “What does ‘© L. Ron Hubbard Library’ actually represent?”

 
Back to Main Index Disputed sources for new LRH releases: ‘LRH notes’ and ‘LRH advices’

‘LRH notes’

A first suggestion of this may be found as early as January 1977 in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”. We find this paragraph that says: “It is now forbidden to write an HCOB or an HCO PL and sign my name to it. If anyone helped compile it or wrote it, my name is followed by ‘Assisted by _____’ the person who helped get it back together at my directions.”.  It refers here to “my directions”, a term that resembles pretty much the concept of that which later is referred to as LRH notes. It is equally shady and its actual authenticity can not be properly verified.

        
Pat Broeker“There is only one source of Scientology and Dianetics tech, and that is L. Ron Hubbard.
The existing tech — the body of knowledge that LRH has issued in HCO Bulletins and HCO Policy Letters — stays exactly like it is.
There is one exception, which is the matter of some off-Source issues that need to be handled. For some time now, there has been an exhaustive search for those issues others wrote that weren't seen or approved by LRH, but which somehow were sandbagged through the lines and issued over LRH's name. What we are doing is checking them against LRH's taped briefings and conferences, those writings that come directly off LRH's typewriter, the research notes and despatches which were written in his own hand, and notes written up by Commodore's Messengers which can actually be verified as accurate — to completely sort the wheat from the chaff, the truth from falsehoods.”          Mr. Pat Broeker

(Edited from a talk given at the Hollywood Palladium in Los Angeles, California on 27 Jan ’86; as printed in periodical ‘International Scientology News 8’, [ca Feb/Mar 86])
        
  Here below is an actual sound excerpt from the talk by Mr. Pat Broeker at the Hollywood Palladium. Take note though that we find a slightly different phrasing in the published text as compared to the actual spoken words:  
        
sound  Sound snippet (2:35) 
        

The above referred to notes identify that what is known as LRH notes. All that we know is what we have been told about these, we have not been shown these notes. It also should be obvious that notes are subject to interpretation. And it can commented upon that if L. Ron Hubbard himself could not prevent those “off-source issues” from being issued when he was still physically around (as the quoted article tells us), then what reason is there to believe that we are able to do that today after his physical departure? Did L. Ron Hubbard not write in 1970: “Within 5 years after the issue of this PL, with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs.” (from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 (Reissued 15 Jun 70) “Keeping Scientology Working”.

Elsewhere on my website I detail about a reference that uses the expression LRH notes, as for justifying some deletions in the text. It folds out how risky this business of these LRH notes actually is, and how they stand up against this “hidden data line”. Consult link here below:
    “L. Ron Hubbard about dictionaries or “Dinky Dictionaries” vs ‘World Book Dictionary’ (Includes annotations about ‘LRH notes’)”  (separate window)


‘LRH advices’

I recall these missions at Flag (Clearwater, Florida) that were scanning through folders of those persons that had received auditing from or were C/Sed by L. Ron Hubbard. The originals were removed and send up-lines (something), photocopies of them were placed in the folders. I was performing on another mission back then and was sharing a room with these people. This mission were not to touch the LRH originals and had to wear special gloves.
Generally any such information from these kind of sources, it could also be telexes, notes, communications and so on were referred to as LRH advices. And this is all that they were. I recall another mission collecting all these things from other sources than auditing folders, these were telexes etc., and there was this plan to publish them in some kind of release for use by staff. Anyhow this release never came about as this mission found that L. Ron Hubbard had advised that this was not to be released in such a form.
The material issued after the demise of L. Ron Hubbard may or may not have been taken from these kind of sources.

 
Back to Main Index Non-LRH and unverified sources used for new LRH HCO PLs – The ‘1981 Cramming Series’ dilemma

It would seem as if some sort of problem had come to light during these early ’80s. What can be perceived from the data at hand is this very persistent and strenuous effort to give the impression as if L. Ron Hubbard had done it all by himself! This then causes a rather serious problem, for the very simple reason that he had not done it all by himself! He did not write every single reference ever published within the organization.
A whole part of research and development of important sections of this technology called Scientology had been worked out with the help of many other persons. In where L. Ron Hubbard functioned as the organizer. The main line was then usually set by L. Ron Hubbard. Other persons were given tasks like working out some of the details often by order of or with oversight of L. Ron Hubbard. Now, this information that had actually been written by other persons are a bit hard to then fully attribute to L. Ron Hubbard. A solution that appears to have been used to tackle this problem was to simply give the main credit to L. Ron Hubbard and then the original compilers could be turned into assistants. But there are many references that were not even given this assisted by status to these original compilers/writers. Needless to say that authorship tracking turned clouded and it was very unclear about if something had actually been written by L. Ron Hubbard or someone else.
The line officially established for these assistants was set already as early as 1977. For details see earlier chapter on this page entitled: “Solving a problem: ‘compilers’ turn ‘assistants’”.

Then we start to see that various printed sources from the ’60s were being cancelled to only have them reissued and fully attributed to L. Ron Hubbard as if being the true source of these texts, when in reality they had been written by other persons! Rather amazing actually, but it is all fully documented. The original compilers/writers were simply deleted from these references, often they had been given a new publication date (most frequently 1980 or 1981), and so suddenly we got some new issues ‘written by L. Ron Hubbard’! A whole variety of these newly created ‘LRH’ references we still find today in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes.
You will find various examples of these in the link here below:
    “Non-LRH turns into LRH? What happened here?”  (separate window)

We also see a massive cancelling being done on all sorts of references not written by L. Ron Hubbard, especially during the years 1990-91. The message that very strongly seeps through these is that non-LRH written materials are simply not accepted, and therefore it is discarded of. For example HCOB 2 Aug 90 “Cancellation of Non-LRH C/S Series Issues” that cancelled the following 7 references for the following given reason:
         “1. 
BTB 6 Oct. 71R, ..., AUDITING OF STAFF AND PUBLIC.  This issue was not written by LRH. ...
        
  2. 
BTB 30 Nov. 71R, ..., THE CODE OF A C/S.  This code was not written by LRH. ...
 
  3. 
HCOB 14 June 77-1, ..., PAID COMPS SIMPLIFIED - ADDITION.  ... This HCOB was not written or approved by LRH.
 
  4. 
BTB 28 Dec. 72RA, ..., AUDITORS RIGHTS ADDITION REVISED.  The data contained in this BTB ... was written by another and was never seen or approved by LRH. ...
 
  5. 
BTB 16 Aug. 72-1, ..., FLUBLESS C/SING IN MISSIONS.  This HCOB was not written or approved by LRH. ...
 
  6. 
BTB 22 Oct. 73R, ..., TECH DEGRADES.  This issue was not written by LRH. ...
 
  7. 
HCOB 11 Jan. 80 I, ..., QUAL CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ON OTS.  This issue was never seen or approved by LRH ... .”
 
It is overlooked here rather seriously though that this is just not a valid reason for cancelling references, but it is nonetheless being resorted to. See, these references just do not require approval from L. Ron Hubbard, nor his authorship. This is not how the lines were set up. This all promotes the idea that only L. Ron Hubbard references are valid. It is however a false idea!
This was all ongoing particularly during 1990-91 because these were preparatory measures taken a newly planned release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. And so we have for example this HCO Admin Letter 21 Sept 91 “Cancellation of Issues” which is the all time mega issue which listed a total of 120 individual references just because they had not been written and/or approved by L. Ron Hubbard. The intent was to make it appear as if the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes contain L. Ron Hubbard materials only (or just about). And indeed we find that virtually every reference contained in these volumes carry the signature of L. Ron Hubbard, but quite a few of them were nonetheless written by others. It is just a matter of a swapped authorship.

The Cramming Series tell a story all by its own. Especially an interesting treatment was given to the 1981 Cramming Series, which at their time of release were all fully attributed to have been written and compiled by L. Ron Hubbard, but then 10 years later this was denounced for the bulk of them. Most incriminating was my realization of the following:
        
“The most remarkable thing of it all in fact is that these 1981 Cramming Series were in full use shortly prior to their cancellation in 1991 (I can personally confirm that they were in use at Flag (Clearwater, Florida) as late as 1990). How is it possible that these during all these years escaped the attention of for example L. Ron Hubbard himself? It gives the impression someone else was running the show. It is not logical to assume that L. Ron Hubbard would have tolerated these issues carrying his signature when he had not actually written them, or would not have noticed their existence. After all cramming is a vital and much used tool.”
        

To consult the study about this follow below link:
    “The story of the ‘Cramming Series’ - LRH or not LRH?”  (separate window)

 
Back to Main Index About signatory section and composer initials

The field or public must not be led to believe that I have written or issued things I have not. Further, other people have authority, too.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”)

An interesting realization is also that in the years prior to 1980 years the references were as a rule very carefully put together. Much effort was put into giving detailed information about who wrote it, was it ordered to be written, who approved it, adding all the persons who had been involved with it, revised it , and so on. In the years following that matters turned sloppy and untruthful. Of which the data found at the earlier provided links in this chapter testify. But it goes even further than that.
L. Ron Hubbard had been of the opinion that if some person wrote something that then the credit should be given to those who had carried out the deed. This was reflected in actual names of persons appearing in the references, but also in the composer initials that were found at the bottom of references. Prior to 1980 as a rule the initials of the personal name of the compiler/writer were being used. This started to change during the early ’80s.
At around that time names started to disappear persons were presented only be a post title. This was even the case for these composer initials, and we see that instead post title initials started to be used. A result of that was that most of the time you could not even guess anymore the real persons that were behind these post titles, as you had no name and you had no initials for the person.
Changing these ways of going about matters was in fact obscuring that information, as different persons at different time periods were holding these posts. It therefore seriously inhibits the tracking of the history of things, of determining who did exactly what was becoming more and more difficult.

An overview of how these signatures changed can be consulted in link below:  (separate window)
    “Authorship designations according to HCOB 24 Jan 77 ‘Tech Correction Round-up’”

 
Back to Main Index Implementing (copying) texts into HCO PLs that is already presented in other existing HCO PLs/HCOBs rather than listing them as a source in a reference list, then at a later stage deleting the original source indication of these copied texts and obscuring their original source – Obscuring newly added information by not printing it in script

Rather than adding the usual reference lists to references, here the practice turned to copying pieces of texts from already existing references to other references. Often the original source of these copied texts is not given or maintained. This is actually a sort of risky thing to do as the incorporation of this information is subject to the interpretation of the person(s) doing these things. It can easily obscure the original message and the purpose of the original writing. An example can be found with HCO PL 6 Apr 72R II (Revised 21 Jan 91) “How to Find a Why on a Person and Handle”. Some notices about this reference can be found here (separate window).

Any of these matters we particularly see implemented in HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” and its revisions of a later date. Initially the source of the implemented information is still given, in later versions this source information was removed. The 1979 version of this HCO PL only had 7 pages, at present it counts 15 pages. Because of all these implementations the listing of these High Crimes had grown from 28 up to a total of 87 (as per 1991 revision). One was just adding and adding, mixing the sequence and so on. Less and less of the original publication in the end remains if you go on like this. Also these alterations get more and more difficult to track as more and more often it is noted on newer revised versions: “Revisions not in script”. This notice was pretty much a new treat since 1980 or so. You don't see it particularly used before that time. In these earlier days it was a standard rule to indicate any and all revisions in script, and this was enforced rather ruthlessly. Any changes were all very carefully noted down with revisions in script and deletions indicated with ellipses. If you consulted a later version of a reference you could always immediately track down and see exactly where something had been changed.
Now, if you would want to have some complete listing of all the High Crimes as found in other references and so on. Then the decision could have been made to simply make up a compilation issue (issue it as an Executive Directive (ED) or something) and pull in all of these High Crimes and these things into that. Arrange them by subject/kind (something) and note the source where these High Crimes are deriving from. This way the original LRH version remains intact, and ... you have your listing. Unfortunately another solution has been chosen. HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” became the issue to pull them all into, but it still today fails to list some important High Crimes.
An overview of the publication history of this reference can be consulted at the link here below:
    “Versions analysis of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 ‘Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists’”  (separate window)

A related problem would be that the references found in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes are not identical anymore with the original mimeo print-offs as they used to be. The volumes version as a rule had virtually always removed all of the revision notices which were found at the beginning of the reference. The revisions themselves are not indicated anymore in script, and there are also no ellipsis found. And thus the year 1991 introduced the practice of 2 different versions of the very same version of that reference. These 1991 volumes simply presented an edited variation!

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index The statement and promise of Religious Technology Center (RTC)

        
“To ensure the purity of the religion and its Scriptures, RTC supervised a massive five-year project to republish all of Mr. Hubbard's writings on Dianetics and Scientology. RTC ensured that the authenticity of each work was verified by comparing them word by word with his original manuscripts — only once RTC was satisfied that the works were accurate were they republished. RTC then helped see that archival editions of these materials were produced, thus ensuring the availability of the pure unadulterated writings of Mr. Hubbard to the coming generations. As part of this project, Mr. Hubbard's original tape-recorded lectures — most of them over three decades old — were restored using state-of-the-art technology, and then accurately transcribed. Even the translations of the Scripture are scrupulously checked for accuracy by RTC prior to any publication.” 
        
 
(the above text is how it appeared at http://www.rtc.org/en_US/intro/pg002.html, this is the official RTC website, it was removed from that website since late 2005, at present you find this here with minor changes (last checked: 10 Apr 2013), it is also found at various other official Scientology websites.)
 

This five-year project started shortly after L. Ron Hubbard was said to have past away (January 1986). It was thus concluded in 1991. As a result we saw the release that year of the new series of book that made up ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes.

Now, did this Religious Technology Center live up to that promise? You'll be the judge of that!

 

Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     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.
     BPL:
Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPLs. By 1980 all BPLs had been revoked.
     BTB:
Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCOBs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTBs. By 1980 all BTBs had been revoked.
     C/S:
A case supervisor direction of what to audit on a pc. (HCOB 23 Aug 71)
     CBO:
Central Bureaux Order’. An issue-type mainly distributed to Sea Org sections and executives.
     cramming:
A section in the Qualifications Division where a student is given high pressure instruction at his own cost after being found slow in study or when failing his exams. The cramming section teaches students what they have missed. This includes trained auditors who wish to be brought up-to-date on current technical developments.
     ED:
Executive Directive’. Issued by any Executive Council and named for the area it applies to. Thus ED WW, meaning issued to Worldwide. They are valid for only one year. They contain various immediate orders, programs, etc. They are blue ink on blue paper. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R). Note that the rules for LRH EDs are slightly different, and these are blue ink on white paper with a special heading.
     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’.
     LRH ED:
L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC EDs (Secretarial EDs). These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)
     ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PLs, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PLs are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     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).
     OSA:
Office of Special Affairs’. A network within the Church of Scientology International which plans and supervises the legal affairs of the church, under the board of directors. (What Is Scientology? (1992), p. 649)
    P/L or PL:
‘HCO PL’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     PRO:
Short for ‘Public Relation Officer’.
     PTS, PTSness:
potential trouble source’.  1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08)  2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I)  3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68)
     Scientology Policy Directive (SPD):
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 PLs and any other issues or advices by LRH. (‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Hat, Volume 0’ (1991), p. 729; ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986), p. 617)
     Sea Org (SO):
Abbreviation for ‘Sea Org(anization)’. This is the senior organization within Scientology that runs the Advanced 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.
     Sec ED:
Secretarial Executive Directive’. A Sec ED is an early LRH ED. An Executive Directive that is written and issued by L. Ron Hubbard. 
     ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOBs, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOBs 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).


Go to top of this page


Advertisement