By Cool Name

There are a lot of views and information that circulate about Scientology and about LRH. And when you are trying to work out what is up, what is down, and what is just plain off the rails, it can be hard to differentiate between the good, the bad and the ugly.

LRH says in Data Series 1R, 26 April 1970R, The Anatomy of Thought:


He then goes on to give details of these terms:

“A FACT is something that can be proven to exist by visible evidence.

“An OPINION is something which may or may not be based on any facts.

“Yet a sloppy mind sees no difference between a FACT and somebody’s opinion.   …

“A vast number of people see no difference at all in FACTS and OPINIONS and gaily accept both as either or having equal validity. …

“If opinion instead of facts are used in solving problems then one comes up with insane solutions.”

Below is a superb example of this reference — taking the time to sort out differences, similarities and identities. Margaret by herself, has done what the church with all its resources couldn’t. And personally I hope she continues to sort out the lies from the truth. Her work has really impressed me.

In this circumstance it is on the subject of LRH’s war record – something that a few have refuted and claimed was fabricated or altered by LRH.

The website is called Scientology Myths – a balance of the facts and the fiction. The research done by Margaret Lake, speaks for itself and can be seen here

3 thoughts on “Fact or opinion

  1. Without any question, Margaret’s work as detailed on this website linked in this posting, is about as good as it gets.

    Cuts through the blah, blah, and “just the facts ma’am, just the facts”. Superb work. Par excellence.

  2. There are entirely too many people who are more than willing to accept the sloppy work that passes for “research” by critics who have an anti-LRH and anti-Scientology agenda. This is an example of top quality meticulous research by Ms Lake. She deserves kudos (with palm clusters ;-).

  3. This is the kind of detailed work that gives me a slightly sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, because I have little patience for it and thus HATE doing it. I am able to recognize good work, however (as detailed above). And this is good work. It goes to primary sources and cross-checks them. Good work of real quality and usefulness presents facts in organized manner, and those facts make it possible for the reader or student (or slightly ill student) to draw their own conclusions based on the facts, and agree or disagree with any conclusions the historian may tack on at the end. In bad work (of which I have read an awful lot of first few paragraphs), the thesis comes first, that is what is ‘important’, then facts are embellished or omitted to make the thesis make sense, so in bad work, it doesn’t make any sense to read any of the “supporting evidence” (unless you’re doing your own research and want to extract documents from wherever you can find them). In this article, I read through many of the facts presented, and was very impressed with the photocopies of originals. Knowing a little about Army & Navy (ahem) “procedures,” I know that someone can be instructed to lose something which never existed or to not have seen something, and those instructions carry a lot of weight. One highly technical name assigned to this sort of classified activity is “fudging.” Honestly, some of the stuff that goes on makes you wonder if you can trust the ground you’re walking on. Other times, it’s just someone who is in a hurry and flunked history and sees no real value in records. Other times, amazingly enough, people who are good and really interested can tell you (and show you) exactly which document was placed where on which enemy commander’s desk (e.g. Yamamoto who was shot down by a squadron of P-38 Lightnings), who placed it there at what time, what it contained, and that he did not read it because he was in a hurry to catch a plane. No matter which army or navy, some “procedures” apparently are common. Even in civilian life, like educating Yamamoto at Harvard and allowing a Japanese student to sketch the battle fleet positions at Pearly Harbor, and even today, still accepting token Japanese grants which open up American lab research to them. Just leave it for someone else to unravel later, and for now, go on having fun. This article makes the inaccuracies and discrepancies clear, and notes specific and evident omissions or alternations as facts.

    Great article.

What is your view?

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s