Home

writing pen

*We published an article entitled NOTS off the tracks, a few months ago, with specifics of out-tech on NOTs delivered within the Corporate Church. This new article follows on from that article. Please note, there is no confidential OT material in this article. The purpose of this article is to detail the source of the NOTs technology, as there seems to be confusions that some have regarding it.  Milestone Two Administrator

By Jim Logan

In the policy letter introducing the Data Series, The Anatomy of Thought, Ron Hubbard states:

“A BASIC LAW is usually confused by students with an INCIDENTAL FACT. This is conceiving a similarity when one, the law, is so far senior to the fact that one could throw the fact away and be no poorer.

“When a student or an employee cannot USE a subject he studies or cannot seem to understand a situation his disability is that basics are conceived by him to be merely similar to incidental remarks.”

This observation applies to the technical materials that comprise New Era Dianetics for OTs.

The history and record of research that led to NOTs begins at the beginning of the research that led to Dianetics and continues on with the development of that subject, and the research and development of Scientology.

An example of that research line is a tape from 16 April 1952, Anatomy of the Theta Body.  Much of that research is given a synopsis in History of Man:

“These incidents are responsible for the preclear being “softened- up” to a point where he can be influenced by having a hypnotized soul thrown at him. You will find the marks of these souls on every preclear. They are the basics on demon circuits.”

“Considerable time was spent on entities in these investigations. There was a great deal of data about them yet to learn when they were by-passed in the discovery of direct methods of auditing the thetan who, after all, IS the preclear.”

And this comment is made at that time:

“These questions are at this time not answered satisfactorily:  Are entities sub-beings or are they simply electronic installations? Are they very decadent thetans who have been blanketed by the preclear? Have they simply decayed until they follow the GE line? Are they control factors from “between-lives”?

The continuing line of research, up through the ACCs throughout the 50s, includes considerable work on the topic of “valences”.

In 1978, L. Ron Hubbard developed NED for OTs.

This, as any serious student of the subject of Scientology is aware, is the culmination of decades of study and application of the principles that form the actual basics of NOTs, the Axioms.

The case, the techniques and the fundamentals of NOTs, expressed by L. Ron Hubbard, and recorded on tape, were then transcribed and compiled into Bulletin format by David Mayo, working with Melanie Murray.

These compilations were then presented to L. Ron Hubbard for approval and following various acceptances and rejects and corrections, were finally approved by LRH in 1978 (the bulk of them), for publication as the NOTs Series.

Subsequently, up through 1980 the rest followed that same line: LRH originated, Mayo transcribed and compiled, and LRH approved.

This is the actual NOTs Series of issues, and the only ones ever seen and approved by L. Ron Hubbard.

They are THE NOTs tech.

Issues published since that time, by RTC in the form of Inspector General Network Bulletins, are not Source, and were not seen or approved by LRH.

NOTs tech was complete as issued by LRH, and works now as well as it did then – if used and applied — but unfortunately NOTs and SOLO NOTs auditors within Corporate Scientology today, do not study the Source NOTs issues, nor have them available. Luckily, we have the Source issues available in the field, and standard delivery is occurring.

 

 

152 thoughts on “Where did NOTs come from?

  1. I might add to the end of that Opening Piece, that “luck”, as it were, has played no part in us having the actual, real, NOTs issues, in my opinion.

    For those Jungianites out there, I would rather think this is a synchronicity. A serendipity. I coming together of life, to make it possible for life to re-assume living.

    So, we have the actual NOTs materials. As well, the entire research line that lead to them, which is part of the real journey on this road to truth.

    You have to walk the road. Simple as that may seem, some may wish to hop ahead to the end, and when they do, they are as puzzled as they were at the beginning. All those way stops along the road, lead to the next.

    NOTs, actual, real, and accurate, is there when the being gets there. Good thing, that.

  2. Hi Jim , I just wants to make sure , how do we know for sure the NOTs we have in the field are complete ? Where exactly did they come from ? Is there anyway to verify they have not been corrupted in any way , or have that been already verified by terminals in the field ?

    I think , new people coming into the Field directly from Church lines might have this concern and I would like to ”end t cycle” on this for them.

    ARC
    TC

    • TC,
      Did you actually read and duplicate the Opening Piece? The NOTs pack we have IS the NOTs pack. The original, LRH, NOTs pack. It was taken from the AO in DK in the early 80s. It has thence been spread far and wide. Verified by those who studied the original pack at Flag, when it was issued in the late 70s.

      I dunno mate, this seems pretty clear. If it isn’t, then try getting the mud off your windshield.

    • “No R + w on work, environment and living areas. No “Handling disorganization process”, no “Order vs Disorder”, no Admin TRs, none of that.”

      Too bad, as that’s what sort of seperated the SRD from the Objectives.

      “But a much later HCOB modified it. Instead of c/sing from the later HCOB, PCs are just C/Sed to run a full 25 hrs of it regardless of any cogs or wins on it. At least that’s the way it is being C/Sed in the Org near my town.”

      What a bunch of nonsense, eh?

  3. Hi Jim.

    I’m often quite surprised by the extent of insight LRH had on the tech of life and those factors holding us back.

    As you know in 1991, new NOTs material written in 1984 (HCOB dates) after Mayo’s expulsion, were released. Subsequently, all sorts of folks made extremely emphatic assertions that these were not LRH copies but without ever providing even a shred of evidence. Likewise, no proof exists that these are valid either, as I wasn’t there when they were drawn up. Personally I use these post-1984 materials in HCOB form because I have found them to work esp. those dealing with assessments as well as various lists to debug cases. Most NOTs auditors employ these materials here in the Indies/FZ and everyone in the church. Hence I, and most other NOTs auditors let workability be the guide setting aside all claims of disputed authenticity, since they were validly issued by the church. You may well be right that any 1991 released HCOBs are bogus, but exactly what irrefutable data do you have that LRH never wrote them up?

    Mike Rinder recently claimed that NOTs materials released by 1996 were in fact LRH, although he killed the discussion off supposedly due to time and inclination restraints. That led me to query why it would take so long to release them, for which I never received an answer, my posts subsequently blocked. I would most certainly appreciate full clarification on their veracity, but arguments that these are invalid have so far been very weak indeed, while on the other other hand how can one prove that LRH did in fact write them. It’s a shame we are not privy to see under the CO$ hood.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    “Hi Jim , I just wants to make sure , how do we know for sure the NOTs we have in the field are complete? Where exactly did they come from ? Is there anyway to verify they have not been corrupted in any way , or have that been already verified by terminals in the field?”

    Over 1,500 hours went into comparing every available NOTs material source to us with a dozen highly-trained NOTs auditors and C/Ses spanning well over 6 months. Is it perfect or nearly so? I suspect so, and so do the others.

      • No worries, sometimes we get a bit tangled up seeking clarification.

        I’m glad Jim brought this post up, as I still have lots of questions about NOTs, and I’ve been on it for years just to get things straight, or as straight as we can get it. Some contradictions and unresolved data still about.

        • Thanks Formost , for acepting my apologies.

          Yes, I have the same thoughts about it. There seems to be , indeed, some contradictions and unresolved data on the subject of NOTs. I can’t think in anything right now to help in that direction. Doesn’t have enough data about it , other than a write-up by Pierre Ethier on the Tech vols XIII and XIV ( the ones on pdf form, some scientologist posted years ago about the entire Bridge from Power up ). Pierre Ethier’ s comments about the alleged authenticity or lack of, of vol 13 and 14 , can be found on his site.

        • Formost,
          Please, get a hold of me personally on this subject. For obvious reasons of case level, I’m not going into this too deeply on an open blog. But, please, any questions you have, get a hold of me. I’m a Cramming Officer. We’ll get them answered with exact references and will continue until we do. OK?

          Sincerely,
          Jim
          P.S. My contact details are with the Admin of the blog.

          • Hi Jim.

            Thanks for your offer, not a cramming issue, but sharing much the concern you already have about the authenticity of the NOTs materials as I had already mentioned in several of my posts here. Really the only thing still unanswered is the Rinder-mystery sandwich since he in no uncertain terms claimed to have the inside scoop, data many others were not privy to. Personally I think he was duped (he thinks he knows, but he doesn’t) thinking the ’96 NOTs are authentic LRH, since various references violate basic and advanced tech. But … lol …

            • I am not familiar with the “Rinder-mystery sandwich”. Mike Rinder and I went through the NOTs pack together, on his dining room table, over the course of several weeks in 2011. He was part and present during the Mayo trial, over the provenance of the NOTs pack. In 2011, he said he was familiar with the RTRC submission packs, which contained the transcripts and tapes of the LRH materials, their compilation into bulletin form, their submission to LRH, any rejects/corrections to be made, and the final approval.

              In 2011 Mike Rinder made no mention of a later pack of materials being LRH data. There isn’t any. Since, LRH was gone in 86. Again, I’m not sure what you are referring to on this mystewy sangwich. I have no idea what Mike Rinder is supposedly talking about either, as this is the first I’ve heard of it.

              The bottom line is this – the LRH pack of NOTs tech, is the LRH pack of NOTs tech, it is the original series of issues put out majorly in 1978 and up to 1980. The only valid additions are the assessment lists, and a repair list with expansion of a couple of points, done in 84, while LRH was there to approve these, and finally made available broadly (in HCOB form e.g.) in the early 90s. These are not to be confused with the Miscavigology redux of NOTs in 95-96, the so-called GAT era. Nor his self- authored 13 page issue.

              • Hey Jim.

                “These are not to be confused with the Miscavigology redux of NOTs in 95-96, the so-called GAT era.”

                I asked him specifically about a certain NOTs issue that was released by the CO$ in 1996 which was altered from earlier revisions. It contained errors, but he maintained it was LRH. Then rest of the data is already on my other posts in this thread. Nonetheless, if you sat down with him and went over the NOTs pack, then that’s fine, obviously no valid LRH 1996 revision of this particular reference. Ok, that settles that.

                  • Hi Jim.

                    That was exactly my position I presented to Rinder, yet he claimed, a particular NOTs reference revised in or about 1996 was in fact LRH. He stated he had information to that extent, but then cut the discussion off due to time and inclination restraints, and so whatever infos he supposedly had were never communicated.

                    Now, there are no issues that require clarification with that particular reference as the ex-FSO technical hierachy’s multiple viewpoint system had already established what offbeat revisions took place and restored it back to it’s original release, since no actual CO$ copy from the church existed out here. We were unfortunately dealing with a reference that is absolutely necessary if one is to properly complete the level, and thus subject to reconstruction.

                    So, I’m not seeking any input on this, long done, no longer any questions about it. That’s not the point. Rinder made a statement that he had information that the 1996 revised reference was indeed LRH. It’s that information I would like, NOT clarification on any materials.

                    Please understand this clearly Jim. Not a material clarifications issue, just what data does Rinder have that he doesn’t have the time or inclination to discuss in respect to an authentic 1996 NOTs issue, since his claims contradict what is already known, and has been so for a long time.

            • (Off the thread line hierarchy, as the REPLY button no longer shows up)

              “Jim Logan: I can’t comment one way or the other without knowing at least the Series number or title of the issue.”

              Hey Jim.

              HCO BULLETIN OF 1983 – SOLO NOTS Series 2, SOLO NOTS – ADVANCED PROCEDURE

              I stress, I’m not looking for anyone’s verification or blessing on this reference, that’s long been done, and in current usage by least a dozen NOTs ex-FSO Class IX auditors as valid material.

              We don’t have the original 1983 issue, although an FZ float-around claiming to be a Pierre Ethier write-up turned out to be “supposedly” false. Pierre threatened APIS remove these writings attributed to him from site, stating they were “supposedly” forgeries. However, those previously in his good graces in training for upper level OT delivery state these “supposed forgeries” were in fact given to them by him. Nonetheless, that floater is incomplete, and is alter-is. The 1996 version had a set of new actions added which ensured a FLAG vacation every 6 months for years, even a decade to come. These additives were never on the original, even violating the original NOT series itself, the metering tech, LRH even explaining why it doesn’t work. But RTC adds it in anyways.

              Yet Rinder states the 1996 was an authentic LRH reference. What makes him think it’s the real McCoy, not a DM scoobie-doo? He said he had the infos, but also no time or inclination to discuss it.

              • Sorry Formost, I missed this in the disarrangement of the replies.

                OK, from what I can gather here, this is re: Solo NOTs and the generally referred to “advanced procedure”, an alternative to what is referred to by some as “routine” or “basic” etc.

                I don’t know what the 96 issue states. I do know it was never seen, nor approved by L. Ron Hubbard.

                You mention an 83 issue, which I’m taking here (quite possibly incorrectly) is/was an HCOB, Red on White, which could have been seen and/or approved by LRH. I don’t have that issue, and neither do you, or anyone else that we know about, out here in the field.

                What we do have is a rendition put together from the memory of various and sundry Solo NOTs auditors, Case Sups, Course Sups, etc. This rendition being in keeping with the statements from those I have had comm with that the actual original of this issue seen, read, used, was indeed a black on white, NOT an HCOB. It was part of the CSing for a person at a point in SOLO NOTs, as an alternative procedure to use as covered in the material.

                This rendition, the one that I have seen put together and verified by the above list of persons who had direct experience with it, indeed, by its nature it was to be memorized, so the varying degrees of eidetic recall, coming up with a consistent image, have put together what is by consensus, an apparently accurate copy of said procedure, is one thing – the 96 HCOB put out by David Miscavige quite another.

                I have no idea what his gobbledygook is about, and care less. I know it wasn’t either seen, nor approved by L. Ron Hubbard. It is about as useful in the scheme of things as any other oddball interpretation or technique out there, by several other “authorities”.

                Again, sticking to the actual LRH materials, one is on sure ground. Those are available sans a “hidden data line/insider” thingy attached.

    • Formost,
      The 91 issues were simply cosmetic re-writes of the original materials. The 95-95 materials, not true. They alter, remove and corrupt the original materials, according to what I’ve had described to me by those that have compared the issues.

      Thank you for re-iterating to thetaclear, the extensive verification these materials have undergone.

      I agree with you on the various assessments, the additional lists, repairs etc.

      I work with a CS that Interned every original NOTS auditor, on the original pack, at Flag. I know what I’m using are LRH NOTs. That pack is extant. It is the LRH Tech on the subject.

      • Hi Jim.

        “The 91 issues were simply cosmetic re-writes of the original materials.”

        “The 95-95 materials, not true. They alter, remove and corrupt the original materials, according to what I’ve had described to me by those that have compared the issues.”

        Yup, So true !!!

  4. The research into NOTs phenomena and Technolgy begun vey early in DNs and SCN , indeed, as Jim well put it.

    This wasn’t s/g LRH just stumbled with in 1978 , as have been suggested by some. Here is a quote from LRH from lecture 16 April 1952 tittled ”Theta Body Entities” . They were part of TECH-88 lectures but were taken out by the Church. I quote from several parts of it :

    ”Now get this about circuits. A circuit is quite real , but a circuit happens to be a being, an entity or and idle one , mimicking. And you know, a pleclear goes low enough on the tone scale will get into a physiological rapport or a mental rapport with somebody and will mimic,mimic,mimic. That’s hypnotism. And these, these entities will actually copy other people.They’ll copy other people so thoroughly that they get their identity confused with those people. Thoroughly confused with them so that you get this kind of manifestation. You start running this entity back and you find this entity is somebody that the person knew one time or another, and it isn’t at all”

    “….. This entity will make an effort to control your preclear by imitating the people who have controlled your preclear……”so one of the first thing they’ll do is to try to influence thought. If that fails they’ll influence emotion. If that fails they will turn on somatics and hold them on. Or they will simply imitate some person who has been able to control your preclear such as papa, mama , teachers, something like that ”

    ” Actually the recognition of their existence and that they do have an identity which is distinct and separate from the people they are imitating and the recognition on the part of the theta being that the entity is there, practically kill their power. ” LRH

    So there you have it, 1952. LRH knew all about it.

    What I think, and this is ENTIRELY my opinion (not s/g I read from LRH) , is that because originals OT levels IV-VII deals intrinsically with your native abilities as yourself and with the subject of exteriorization, NOTs phenomena got in the way of that due to obvious reasons for the ones who have done it. NOTs, then, had to be handled first, before original
    IV-VII were continued.

    Now what I am concerned about is whether or not we , in the Field actually do have the unadultered NOTs materials 100% On-Source. I mention this ONLY because I don’t know the origin of the NOTs materials in the Field ; where did they come from ? , who got them ? , who compiled them for us, etc. I would feel much more at ease, if I were to know that. So any help with that will be highly appreciated.

    • OK, I’m Q&Aing just a bit here. But where might these missing lectures be obtained? I’m intrigued! This is a whole blank area of knowledge that I need to fill in! 16 Apr 52 “Theta Body Entities” for one, as well as any others?

      Thank you

    • Great post Thetaclear! Very interesting quote. I also agree with you on this

      “What I think, and this is ENTIRELY my opinion (not s/g I read from LRH) , is that because originals OT levels IV-VII deals intrinsically with your native abilities as yourself and with the subject of exteriorization, NOTs phenomena got in the way of that due to obvious reasons for the ones who have done it. NOTs, then, had to be handled first, before original
      IV-VII were continued.”

      When the original OT levels 4-7 were around there was the Nots case. When the Nots case was addressed the original OT levels were dropped. Now dave is f—-g up the Nots area. So actual OTs have not been produced on the production line of the church. Maybe a couple have slipped through here and there, Ive seen a couple of posts on the various blogs to suggest this.

      The only place OTs can actually be made are out in the field, dave only wants to make clones and robots, so they are not going to be made in the church.

      • Thanks, Cotch !
        Yes, I agree, the Field is our ONLY hope. They are the “phoenix resurrected” from the ashes of oppression and tyranny.

        DM is just afraid. He is terrified of OTs just as space opera societies has been. Just as the asshole who put us here in this prision planet was. Get an actual OT made ( I am NOT trying to invalidate anyone here) , you know, a NOTs completion followed by SOLO NOTs completion, taken standarly through original IV-VII to their FULL EPs. Then the original OT VIII, not the adultered quickied one on the Freewinds (sorry for that New OT VIIIs, that was not meant as an inval of all your wins) ; and you’ll have, indeed, a extremately rehabilitated thetan who can exert a LOT of power and control on his environment. Enough, that just a few of them could revert the whole scene in the Church. DM KNOWS this. He really does.

        We, in the Field could make an army of them. That is the ONLY chance this planet has in my opinion, an strategy to create an army of them.

      • “When the original OT levels 4-7 were around there was the Nots case. When the Nots case was addressed the original OT levels were dropped.”

        ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

        They were taken off the Grade Chart per “HCOB 12 Sep 78 Dianetics Forbidden On Clears And OTs”, but still delivered subsequently per C/S instructs dealing with specific case handlings well into the 1990s. Likewise if you were an insistent pest, they’d sell them to you.

        • Formost Ive looked at the issue “HCOB 12 Sep 78 Dianetics Forbidden On Clears And OTs” but cant see where it says to drop the original OT levels 4-7, am I missing something, or could you tell me, what is the issue that deals with that?

          • Hey Cotch.

            More precise, “HCOB 12 Sep 78R Dianetics Forbidden On Clears and OTs”, the 1985 revision of that HCOB”:

            “Anyone who is Clear but not OT III is to get through OT III immediately so he can receive this special rundown. After OT III, one does New OT IV (the OT Drug Rundown), then New OT V, Audited NOTs, followed by New OT VI (Solo NOTs Auditor Course) and New OT VII (Solo NOTs Auditing).”

            I don’t want to get into interpretations here, but I see a “moving up the bridge” sequence. I’m not sure if it’s even appropriate to comment about anything being “dropped”, since, as I mentioned above, the original OT levels were still being C/Ses well into the 90s, and may still be to this day. Secondly, its a Remimeo/BPI and really no reason to make mention of Grade Chart OT related level infos that doesn’t concern those on the lower end of the bridge, and requires no further explanation beyond what the steps one takes to move up.

        • Formost,
          Reading the 85 revision of that HCOB, one could interpret that the original OT Levels were “dropped”. However, that isn’t what the issue states.

          In fact, that issue would align with the LRH ED of December 78, ED 301, which also mentions the placement of NOTs on the Grade Chart, and relative to the original OT Levels.

          I’m afraid there is no clear cut issue, that I personally am aware of, the “drops” the original OT Levels. They are not cancelled by any LRH issue.

          • Jim, I think that if LRH wanted them dropped out, ( original OT levels) he would have been very specific about it as he always was regarding Tech matters. As there isn’t any LRH known issue in existence regarding the canceletion of original OT levels, it is logical to assume they were never cancelled.

          • Thanks F, J and TC if its not written its not true! By the way I didnt mean to imply the original OT levels had been “dropped” by LRH. I was just wondering what the hell happened to them in relation to Nots from the churches viewpoint, and what if any reference they were using.
            It actually amazes me that the very thing we wanted, has been replaced by idle orgs and donations to something that does nothing except vacuum up more money.

            • I can only make my own personel assumptions here, just the way I see it, in that if he never mentioned anything, then I probably don’t need to know or be concerned with them.

              The original OT levels are available out here in the Indies and are often C/Sed for after Solo NOTs if you request them. Some folks do them after OT III and before NOTS like they used to be delivered at the AOs.

              ————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

              “It actually amazes me that the very thing we wanted, has been replaced by idle orgs and donations to something that does nothing except vacuum up more money.”

              Yup, be it GAT alterations & re-versions, depleting your resources via exchangeless donations or the non-release of the upper OT levels for the last 30-years plus, the brakes have been slammed down hard on all sides on the bridge.

          • Jim, as a veteran Qual/cramming officer, Do you know of any other LRH revised issue in 1985 besides HCOB “Dianetics Forbidden in Clears and OTs” ?

            Cause I can’t find any. I can’t find any later than ’84 when FPRD refs came out. The “revision” to the 1978 HCOB doesn’t contain in itself , any additionally Tech data on the subject of DNs forbidden on Clears and OTs besides the data already presented in the original bulletin. Doesn’t this strikes you as strange ?

            It was basically revised to “clarify” about NOTs now being divided in 4 different OT levels ( New OT IV-VII) . Who this change benefitted the
            most ? No specific LRH issue cancelling original IV-VII but and alleged LRH issue creating New OT levels ?

            This sounds highly suspicious to me, don’t you think ?
            Is the 1985 revision actually LRH authored ? Doesn’t seems so to me.

            Any comments on this ?

            ARC
            TC

            • “The “revision” to the 1978 HCOB doesn’t contain in itself, any additionally Tech data on the subject of DNs forbidden on Clears and OTs besides the data already presented in the original bulletin. Doesn’t this strikes you as strange?”

              ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

              The original non-revised 1978 HCOB also makes no mention of the original OT levels. The only changes are as follows:

              1978 — “Anyone who is Clear but not OT III is to get through OT III immediately so he can receive this special rundown.

              The end phenomenon of this Rundown is: CAUSE OVER LIFE”

              1985 — “Anyone who is Clear but not OT III is to get through OT III immediately so he can receive this special rundown. After OT III, one does New OT IV (the OT Drug Rundown), then New OT V, Audited NOTs, followed by New OT VI (Solo NOTs Auditor Course) and New OT VII (Solo NOTs Auditing).

              The EP of the full special NED Rundown for OTs is CAUSE OVER LIFE.”

              …..

              * Appears to be an update only to include a number of items: OT IV Drug Rundown, Solo NOTs Course and Level in alignment of the then recently released Grade Chart.

              • Exactly my point, Formost. There wasn’t any additional Tech data in the revision , just the clarification to the alleged “New OT levels” , nothing more AT ALL !.

                There is no mention of original OT levels and it needed none. There were already mentioned on Ron’s Journal 30 , ED 301 INT from 1978 with their properly place on the Bridge.

                Now, we scientologists KNOW , that LRH was always VERY specific as to ANY change in Tech procedures , actions and their respective place in the Bridge. He never Ever left any room to interpretation, he was always extremately specific. Now suddently he was not ? I don’t buy it.

                Anyone trained on the Data Series and Intelligence course would agree that there is , at least, a “contradictory data” outpoint about all this. And an omitted s/g as well. That should be more than enough to pull some strings.

                • Exactly my point, Formost. There wasn’t any additional Tech data in the revision , just the clarification to the alleged “New OT levels” , nothing more AT ALL !.

                  There is no mention of original OT levels and it needed none. There were already mentioned on Ron’s Journal 30 , ED 301 INT from 1978 with their properly place on the Bridge.

                  Now, we scientologists KNOW , that LRH was always VERY specific as to ANY change in Tech procedures , actions and their respective place in the Bridge. He never Ever left any room to interpretation, he was always extremately specific. Now suddently he was not ? I don’t buy it.

                  Anyone trained on the Data Series and Intelligence course would agree that there is , at least, a “contradictory data” outpoint about all this. And an omitted s/g as well. That should be more than enough to pull some strings.

                  My theory , and it IS only my theory, is that the ’85 revision of “Dianetics forbidden on Clears And OTs” had a profit generating considerations to it and that the revision was NOT LRH authored.

    • “Now what I am concerned about is whether or not we , in the Field actually do have the unadultered NOTs materials 100% On-Source. I mention this ONLY because I don’t know the origin of the NOTs materials in the Field ; where did they come from ?, who got them ? , who compiled them for us, etc. I would feel much more at ease, if I were to know that. So any help with that will be highly appreciated.”

      ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

      Great reference to the lecture in your post, much appreciated, thank you.

      Some infos I have. Robin Scott boosted the NOTs series out of AODK in 1983/1984 and tried to sell them to Mayo. Thus scans exist and you can find him on FB. Mind you, I believe the CO$ ran after him and he did some time in the slammer if I’m not mistaken. Not sure if he will “admit” to anything though.

      Other sources existed too, some verified, others not. All available versions were letter-by-letter, word-for-word compared for discrepancies by many people, a very time consuming project when at least 3 authentic versions of the original NOTs series were in existence out here.

      In 1984 some more NOTs materials were released, but most only became available at the time of the 1991 OEC/Tech Vols. (Like the Mark VIII of 2002, they tend to hold back to sync with other future releases) It has been said (rumour) that the Mayo Claim-To-NOTs courtcase of 1985 was the holdup, but I can’t confirm that. Rinder stated that in 1996 more genuine LRH-NOTS was released, but it’s my position some of these GAT actions called for in these revisions contradict earlier tech, not only on how meters function and the axioms, but the original NOTS series itself. He claimed to have more data on that, but perhaps he deemed discussing dirt on the church to be a more pressing matter.

      The 1991 NOTs Series 28 and 35 were extensively revised, including amendments to 14. If the 1991 revisions exists out here, then no one has shared them with us, although we have pices of it from the SOLO NOT’er brigades. From what I have been able to ascertain from a few Class IX/XIIs, the 1991s are merely a fluffed-up re-write primarily to serve copyright issues. We also have 1996 Solo NOTs corrections lists.

      Some of the original tools which went with the 1981/82 NOTs and Solo NOTs checksheets were never available out here, and were reconstructed and labelled as such using the multiple viewpoint system by the ex-FSO tech hierarchy, as these are vital to Solo NOTs in the more advanced phases of the Rundown. These were however subsequently squirreled up with additives by the GAT intro era and are of no use to us. But it sure keeps the FLAG 6-months $$$ machinery going in some cases for more than a decade.

      • You are very welcome, Formost.Thanks for filling me in. A very interesting summary, indeed !!!

        Is there anyone in the Field trained to do the SOLO NOTs EP check besides Ethier and recently, Ronit Charny ?

        • Yes, there are people trained to do this. There are also false data on the subject, as a result of the alterations imposed on NOTs by David Miscavige, in his personal rendition of this body of materials. Those trained on his gibbering foolishness in the Cof S have spread this ridiculous arbitrary nonsense to the field.

          You gotta know who you are dealing with, AND, ask to actually see the LRH materials, or tape that they claim they are using.

          KSW is up to each individual to maintain. I’m sure you’re watchful enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you have questions, get a hold of me. I’ll get you the exact ref, if it exists.

          • Point taken, Jim. Thank you.
            I like to start these open discussions for the benefit of others, as I know many out-there may have doubts or Qs on the subject, and all this help them to sort it all out.

            You work is very much appreciated and you have been the leading voice in all this NOTs subject. I know you are very through at what you do. Sometimes I ask Qs to keep the subject alive and get the discussions going
            to get Jim Logan to start talking. Sorry team mate, I wanted to hear you.

            ARC
            TC

        • “Is there anyone in the Field trained to do the SOLO NOTs EP check besides Ethier and recently, Ronit Charny?”

          Ronit compiled the Solo NOTs EP check materials for us, as no other materials exist out here from the church. This work was verified by several other Class IXs using the multiple viewpoint system who were also on the same FSO technical line. The work is very thorough, extensive and fully replicated per the FSO issue, not any quickie action. Until something leaks out, this is what we’ll have to do with.

          • The EP of NOTs, THE EP, is stated clearly in the original NOTs pack. Some systematic check procedure that adds arbitraries to that EP, are additions to the materials. Attests are covered thoroughly in the CS Series, in the materials of the Grade, in OEC Vol 5.

            DM instituted a procedure for a Solo NOTs EP check, that is nowhere covered in any NOTs issue, nor any LRH issued reference. That procedure has filtered to the field via those trained during DM’s alter-is period, from the mid 90s to PT.

            I’ve seen one of these procedures written up, even in Red on White (!) by a person who did DM’s arbitrary “EP check” in the CofS and then brought it to the field.

            The EP of the Level is IN the pack. When it comes to it, accomplishing this EP is a matter of honesty by the Pre OT actually duplicating it, and really achieving it, not some check of arbitraries, sec checks, this or that’s. The road to OT is paved with truth.

            • Thanks for the clarification Jim. I know the EP of NOTs are in the the nmaterials themselves ; even guidelines of what phemena and chances the Solo-auditor should expect as he advances through the program. I thought this ”EP check” was related to those phenomana explained in the NOTs pack. I haven’t seen the issue.

              What do you feel what the purpose to implement that by DM ?

              • Sorry, the above post had some grammar errors I couldn’t fix once posted.

                Thanks for the clarification Jim. I know the EP of NOTs are in the the materials themselves ; even guidelines of what phenomena and chances the Solo-auditor should expect as he advances through the program. I thought this ”EP check” was related to those phenomena explained in the NOTs pack. I haven’t seen the issue itself.

                What do you feel was the purpose to implement the EP check by DM ?

            • “I’ve seen one of these procedures written up, even in Red on White (!) by a person who did DM’s arbitrary “EP check” in the CofS and then brought it to the field.”

              It’s not that one. You could take it up Ronit. It’s really just a tool to determine if there might still be more to audit that was overseen, not any invalidation tool. It’s aim truly is to get the person fully complete on that level. OT VIII also has checks to ensure the case is properly set up for that level.

              • “The EP of NOTs, THE EP, is stated clearly in the original NOTs pack. Some systematic check procedure that adds arbitraries to that EP, are additions to the materials.”

                I cannot talk about that specifically, but persons have attested to the EP, even passed the checks, but then found hundreds of hours more to audit. The EP check Ronit had done up nails both points to full completion.

                • I don’t know what she has done up. Again, unless it can be factually verified as Standard according to the materials, the CS Series, the Grade, etc., then it enters the realms of arbitrary.

                  I’m not commenting on something I haven’t seen or read myself. I have no idea what Ronit has done up. I do know that the materials as listed, these are the Standard and those are what I consider in any of this. If that’s what Ronit has, then it’s valid, i.e., if it follows the LRH materials on NOTs, the CS Series, OEC Vol 5.

    • thetaclear,
      Not to belabor this, or smack you particularly, but, as I said in a response above, the pack that is spread far and wide, was taken from the AO in DK, in the early 80s. It was subject to Court cases, and scrutiny, and even acknowledged (thanks for that Warren) by the President of RTC in Court.

      It’s been checked, verified, re-checked, and verified by numerous people who studied the same pack in the Church, when it was originally released in the late 70s, early 80s.

      I hope this answers your question. If not, write to me. Cheers 🙂

  5. Looking over the Opening Piece again, I suppose it would be better to relate the Data Series quote to the context more clearly.

    The LRH research and developments of the technology leading to and culminating in NOTs are the basics. The incidental fact of compiling this material into a bulletin are just that, an incidental fact.

    David Mayo no more “authored” “developed” “originated” or had any other part of the technology of Scientology that is comprised by the LRH NOTs tech, than he did in the formulation of a line at the bus stop. He didn’t make Oreo cookies either. Or my nifty Sketchers. Or a curve ball, or, or, or…well lots of things.

    • “He didn’t make Oreo cookies either.”

      Well, whatdayaknow … Yup, I just re-checked the ingredients on the back of the package: Cream, sugar, coacoa, but no mayo … lol.

      • Another thing…what David Mayo did contribute, which is probably as important as anything is he didn’t alter the original LRH data in his compilation. We are extremely fortunate that David Mayo presented us with the full materials, as spoken by Ron Hubbard, in his work with Mayo to bring this tech out.

        Mayo’s contribution to having this tech is remarkable, and personally, I’m extremely grateful that he did compile these issues as they are; they read like LRH is talking in a lot of places, and it isn’t “edited” or “made better” or anything else. It’s all there.

        Thanks for that David Mayo. Sincerely.

        • That would be a miracle and a bonus to boot, Jim, as Mayo did alter much other tech and policy: KSW Series 21-25; Harmonics of Clear, HRD, etc. I’m personally of the opinion that one needs to be 99% duly diligent and 1% accepting of tech these days, both in the independent field and from the CoS. A best bet is to train as far as one can on original materials not passing by any MUs; then one can at least have some judgement to evaluate the mix with.

          • That is good advice indeed , Chris. Until what date is more or less safe to feel confident the Tech wasn’t being altered in any way ?

            • Just based on my findings having personally compared thousands of HCOBs between the 1976, 1984 and 1991s Tech Vols, the latter have been for the most part very faithfully reproduced via to the LRH/AVU line. The Co-auditing Series in there is DM though, altered because they removed the SRD from the line-up in 1983 and sought to “patch over” the original LRH writings so it “makes sense” to the reader.

              • Thanks Formost , for the insight .

                I know this seems like Q&A from me (Qs from the last As) and I don’t want to get too much off subject here, but why was the SRD taken off the Tech Vols ? If LRH trusted Melanie with NOTs compilation together with Mayo, and Melanie compiled the SRD for him, then why to take it out ?
                Does anyone knows ?

                I mention this because the current SRD at the Church bears no resemblance whatsoever with the 1980-81 SRD issues. In fact, what the current Church’s SRD lacks , as steps , are EXACTLY the steps markedly increasing the potential survival of the individual. The Church basically
                re-named the previous Objectives RD as the SRD but they are, in essence, the same.

                Does anyone knows what happened here ?

                • Hi Theta.

                  Melonie had nothing to do with any NOTs writings or compilations personally.

                  To the best of my knowledge, RTC withdrew the SRD in 1983 because it was supposedly written by David Mayo in 1980. Mayo did compile its correction list, but the remainder was written up by Melanie Murray per LRH’s instructions. Some have stated LRH cancelled the SRD, but all that was confirmed he merely criticed its marketing strategy.

                  The SRD Series was in the 1980 Tech Vol. XIII issued as an update, but no part of the Series made it into the 1984 & 1991 Vols. Nonetheless, the Co-Audit Series affecting other services such as the Method 1 Co-Audit were revised to cut the SRD out of the picture.

                  ——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

                  “I mention this because the current SRD at the Church bears no resemblance whatsoever with the 1980-81 SRD issues.”

                  I recompiled the 1980 SRD from scratch 6 months ago, checksheets, references, lists, etc., as well as the “Survival Rundown for HGC PCs” and the “Survival Rundown Co-Audit Supervisor Course”. I have no idea what the current CO$ version is, so I cannot comment.

                  • Thanks for filling me in on this, Formost. I have the 1980 SRD Series myself + the “Co-auditing” Series. The SRD Series have the initials M.M. (Melanie Murray) and are signed by LRH and mentions “as assisted by Technical Project I/C” . Only the SRD Correction List bulletin says “as assisted by SNR C/S Int and has initials D.M.

                    Basically, in the Church, the SRD is a full battery of objectives, nothing more. The same battery as the previous “Objectives RD” plus a few process added from the alleged “research” DM did on the ACCs to locate additional objectives processes. A list of undercut process were compiled in case any PCs needed it due to “objectives not bitting”. That’s all of the SRD in the Church now. You do ALL process from the battery, each , to the stated EP in the ref for that process. No R + w on work , environment and living areas . No “Handling disorganization process” , no “Order vs Disorder” , no Admin TRs , none of that.

                    Objectives tables are not done for each case to verify what process did EPed and which did not. I personally know of 6-8 people currently in the SRD who started from scratch ,w/out no apparent revision of their folders. Two of them audited by me for more than 80-100 hrs of objectives, each , with incredible wins, and I am not that bad. One New OT VIII completion doing the SRD from scratch and I was there when he co-audited them some 25 years ago, and he was very through with it as well as her twin , and they co-audited for more than 100 hrs each with incredible life changing wins.

                    Some EPs refs used in C/Sing are from ’55 – ’57 books instead of using later HCOBs which modified them in some way. For instance, there is a ref on FOT book about the running of “Control Trio”. It mentions the minimum amounts of hrs expected to be run on this process (25 hrs minimum if I remember it correctly, but please, just read it on FOT). But a much later HCOB modified it. Instead of c/sing from the later HCOB, PCs are just C/Sed to run a full 25 hrs of it regardless of any cogs or wins on it. At least that’s the way it is being C/Sed in the Org near my town.

                    So , in general, it is all a big “blanked C/Sing”.

          • Chris,
            His work on other materials I’m not commenting on. The work on the NOTs pack – he didn’t add to or subtract from what LRH developed and issued as strictly NOTs tech.

            The other stuff, the “harmonics” of Clear, the rendition of the Cramming Series, the re-write of the TRs issue etc. – not.

            • Agreed, Jim. And thanks. Good work here.

              Thetaclear: one has to figure that out for him/themselves, as even before 1980 and even in the 60s and 70s things were being issued under LRH’s signature that weren’t from him. Some stuff from the 1980s and 90s is ok, but for sure I’d stop after GAT in 1995 and maybe even in 1991. Again, one has to figure it out themselves, but it definitely spirals down from 1991.

        • “Another thing…what David Mayo did contribute, which is probably as important as anything is he didn’t alter the original LRH data in his compilation. We are extremely fortunate that David Mayo presented us with the full materials, as spoken by Ron Hubbard, in his work with Mayo to bring this tech out.”

          Some data I have I could add here. LRH had the line set up so it went through (Melanie?) to David for write-up, then back via her to LRH for final approval. It doesn’t matter who writes what, once LRH puts his stamp of approval to it, it’s LRH. So Mayo had no room to maneuver anyways.

  6. Well, since DM is by a preponderance of fact, a qualified psycho, per the actual definition and phenomena associated with that, his purpose was/is overtly or covertly destructive. (See CS Series 22).

    The actual EP of the Level is fully described in the LRH NOTs materials. Checking for that EP, as long as it is per the actual materials, and in accord with the use of the CS Series, the materials on attestation in OEC Vol 5, is nothing out of the ordinary.

    Each process, each Grade, each Level has an EP. Attainment of that is done by doing the actions that attain that. Once it has been attained, it is evident. That evidence is verified, and the cycle is done. Any lies on this, the cycle isn’t done. Doing the cycle, attaining the results, that is the point. Honesty is a key to any of this, and since the EPs are clearly stated for each and every action, then it is up to those attesting, and those administering the attests, to see that honest gains are gotten. Why else do any of this if the honest gains aren’t the point?

    Well, in DM’s case, literally, it’s an other purpose. It’s a continuous determination to destroy. Sick, messed up, sorry ass state of being that is.

      • Just another one last thing Jim, before stopping bothering you ; Do you know of any other LRH ref concerning the time it takes aprox. to finish SOLO-NOTs besides the “From Clear To Eternity” bulletin ?

        I mention this because I have seen people on it for several years (5-7 years or more) and I can’t avoid thinking there is some kind of out-Tech causing this. I know that PCs are different and each one achieve particular EPs in different times depending in many factors like their awareness level, but, that many years ?

        Any data regarding this ?

        • Class XII Karen de La Carriere stated she was on Solo NOTs for well over 1,500 hours. Some unconfirmed datum says Ray Mithoff had stated LRH was on it for over 1,000 hours. A magazine article from the Wise Old Goat web-article featured David Mayo in a speech stating it takes about 100 hrs. to complete Solo NOTs based on the released Tech at THAT time.

          Some folks are not getting proper audited NOTs and other case setups and often complete in around 250 hours. That topic alone can easily become subject to heated debates, since many were unnecessarily kept on the level at the CO$ for so long, and blew the scene.

          This is why I consider a thorough Solo NOTs EP check essential, as you have to be spickety-bee clean when you hit your eight, or not all the processes may bite and leave you without the full gains attainable on that level. Ronit would be the best person to ask, as she’s seen more comps. than you can shake a stick at.

          • Ihad a number of friends go through the Solo NOTs EP check and it sounded plenty engramic. I wouldn’t go to a person other than LRH to determine what the EP of Solo NOTs is.

          • The problem is they changed the procedure. First it was affecting some things that were on your own track. Not for long you had to handle these things that appeared on other people’s track. That’s all. The longer you are own it, that much costlier it would get.

  7. The Solo NOT’s EP Ck was completed By SNR C/S INT Ray Mithoff, and he came to Flag to train us on it. It was a confidential issue that we read that Ray compiled, and it was backed up by LRH Refs and there were quotes from HCOB’s backing up each step of the EP CK. RTC, unfortunately abused the “power” they were given and basically tortured some of the public, by over-running them, invalidating etc. But, on many cases it validated the SN Auditor that he was actually done and has no more case.
    It’s like RTC abused the Sec Ck Tech, ors that mean that the Sec Ck tech is not valid anymore? I had some Sec Ck that actually saved my life when was done by a caring auditor, and I had a horrible Sec Ck that was very abusive. Any auditing it’s for the PC, including the EP CK which is an action done to validate the Pre OT or the SN auditor, who audited at home of many hours, and see that he is done, no Q&A after the ep check, if he is done or not.

    • I would be interested in what those LRH references are.I have seen “LRH references” used to back up someones creation, such as GAT, I only go by actual LRH references that truly say this is for GAT or this is for Solo NOTs EP check.

      • Hi Ingrid.

        Just some more infos. Class XII Pierre Ethier had also done formalized EP CKs on the Solo NOTs line circa 1989/1992 at FLAG, in fact he was one of the very top hitters to get cases all set up for the OT VIII on the Freewinds. So this is not something new, although whatever Ray Mithoff had done up may be something later. I’ve messaged Ronit again to comment on your queries.

  8. At Flag, from the year 2000 to the year 2009, when I was there, the minimum requirement hours audited on SN were 500 hours.

    • Thanks for the inf , Ronit. A question :
      A SOLO-NOTs auditor giving himself/herself as many sessions a day he/she could handle (like with no work time restrictions) , how many hrs a week would he be able to acumulate aprox. ?

      • The recommended number of sessions are furnished in the NOTs series, around 4 – 6. A session can last from a minute to well over an hour. For some people the session time is more consistent than for others, but that can change through the rundown. A week of sessions may be short when you start out, then get longer as you are further into the rundown, or the other way around. A persistent F/N or FTA can sometimes go on for a day, a week, sometimes even longer. Some folks have completed Solo NOTs after a couple of years, others have gone on longer than seven.

        • Thanks for the inf, Formost. 6, 15mins- sessions a day
          equals 10.5 hrs a week, 42 hrs a month, 504 hrs in a full hear. Taking Ronit’ data about a minimum of 500hrs ,why then 2 or more years to complete ?
          Is there s/g I am missing here ?

          • Isn’t this big delay completing Solo-NOTs perhaps related to some out-Tech from the Solo-auditor or an underected out-ethics sit or PTS scene ?
            Something is just wrong about this timing scenario.

          • Hey Theta.

            It’s a 500-hour time minimum, but you continue on until the RD is complete. What this means is that they won’t allow anyone to attest for completion before 500 hours of Solo NOTs auditing has been done.

  9. Hi guys, sorry for my delay 🙂
    Ingrid, it was my typo, it suppose to be compiled, not completed.
    I understand what you said, I cannot recall the references.
    Many public completed SN after one year of solo, if they were auditing intensively 6 sessions a day. They can comp after a year.
    Over 1000 hours means something is wrong. Solo auditor needs correction or not set up properly.
    A solo nots session can be short as 5 minutes, or long as 20 minutes, or a bit longer, but not common. 5 – 10 minutes is about average.

  10. Usually a session take as long as it takes, sometime you do 6 sessions a day, sometimes you have persistent FN and you cannot go it at all that day, sometime you travel so you cannot audit…. you know, life is happening… sometimes you are out rude so you have to fly your rude, that would be a longer session, sometimes you get a cold, so you have to do a correction, so it’s longer session.

  11. What I am about to say is purely done in the interest of keeping in KSW and not to get into any fire fight. I have done some investigation into the Solo NOTs EP check, which included asking a very experienced CVlll who worked in the AOs in the 70;s and 80;s: there are no LRH references for doing it. As I have said, people can use LRH references to imply that what they have created is backed by LRH.ie: LRH states “drilling is good” and that is the “basis” for squirrely drills created on GAT??
    The other is putting any time factor on OT7 on how long it should take. I am very good friends with someone who is highly trained, who took over 2000 hours on OT7 and is doing extremely well in life-flourishing and prospering like crazy. The EP for NOTs is very well stated by Ron and of course there is other data in HCOBs on determining someone has reached an EP ie: the person gives the stated EP but, is only mild good indicators.

    • What I do know is if you want to do your OT VIII by someone properly trained such as Class XII Pierre Ethier, he will see to it Solo NOTs is complete per FLAG EP CKs as well as all other relevant setups. He has to technically ensure its been done before one can go on. That’s sort of the practical reality of the situation.

      • Formost, I’m sure Pierre is a great guy. And again what I am about to say is not an attack on him,but I have learned that LRH is the reference I use. I wouldn’t want anyone to say to “well Ingrid said that so that must be the correct tech”

        • Couldn’t tell you if he is a great guy, but he is a Class XII fully trained to set up cases for OT VIII.

          Ingrid, not my point. I’m not discussing references, and I’m sure what you have mentioned and what Ronit has stated and the data we have so far about getting on to OT VIII is probably pretty much what we have. Not refuting or trying to prove anyone otherwise. Right now Pierre is the only one FULLY qualified to set up cases for OT VIII (and Trey maybe too) and in either case you won’t get on the level until a complete Solo NOTs EP CK has been done. They have no choice in the matter, the case has to be technically set so it can be run, and she don’t run if Solo NOTs is incomplete irrespective what references exist, are being drawn upon, validated or verified. Pierre has reconstructed the OT VIII course, but he’s not given the materials out to us, so I cannot even state what LRH issued for prereqs. and quals. As Ronit pointed out earlier, the entire purpose is to validate the pre-OTs completion, and is an assistance tool in doing so.

          By all means, just attest them based on the LRH reference(s) you already have. All is good. However, when that pre-OT moves on he’ll deal with Pierre or Trey, and they’ll take it from there. Likewise, Ronit is an expert doing these Solo NOTs EP checks, and if there is anything wrong with them she would have mentioned something. After 9 years at FLAG you couldn’t help but notice, nor did Pierre or Trey ever state anything to the contrary about them. Personally myself, I’d want to know if & when I have honestly completed the level, and if these fine-feathered folks can shake anything loose that may require further S-NOTing, then it’s to my benefit as I’m able to derive all the gains available from that level, and attest to that fact and end cycle on it with certainty. But that’s just my take on it.

          • Thank you Formost and now I see we are at an impasse because we are operating on a different basis. References are what it is about for me when going over tech and what to do in the area.

    • Well stated Ingrid. In the interests of KSW. Which is the interest that is what all the interest is about. Scientology works. Keep it working by doing Scientology, as it is expressed in the written and spoken words of L. Ron Hubbard.

        • I concur.
          ‘No Verbal Data Allowed’
          ‘No Hidden Data Line Allowed.’ No matter who it is.

          That means one is obligated to give or show the exact issue.
          If it is not available for any reason then one should be prepared to
          admit that one is giving out verbal data, even if reluctantly. A
          Scientologist should not assert to others that information for which he has no reference is Scientology, even if in his reality it is. One
          might refer to it as a belief or an personal opinion or simply “verbal
          data.

          The only one who can give out “verbal data” is LRH. :- )

          • Amen to that, Espiritu !!!
            If only this point you mention , would have been kept in by all scientologists in the Church, perhaps none of the great debacle would have happened. The PT scene in the Church would be entirely different.

            So we in the Field MUST learn the hard lesson of NO verbal Tech, no hidden data lines. PERIOD.

  12. ABOUT SOLO NOTS EP CHECKS

    Since my name is repeatedly mentioned in this thread, I thought I would answer it. I count at least 6 different topics, so I will give the answer to one subject per message

    Someone accused me of accepting Verbal tech concerning the Solo NOTS EP checks, if in different words, and coming from a person that seems to know nothing about me and who has never worked with me technically, I find it frankly offensive considering the amount of fighting and battling I had to do, even at Flag AGAINST RTC themselves, in spite of the risk, to reject their continuous attempts to indoctrinate/implant me wit their brand of verbal Tech. My mentors were two LRH TRAINED CLASS XII C/Ses who did their original training and the original Class X (XII) course long before David Mayo or Karen de la C. went to the Apollo. These people trained me be to be extra perceptive and to reject any form of Verbal Tech or Arbitrary.

    In 1984, I was ordered to train of then SOLO NOTS EP checks. These issues were Highly confidential and only the SOLO NOTS C/Ses, Snr C/Ses involved and the auditors trained to do the check were allowed to see them.

    These issues were in the same format as other LRH issues/orders coming through the office of LRH personal secretary were. The cover page, which was few people bothered to read, bore LRH initials and was in the identical format and form as the original HCOBs that I ran off as Mimeo operator when I was working for the Flag Bureaux in 1976.

    Therefore I do not challenge their authenticity, because based on my independent experience, they matched 100% genuine LRH data issued at Flag since 1976.

    The SOLO NOTS EP check consist of the following
    PART A: a check to ensure the person is clean ethically and case wise. Seldom longer than 30 minutes, it has been perverted by RTC to now require several intensives.

    PART B: a Special form of Rehab of the Full EP of SOLO NOTs
    PART C: the actual attest at the examiner stating the SECRET EP of SOLO NOTS. ONLY the C/Ses were allowed to read it. I read it because I was asked to translate it in French, Spanish and Italian.
    I did perhaps over 400 SOLO NOTS EP checks including those most celebrities such as Amanda Ambrose, Karen Black, Priscilla Presley, Chick Corea, Gayle Moran, and many others.

    The assertion that 1000 hours on Solo NOTS is too many hours is a perfect example of being both an arbitrary and VERBAL TECH.
    Whatever happened to the data: It takes as long as it takes. There are no references except in the warped mind of RTC personnel and those they brainwashed that a pc running a level well, with wins, cognitions and expected phenomena is a BAD INDICATOR. Only an R/Ser could possibly dream up such a datum and contaminate, typically using duress and threats that false data to otherwise good auditors.

    Beside the 400 or so SOLO NOTS EP checks I did, I have audited at one point or another, over 80% of the first thousand people to have attested to SOLO NOTs, including Solo NOTs completion #1, the late Betty Filisky, so I know first hand from folder study or being at the forefront of SOLO NOTS delivery lines, the number of hours of at least 800 Solo NOTs completions.

    When a person felt they may be done, the very first thing the C/S would ask is an hours count. This was based on the fact that the only “SOLO NOTS C/S ONLY” HCOB (I was the only non C/S allowed to read it for translation reasons) stated how many hours LRH did on Solo. It was verbally interpreted in true RTC style that if LRH is the best auditor, then no one could possibly audit less hours than he did.

    Knowing better than this warped interpretation of tech data, I did not challenge verbally or in writing this datum, because doing so would have been the same as signing my death warrant as an auditor. However, I was not fooled by RTC cookie ideas. Read the C/S series and it will become abundantly clear that speed of auditing or length on a level is primarily a function of the case characteristics and very secondarily, the skills of the auditor.

    This is why the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM before a C/S would dare programming a case of the EP checks was 900 hours. To be noted that the first 50 SOLO NOTS completions were not allowed to attest until RTC had reviewed their folders at CMO INT and given final OK to declare.

    Before people start to complain, I can assure that this datum of 900 hours plus was needed in less than 5% of cases, as 95% of cases were happy to go beyond the 1000 hours mark.

    Every case I saw and audited on further setups that was adamant about being done with a lot less hours had significant outpoints (unresolved somatics, or aberrations, chronic history of dramatizing evil purposes or PTSness, or quickie lower grades)

    To summarize: out of the first 1000 Solo NOTS completions (I am Solo NOTS completion # 801 myself) 2% between 800 and 1000 hours 90% between 1000 and 2000 hours. 8% over 2000. The highest I know being a little over 4000 hours.

    Pierre Ethier

  13. Reblogged this on Flag Trained Class XII Auditor-The Sanctuary of Standard Scientology Technology. Pierre Ethier was honored as The Best Auditor on the Planet for over a decade. and commented:
    PIERRE ETHIER says:
    July 17, 2014 at 4:10 am
    ABOUT SOLO NOTS EP CHECKS
    Since my name is repeatedly mentioned in this thread, I thought I would answer it. I count at least 6 different topics, so I will give the answer to one subject per message
    Someone accused me of accepting Verbal tech concerning the Solo NOTS EP checks, if in different words, and coming from a person that seems to know nothing about me and who has never worked with me technically, I find it frankly offensive considering the amount of fighting and battling I had to do, even at Flag AGAINST RTC themselves, in spite of the risk, to reject their continuous attempts to indoctrinate/implant me wit their brand of verbal Tech. My mentors were two LRH TRAINED CLASS XII C/Ses who did their original training and the original Class X (XII) course long before David Mayo or Karen de la C. went to the Apollo. These people trained me be to be extra perceptive and to reject any form of Verbal Tech or Arbitrary.
    In 1984, I was ordered to train of then SOLO NOTS EP checks. These issues were Highly confidential and only the SOLO NOTS C/Ses, Snr C/Ses involved and the auditors trained to do the check were allowed to see them.
    These issues were in the same format as other LRH issues/orders coming through the office of LRH personal secretary were. The cover page, which was few people bothered to read, bore LRH initials and was in the identical format and form as the original HCOBs that I ran off as Mimeo operator when I was working for the Flag Bureaux in 1976.
    Therefore I do not challenge their authenticity, because based on my independent experience, they matched 100% genuine LRH data issued at Flag since 1976.
    The SOLO NOTS EP check consist of the following
    PART A: a check to ensure the person is clean ethically and case wise. Seldom longer than 30 minutes, it has been perverted by RTC to now require several intensives.
    PART B: a Special form of Rehab of the Full EP of SOLO NOTs
    PART C: the actual attest at the examiner stating the SECRET EP of SOLO NOTS. ONLY the C/Ses were allowed to read it. I read it because I was asked to translate it in French, Spanish and Italian.
    I did perhaps over 400 SOLO NOTS EP checks including those most celebrities such as Amanda Ambrose, Karen Black, Priscilla Presley, Chick Corea, Gayle Moran, and many others.
    The assertion that 1000 hours on Solo NOTS is too many hours is a perfect example of being both an arbitrary and VERBAL TECH.
    Whatever happened to the data: It takes as long as it takes. There are no references except in the warped mind of RTC personnel and those they brainwashed that a pc running a level well, with wins, cognitions and expected phenomena is a BAD INDICATOR. Only an R/Ser could possibly dream up such a datum and contaminate, typically using duress and threats that false data to otherwise good auditors.
    Beside the 400 or so SOLO NOTS EP checks I did, I have audited at one point or another, over 80% of the first thousand people to have attested to SOLO NOTs, including Solo NOTs completion #1, the late Betty Filisky, so I know first hand from folder study or being at the forefront of SOLO NOTS delivery lines, the number of hours of at least 800 Solo NOTs completions.
    When a person felt they may be done, the very first thing the C/S would ask is an hours count. This was based on the fact that the only “SOLO NOTS C/S ONLY” HCOB (I was the only non C/S allowed to read it for translation reasons) stated how many hours LRH did on Solo. It was verbally interpreted in true RTC style that if LRH is the best auditor, then no one could possibly audit less hours than he did.
    Knowing better than this warped interpretation of tech data, I did not challenge verbally or in writing this datum, because doing so would have been the same as signing my death warrant as an auditor. However, I was not fooled by RTC cookie ideas. Read the C/S series and it will become abundantly clear that speed of auditing or length on a level is primarily a function of the case characteristics and very secondarily, the skills of the auditor.
    This is why the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM before a C/S would dare programming a case of the EP checks was 900 hours. To be noted that the first 50 SOLO NOTS completions were not allowed to attest until RTC had reviewed their folders at CMO INT and given final OK to declare.
    Before people start to complain, I can assure that this datum of 900 hours plus was needed in less than 5% of cases, as 95% of cases were happy to go beyond the 1000 hours mark.
    Every case I saw and audited on further setups that was adamant about being done with a lot less hours had significant outpoints (unresolved somatics, or aberrations, chronic history of dramatizing evil purposes or PTSness, or quickie lower grades)
    To summarize: out of the first 1000 Solo NOTS completions (I am Solo NOTS completion # 801 myself) 2% between 800 and 1000 hours 90% between 1000 and 2000 hours. 8% over 2000. The highest I know being a little over 4000 hours.
    Pierre Ethier

    • Greetings Ethier ! So nice of you to stop by at MS2. I am a great admirer of yours. You should do it more often.

      Of those 90% you cases you mention, that finished Solo-NOTs between 1,000-2,000 hrs, what was their average total time on the level in terms of years and months ?

      ARC
      Peter

  14. Excellent question thetaclear!

    Based on all data I know, the shortest time I have heard of someone on the level (1981-1992) (1981 is the launch of Solo NOTs, 1992 is the year I left Flag) is a little bit over a year. The SOLO NOTs D of Ps (Kathy Roberts, Alycia Danilovich and Grace Lowrance were spending the bulk of their time debugging pre-OTs so they could do the most hours possible in a week. Kathy Roberts created the “25 Hours Club” (of which I am incidentally a member – I managed to do over 50 hours on public and 25 hours solo that week – my highest ever week at over 75 hours in the chair). There were about 100 members of that club. They also had a weekly newsletter giving the names and hours of the top 10 or 20 auditors. The Highest Producer (while he was on Solo NOTs) was always Steve Edison of Edmonton: always doing 50-60 hours a week (In spite of those high hours he was on the level for nearly 3 years.

    Rough estimate for the first 1000 Solo NOTS completions:
    Under 1 year: 0.002%
    1-2 years: 5%
    2-3 years 25%
    3-5 years: 50%,
    5-7 years: 15%
    7-10 years: 5%
    as of 1990, when I moved into the Class XII HGC and stopped doing Solo NOTs EP checks except in Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, and therefore had less data on SOLO NOS statistics.

    Of people still not attested to Solo NOTs in 1992 about 500 had been on the level for 4 years or more and 75 over 7 years. Another 500 were either blown, declared or deceased. Solo NOTS was launched in late 1981, so the longest someone had been on the level was about 7 1/2 years at that time.

    The common denominator among those who had been on the level for over 4 years was little auditing.

    In the Freezone there are vocal complaints about people being n Solo NOTS for 10 or even 20 years. Upon checking, I found in each and every case: 1- they were floundering about on Solo NOTs mainly without C/S or guidance, self C/Sing and ignoring all forms of BIs without addressing them properly and therefore grinding away over unaddressed BPC 2- Once bias, rumours and hypes were cast aside, I found that the majority of those decade long auditors had audited a total of between 200 and 500 hours top.

    Pierre Ethier

    • Thanks Pierre , for enlightening us on this Solo-NOTs subject that seems un-clear enough for so many people and seemingly filled with many arbitraries. I like the mathematical methodology with which you analyse this issue. Nothing like an impartial, practical, scientific , and emotionally unattached view of a subject to be able to sort out the facts from the opinions , the basic laws from the arbitraries. Real statistics based on doingness and experience. I’ll go with that.

      Now, there is a big concern that I have about the Field having the correct on-Source NOTs and Solo-NOTs materials. As you can see , if you read all posts on this thread , there is the apparency that such a certainty is not completely agreed upon by everybody. For me , as an individual, it is not.

      I know that several ex-FSO terminals have gotten together to analyse the correctness of the NOTs materials that got into public circulation in the so mentioned court case and that such terminals have apparently established
      the veracity of them and probably added to it, by consent, any missing parts. But in seeking to avoid any “hidden data line” such as the many ocurring in the Church , I think we ought to know who exactly were the terminals involved in such an operation and what are their training levels and curriculums. A plain “we did it and they are ok” should NOT be acceptable. Sorry if this offends a few, it is not my intention. I only want that EVERYBODY in the Field. And I mean EVERYBODY , in bold and capitalized, feel 100% sure w/out any possible doubt whatsoever that we DO , indeed , have those materials completely On-Source and ALL of it.

      I know that you Pierre , have had many concerns yourself about keeping the Tech pure and unadultered by unscrupulous people in the Field. That publics MUST be protected from squirrel versions of RDs and procedures that abound in the Field. That’s expected from a class XII and a very ethical position. That being said , there are excellent people in the Field too, eager to continue their Bridge in the path of Standard Tech. I am concern about those. And highly trained terminals like yourself, with your knowledge, experince and devotion are really in demand to help us stay in the right path of Standard Tech. So this is and invitation to you from the bottom of my heart. Probably you are doing already a lot and I don’t even know it and if so, excuse my unfamiliarity with it . I am sort of new in the Field.

      I hope to keep having the privilege of your experince and expertise , and so do many others. Take care.

      ARC
      PETER

  15. Peter, you are asking for something that cannot be provided on an open forum as this would undoubtedly lead to attacks from the Church.No one is obligated to provide you with such information, at least publicly. There is absolutely no need for you to know this especially as you are new to the field and your credentials in the field are not yet known. For all anyone knows you are an agent of the Church? Probably not but from the insistent tone of your text one can deduce that either you are very naive or very clever.

    • Falsedatastripper, I am both apparently, very naive and VERY clever too, you can bet. Naive in trusting in the good will of others, in thinking that “everybody” is as concerned as I am that the road to freedom is available to EVERYONE with pure un-adultered LRH here in the Field , specially the upper levels. And clever enough to no fall into your game.

      I know EVERY blog and site ,Pro and anti-LRH and SCN. I know every poster of EACH blog and site. I made it my bussiness to know so. I like to be clear about who I am playing with and which side anybody is at. An old habit of mine , you can say. And I have never, ever, stumbled across the avatar “falsedatastripper” before. So to return the flow properly : who the hell are YOU ?

      “There is absolutely no need for you to know this specially as you are new to the field and your credentials in the Field are not yet known”

      And exactly who the hell made you the boss , buddy ?

      “no need to know” my ass . Seems you have been hanging out with DM too much !!! Don’t you tell me what I need or need not to know buddy, I’ll be the judge of that. I am nobody’s slave.

      You completely misinterpreted me and I am not in the mood to explain myself to you either. I can be reached at thetaclear68@yahoo.com
      for any credentials anybody wants. Just make VERY SURE, you got yours at hand too. I’ll explain better at my post to Either and ONLY to him. Expect it some time during the night Ethier. Out of respect for you, I want to take my time to properly answer you.

      TC

  16. In a perfect world, I would be more than happy to provide the full names, addresses, phone numbers and credentials of all people who have had a valid input in providing materials etc.

    Alas, we do not live in such a world.

    For years, the most unethical elements in the Freezone, tried to pump me to find out my list of pcs so that they could funnel the information to OSA for harassment and persecution purposes.
    The only time, I did such a mistake was in confiding to a psycho named Aida Thomas who is a proverbial wolf in sheep clothing, she promptly wrote a 36 pages Knowledge reports and sent copies to the entire International Freezone Association mailing list, everybody she knew, all my pcs she knew of and even my wife non Scientologist boss in an attempt to get her fired, She even sent copies of the KR to Senior Church Management and to OSA. The report was full of calumnies and shared with over 200 people. (Yet many people in the Freezone originally sided with her – the proverbial non-confront of evil, until she starting shooting herself in the foot attacking just about anyone who disagreed with her)
    Among those that received her KR were people who were working as LRH direct juniors for years or some of the original Class XIIs. One commented to me was that she must be “mentally ill” for writing and spreading such a report. Another stated that in 10 years of working as LRH research auditor and auditing or C/Sing just about every psycho that came on St-Hill lines in the 1960s or the Apollo in the early 1970s, “this was worse piece of garbage (referring to the writer) that he had ever seen”.

    Last year the pc of a Fake Class XII (someone who falsely claims he was ever a Class XII but had already at Flag a repute as a squirelly auditor and never went beyond Class VI – I Know for I fixed a number of his botched sessions way back when we both were in good grace with Flag) and a Charlatan auditor in the Freezone who views himself above correction, served me with papers for a Vexatious lawsuit that USED A LAWYER KNOWN TO WORK FOR OSA… The letter of demand from the lawyer beside seeking to extort money, sought for me to falsely admit I had stolen Confidential materials and falsely admit that I am practicing Medicine without a license… In other words tacit cooperation with OSA within the Independent Field. I have gotten rid of that lawsuit since.

    Yet that pc and their spouse are being currently audited in the Freezone by APIS endorsed/certified/befriended auditors who dismiss any claims there is something wrong with those people. (they pay their auditors very well and viciously attack anyone seeking to expose their auditors – who never pull their witholds) So the pernicious presence of OSA can reach deep, especially when auditors have committed so many O/Ws (and refused to take responsibility for them) that they have become blinder than a bat.

    If someone does not know who to trust as a tech terminal, my suggestion is that they get sufficient O/Ws off so that they may raise their perceptions to the point they can actually perceive whom they can trust. (Be careful to clearly be able to distinguish between actual perceptions and Dub-In (or Dub-in of Dub-In like a certain group of dingbats in Switzerland who claim to be in continuous telepathic communication with LRH for instructions).

    In the meantime, I must decline to reveal any names, for the sake of the freedom for all to deliver auditing outside the perverted reach of the Church, as until the day David Miscavige and his minions get each and every of their Rock Slams handled, Evil will never sleep within the Church of Scientology.

    Pierre Ethier

    • * Peter your comment has been edited slightly as its tone was somewhat emotional, and came across, to that degree, as rude. I would prefer that the discussion is moved to email lines as what you are requesting is never going to be posted on a public blog. We are thankful for Pierre’s contribution and information provided to date. Sincerely Blog Moderator.

      I will clarify this matter before anything else. Then I’ll take each of your relevant points in turn. One of the items that sent the Church down the chute (besides the obvious out-Tech) was the “hidden data line”. COB would get on the podium ,at an international event , and would say to the audience that he “found” a “lost” HCOB or a “note” or “dispatch” from LRH where LRH “changed” or “modified” the way a particular technical aspect is carried out. He NEVER, EVER, provided to the general public with the so alleged “LRH issues”. Not at ANY event . I’ve seen them ALL. And because of those mysterious issues , we have :

      1. The change from the Objectives RD to the SRD and the blanket C/S instructions of EVERYBODY re-doing their Objectives regardless of any valid EPs the PCs had in each process. W/out no objective table done in most cases , and I can attest to that. And all because some mysterious “LRH refs” they found on objectives.

      2. The blanket C/S instructions for EVERYBODY to re-do their Purif RD because of some “lost issues” that they found now about the minimum niacin levels requiered to be considered completed.

      3. The instructions and orders for EVERYBODY to start their training from scratch, from the SH up , because of some “lost” LRH issues found that render all your previous training invalid even if you were personally trained by LRH himself !!! and regardless of your good auditing record.”we were doing everything wrong” according to COB ( Chairman of the bullshit)

      And many more things. All due to hidden data lines that thousands of scientologists didn’t dare to challenge. They NEVER asked for the LRH refs to be shown. They just blindly believed what the “Authority” told them.

      And you are to tell me that we are to do the same damn thing here in the Field ? That people like me, recently coming out of the Church, are to just believe and feel secure with any assertion from anybody we don’t even know who that is , regarding the standardness and correctness of the NOTs materials and other upper and confidential materials in the Field ?

      Is it that even sensible ? To blindly believe just because anybody says so ?
      I wouldn’t call that self-determinism.

      That being explained and all doubts cleared as to where I do stand in this matter, I only wanted to know from you, if you personally had revised such materials and had determined their validity or lack of, so that others in the Field, could feel secure enough about being delivered pure LRH. And I also wanted to know, for the benefit of others, what terminals (no real names attached) had verified the materials , how did they did it , what they found missing if anything , and how they went about it completing it if that was the case. Where did the materials came from ? From a valid Source ? In red on white form ?

      Am I being too much demanding here ?

      As to your comment regarding getting our O/Ws off to enhance our perceptions enough to know what terminals to trust ; I disagree and that would be a circular logic. You need your O/Ws off in order to be perceptic enough, yet, you need to go to the same Field terminals in order to get them off. What about the KRC and training level of the person trying to get serviced ? There are a lot of people not trained enough to be able to immediately spot an outpoint. They are not at fault for that necessarily. People trust others to know what they are doing when one is not hatted enough on a subject. Sure one can get trained and all that. That’s the best defense, agreed. But while you are doing it and taking responsability for your KRC level, you might need upper level services and you may be insufficiently trained yet to be able to immediately realize something is not right. To expect that everybody be a “natural L-10 completion” , free of some destructive tendency and clean enough to be a competent observer al all times w/out enough general Bridge processing (not only grade II stuff) , is an outpoint of “altered sequence” in itself.

      So the reponsible way to go, from my viewpoint, is to take responsability for the K one has so as to be able control a scene enough to to put some order into it.

      Hopes this clarifies

      ARC
      PETER

  17. SHORTER ANSWER: I do know the correctedness and non-correctedness concerning the NOTs/SOLO NOTs materials.

    Those who view me as a friend already believe what I say without my having to provide further proof.

    Those who view me as their enemy, will never believe what I say, no matter how much proof I provide.

    Squirrels and unethical people in the Freezone routinely use the “hidden data line” argument to try to goad people of good will into giving them materials they will then use to spin people in or to deny their existence in order to falsely parade as an Authorities while being a complete ignoramus.

    Pierre Ethier

    • Ok, Ethier. I believe that you DO KNOW the correctness and incorrectness of NOTs. I’ve read your blog and website from top to bottom and I trust your expertise and you experience. I also trust you as an individual. Now, have you used that knowledge to determine the validity and completeness or lack of, of the NOTs packs circling around in the Field ? And if not, what are your objections against it ?

      I know there are a lot of unscrupulous squirrels around but sure you can find several honest KSW type of terminals here in the Field too. Why can’t they have the benefit of your expertise , experience and knowledge too ?

      And excuse my ignorance if you already have moved in that direction and I am unfamiliar with it , being new in the Field.

      You don’t have to explain anything to me but if you do, no harm will be done either but a lot a good as I’ll feel much more relaxed about my Bridge. Take care.

      ARC
      PETER

      • Oh, and I don’t mean given away copyrighted materials nor anything like that. I only meant review , verification and qualification, that’s all. Just wanted to clarify that.

  18. 2- ANSWER TO TOPIC #2: NOTs AUTHORSHIP and the authorship of any tech for that matter.

    I often read “ONLY LRH TECH IS VALID TECH”.

    While the above datum has arguable workability, the corollary of that argument is “EVERYTHING LRH EVER WROTE IS GOSPEL AND INFALLIBLE”. It tends to place LRH in the same class as Deity and transmogrify the philosophy of Scientology into a cult.

    I am sorry, but at the risk of alienating fanatical followers, no one will ever convince me that the writing of the FAIR GAME LAW, was a masterpiece of philosophical writing or that the admonition to do reverse processing on traitors when they show up asking to do amends is an ethical practice.

    Somehow some people have equated Scientology (a philosophy meant to transcend Man and reconcile all knowledge and being a path to spiritual Freedom) and L. Ron Hubbard (a Man). I can assure you that both are not the same.

    HCOBs and other tech publications fall in roughly three categories:
    1- Philosophical writings and technical procedures
    2- Explanation on the application of procedures or ways to apply the tech
    3- Compilations such as Confessional/FPRD lists, Grade Processes or lists of questions.

    1- Having audited over 15,000 of NOTs, NOTs and Solo NOTs Reviews, by experience alone, I can easily tell what makes sense and doesn’t in the way of upper Level tech. With my training which includes passing 28 Flag Internships and doing every single auditor course available, I can tell at a glance, “tech” that violates basics, or other tech data, regardless of the name printed on the signatory.

    I haven’t seen a single authentic NOTs/Solo NOTs HCOB published before 1996 (GAT) (meaning not a FREEZONE forgery like those that “Elroners” provide on some of their courses) that contradicted the tenets of standard tech, logical agreement with Upper Levels Tech or agreement with the vast array of technology that makes up Scientology. Even David Mayo, who once claimed co-authorship of NOTs, never claimed to have conceived the ideas at the root of NOTs nor its fundamental procedures. In fact, I attended several briefings at Flag, mainly given to Tech and NOTs auditors only where he described being in awe about LRH coming up with a number of NOTs concepts. David Mayo contribution to NOTs was therefore under “2” and “3” above. For a Snr C/S the worst sin is to “invent tech”. Therefore someone like David Mayo would have a metal block on “inventing tech”, but not on finding clever ways to apply it, whcih made his genius and made him a wizard at cracking the most difficult of cases.

    2- Explanation on application a and methods of applying the tech. In KSW, LRH mention, how valuable those contributions are. Only people suffering to a measure of Robotism will insist that any application of the tech not 100% developed by LRH is to be thrown in the trash. Such people are PTS (the true cause of Robotism) and instead of applying the Verbal data checklist toward tech data (or simply quickie its step in order to align with the preconceived idea). Such people dream up complex conspiracies (i.e. the work of SPs – logical, because they are PTS themselves) and use unusual and Non-scientology tech concept to attept to De-PTS themselves.

    Funnily enough, the “Big Cheese” of one such group in the Freezone has given himself the “whole track pseudonym” of Paramejian (the Sicilian way of pronouncing Parmesan)

    3- While LRH would approve most compilations (Grade Checklists, correction list and other assessments, The LRH compilation unit is well know to have gone through great pains to ensure that only things that were strictly in LRH writings or directly in the tech were ever written down in their compilations, with every single item tabbed and documented to prove its provenance. LRH even urge tech to add to most of those lists, like Sec checks, or canned lists of terminals, body parts or items.

    Nothing will ever supplant intelligence and UNDERSTANDING in order to apply tech correctly and decide was is in-tech and out-tech.
    Only an asinine (or Rockslamming) mind would ensure that auditors have no judgment nor understanding while auditing but only learn a strict patter that trains them to become a perfect automaton when they audit. This is what we see in the Church today.

    Pierre Ethier

    • You know, ( and this is not meant for Ethier necessarily but to whoever this applies to) I reviewed my 2nd post to Ethier (the one just before Falsedatastripper intervention ) and I just couldn’t find anything in it that made it necessary for me to explain my intentions any further. They were clear enough , I realized. What got me to wonder, where is the origin of this apparent ridge with this NOTs subject ? Why are so many touchy with this ? I can’t just put my finger on it.

      Is this about copyrights ?
      About fear of lawsuits ?
      About hidden agendas ?
      About money ?
      About fear of attacks ?

      Just what the hell is the f/n BD item on the list ?

      This is the one subject I’ve never been satisfied with regarding answers and, apparently, I might have to wait a VERY long time before any logical, sane and factual answer comes my way. A very sorry state of affairs to be in, indeed.

      Well , I guess that my NOTs and Solo-NOTs will have to wait. Cause no way I’ll get onto them under this scenerio.

      • Dear blog moderator, whoever you may be. My comments to Ethier were in no way disrespetcful. The beginning paragraph that you so disrespectfully eliminated, only was a clarification that I meant in no way shape or form, that no names were posted in any way. That I only meant to know how exactly we made sure that we have the right materials completely On-Source and verified so that scientologists recently coming out from the Church like me, eager to continue our Bridge , could feel secure enough about it. So that I can contribute to send people in too.

        My last comment that you eliminated too, was generally directed at whoever it applied to, about the relation of PTSness to being too worry about OSA. A similar comment was written by Chris Black just a few days ago when he sensed that a few posters were very concerned with that. Like him, I meant for others to check that possibility, in the desire that people be more causative about the Church methods of handling. I never saw no moderator eliminate or edit Chris Black comments. In fact, I have seen many comments at this blog that DO actually have comments with high grades of rudeness and no moderator has never edit them nor have eliminated them. This is the first time that I’ve seen this happen.

        I never questioned the Integrity of Ethier. In fact, all I’ve done is validate him and show how much I admire and respect his expertise to such an extend so as to feel secure if Ethier had helped in validating the materials in question.

        What you have done here, eliminating and arbitrarily editing my comments is very reprehensible to say the least and a complete violation of my rights and an invalidation of my contributions to this blog and my constant validation to the great work of MS2.

        If you don’t retract of your actions immediately, you can count me as an enemy on your personal list and this incident will run all over the net as your operational basis. You can count on it. You had my e-mail. Why didn’t you sent me an e-mail if you wanted to discuss anything ?

        What happened with freedom of speech ?

        Your choice buddy ?
        I’ll be waiting.

        Peter

        • WoW : “If you don’t retract of your actions immediately, you can count me as an enemy on your personal list and this incident will run all over the net as your operational basis. ”

          Thetaclear , why are you here ? Why do you need to threaten good people?

          ** edited by Blog Moderator as evaluation about case state is not going to improve this thread, which has already devolved unfortunately, into unnecessary HE&R.

        • Peter — the diatribe, threats and demands are not helping any. Go and get your ruds flown and knock off throwing HE&R around on the blog.

          My mission and job here, as moderator, is to keep to the moderation policies as already published. Good manners, ARC and understanding are the premise of this blog and your recent comments, well intentioned or otherwise, are not fitting, and more than just rude.

          Threatening that you will become an enemy if your comments are not passed on, are not going to wash here. Sorry, but this group is not beholden to any individual who will not abide by the basic manners and moderation policies of the group.

          You are a good person — and possibly the language and CAPITAL LETTERS you are using are not helping.

          Go and get your ruds flown.

    • Pierre,
      I’m sure you will agree that when it comes to the application of the Technologies, there is a stable datum that I as a Cramming Officer (fully trained, interned at Flag in the same time period that you were trained), adhere to in ANY handling of an auditor, a CS, or any other person when it comes to what materials apply:

      AUDITOR INVAL
      An auditor can be invalidated by a CIS by having a lot of questionable tech points thrown at him.

      The auditor’s data gets shaky.

      If no decision was ever made-is not in HCOBs and tapes-is not to hand and can’t be referred to by HCOB and tape, then a CIS should not be making the point.

      Example: Auditor extends a list three more items beyond an FIN. CIS chops him. There is no such rule. The pc maybe wouldn’t accept the item until he listed a few more. Result is a firefight between CIS and auditor, simply because it isn’t a valid point.

      HCOBs and tapes are the stable data that form the agreement between the auditor and the CIS. “If it isn’t written (or spoken on tape), it isn’t true.”

      Don’t wander off known tech points in CISing.

      Never shake an auditor’s data by advancing data not on HCOBs and tapes.

      Always know your data, your HCOBs and tapes and refer the auditor to them
      in Cramming.

      Cramming MUST have a library of all materials.

      A hidden data line can build up in CIS-auditor lines (or course lines or cramming lines) that CAN UNSTABILIZE ALL TECH AND DENY FURTHER RESULTS.

      The decay of tech in areas begins with hidden data lines that ARE NOT TRUE.

      So use and refer to HCOBs and tapes and leave all other points alone. Your auditors will become confident and certain and tech will improve.

      It’s enough just to insist on the usual.

      Then auditors and cases will fly.

      L. RON HUBBARD, CS Series 43, CS Rules, HCOB 9 June 71, Issue III.

  19. There seems to be a lot of HE&R (and I see cut-out rudeness) about a very straightforward proposition as I mentioned in my first post here. There was absolutely nothing personal intended but you (Thetaclear) seem to have taken it that way. I have no intention of opening a comm line with you or divulging my identity for obvious reasons which you still don’t seem to have grasped as to the reason for and primarily I don’t want to get into long rambling open-forum explanations and discussions of what is – not only to me but most on this board reading it – a very easy datum to grasp. In fact from your attitude and (still) non-realization (or not-ising) of the reason therefore, makes me wonder who indeed you are?

    The fact that you tried to trace me on the net is rather weird as well. Why? What good would it do you? What purpose do you have in doing so apart from attacking me in some way? And from my statement above I think most people on this board will see that I am not an enemy of the Independent Field, but which raises the question then of why you should be concerned to find out my identity? As I am very obviously not an enemy of the Independent Field.

    There is no “ridge” on this subject of NOTs at all. If you have read Pierre’s blog there is the true data on the genus and use of the Solo NOTs materials – from the horse’s mouth so to speak as he is the most expert person on this in the field (and probably even still in the Church) from his history.

    I am not the “boss” of anything. Far from it. But then who are you then to demand that people give you answers as if you were the King of The Pile. Seems a bit like the kettle calling the pot black here. Go and find them out, it’s actually quite easy, or wait for the answers here. No one is beholden to answer you anyway just because you are overly insistent and act like a child demanding sweets (I really don’t mean to be or am trying (well, not too hard admittedly – ha!) not to be offensive at all but that is what your behavior relays).

    You also seem to think that you have some sort of divine right (as you are now apparently a member of the Independent Field) that you can and should receive NOTs from an Independent auditor and you are demanding that others answer your questions. They have no obligation to do so and no obligation to provide you with services. Now this is what I fail to see here: there are many delivery centers worldwide offering this I believe and yet despite your apparent knowledge of the Internet you cannot seem to connect with them to get this auditing but insist on having all of this discussed on an open forum. If you would simply let Pierre have his say without veering off into HE&R and accusations and insistent demanding questioning which, as he says he has several posts on the topic to come, then you will get the true data, and so you can then make your decision, and go and get your auditing, from Pierre or Ronit or whoever. Not too hard is it?

    Peter, I would just like to say I don’t mean anything personal here and I will not be posting anymore on this as there has already been too much deflection of the actual topic here.

    • All I will say to you is that I have been misduplicated here,Falsedatastripper. Very misduplicated. I wasn’t demanding anything. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this. I only wanted to know if the materials in question had been verified as on-Source and having a comm cycle with Pierre, not with you Falsedatastripper or with anyone else. I specifically directed my comments to him as I trust his judgement and experience. You and the moderator just arbitrarily stepped in. Pierre is a grown man, an adult with his TRs better than any of us. He needed no defending as there was nothing to be defended against. He would have easily handled me if would have wanted it. He would have answered my doubts and Qs or simply R-factored me he could’t or wouldn’t or directed me to his e-mail for more details. My comm was with him ,for Christ sake.

      This intervention of yours and Lana should have never have happened and it was never needed. I wanted to comm to Pierre and he is causative enough, smart enough and intelligent enough to stop me if he felt I was in any wrong course of action. Why interfere and cut my comm and censor me ?

      By the way. I never went to “find” you on any site. Another misduplication of yours. I merely said I had not seen you avatar at any blog and site I use to visit which is true , by the way. So how is that you came accusing me of working for the Church but have a problem when I strike back at you ?
      Does that seems fair to you ?

      I will stop this subject just as you suggested in the spirit of keeping the peace. But this is not to be interpreted that I agree with your actions nor the actions of the moderator of this blog. I strongly disagree. But I’ll just drop this. I am just too upset with this and I feel at a big loss right now.

  20. FDSer,
    This Opening Piece, and the one previous to it “NOTs Off The Tracks”, on this blog, were written with the delicacy of the materials in mind. In other words, I had no intention of making this a discussion of the materials per se (they are Upper Level Data, and hence somewhat esoteric and meant for those who have honestly achieved the Grades preceding them.)

    You have correctly, in my view, corralled the ensuing comments back to that limitation. This is appreciated, and is very helpful.

  21. thetaclear/Peter,
    I’m afraid that after reading your many comments here, that whatever message you may be attempting to get across, be it one or several, is tending to get lost in the over the top histrionics, or “HE&R” that is peppered through your commentary.

    You, YOU, personally may be confused about the materials, their provenance, the completeness of the packs, the qualifications of various people to deliver the full results of LRH’s NOTs in the “field” and other problems you seem to have with the topic.

    Others here, and viewing this site, and applying this body of Tech, with full and complete training in the ACTUAL LRH Tech of NOTs and Solo NOTs, don’t have those troubles, mate.

    As well, those commenters posting here that are qualified in the area, are keeping within the confines of a reasonable discussion without going off the obvious milieu of a public forum, when considering the topic and responses.

    You on the other hand, have gone off topic, and mentioned specific technical queries/confusions that are properly dealt with sitting across from a trained Cramming Officer, WITH the exact materials, and using the tools of cramming to find out what it is you don’t get.

    Then there’s the threats of “I’m not going to comment here as you guys are poo and…” well, you get the idea.

    On another MS2 article’s thread, Chris Black posted an excerpt from The Magic of Good Management. It is apropos to your recent commentary. Management of this here blog, has noted that and has given you suggestions to deal with it, standardly, in YOUR area so to speak.

    You will be unwelcome should you continue. If that means you take your ball and go home, so be it. We have all sorts of balls, mate, and can certainly use them to deal with life. QED.

    • Talking about the subject of Justification Jim. I don’t even know if there is a point in discussing this any furher. I’ve been grossly misinterpreted here and actually it feels like being in the Church right now. All the enthusiasm I was feeling and my high hopes for my contribution to the Field just faded away with this incident. I am reading all this responses from you, Lana and Falsedatastripper and I can’t just believe it and am still at shock at how this situation was “handled” by you guys.

      You and others old-timers, who have been out in the Field may take some things for granted that new people to the Field (not to SCN) can not take. Pierre himself have talked time and time again about this perversion of the NOTs tech and other upper level stuff at the field by guys at the Free Zone. He has talked about some portions of NOTs materials being incomplete, like some specific HCOBs later issued which are very important to establish the completion of a Solo-NOTs case and some repair actions. He, in a article from his blog that I recently read, mentioned s/g about what materials circling around the Field where ok, complete or incomplete. And because I had come to trust him, I was concerned about the subject and only wanted to establish if the materials that we got had been verified and know the details of how exactly it happened. And if Ethier had helped with that as , if he did, I would have felt more at ease with the subject due to his immense experience on the subject at Flag, more than anybody could have possibly accumulated.

      I have persons who I deeply love that I would love to see them on the the road to OT. Persons that I would die for. And I wanted to make sure that I send them to the Field for upper levels services that they were in good hands and that were going to find complete LRH materials totally verified as On-Source.

      That is my right. It is my right to know. Nobody has a monopoly on the Tech. It is for all to have ,for all honest people who really want to help others and themselves.

      Except for my end comment to the moderator ( the threat itself , for which I do apologize) there was nothing whatsoever disrespectful or out of line in my posts to Ethier. Nothing at all. I’ve seen many poster’s comments in the past who were , indeed , very rude comments and all that and the moderator merely adviced the poster against it in a very professional way. I have myself gotten very rude at some posters in the past and my comments where not in any way messed with. In each case where that happened, I publicly apologized with the terminal in question and made sure that I had properly handled whatever BPC I might have created. This was not the case tough , as I did not made any invlidative comments in my thread with Ethier. I feel and, let’s not fool ourselves here, that if the terminal in question would have been anybody else but Ethier, the story would have been very different indeed. None of this would have happened.

      This practice of elimitating or arbitrarily editing the comments of a poster based solely on somebody fixed ideas as to what is appropiate or not ,is not only very bad form, it is suppressive in itself. It is an index of very poor leadership indeed. And I never expected this from MS2. Never would that have crossed my mind. This action is so Mike Rinder’s blog like. In fact, I recently posted under another avatar at his blog , strongly criticizing him for one of his tactics that I found had crossed the line too much. My comments ,awaiting moderation then, got rapidly posted. I did not got censured by him then. And I come to this blog that I have grown to like so much and I get this ?

      For you Falsedatastripper, as I said to you before, I am not wasting my time explaining myself to you. You jumped all over me accusing me of working for the Church and telling me that it “wasn’t absolutely necessary for me to know…”. I don’t know who you are and, honestly ,.I don’t care either. Seems you are in some way related to MS2 as one of its personnel or s/g like that. Should you have taken the time to really read my post completely and understood it, you would have realized what I really meant which, in no way, was meant to reveal nobody’s identity and meant no hidden agendas from me. I only wanted no hidden data lines about NOTs to which I am very much entittled , as my route to freedom is not arbitrarily in nobody’s hands. I have every right to know what is LRH and what is not or has not been fully established yet or might be incomplete.

      I don’t know what would be my future in the Field . Not even sure now that I want some here. All I have now is sadness and confussion and anger. Don’t know how I would feel later on or if this sit that happened have a responsible solution or not. All I know now is that I no longer feels in a safe environment where I feel that I can freely express my ideas
      w/out having to be very careful about each word I write or bout what parts I capitalize or not.

      By the way, for of you who doubted of my good intentions and as a demostration of of my courage level and the type of individual I am, here is my full inf for anybody to have including the Church . And I am the only one risking it here.

      I Peter Davis Torres Rios. I live at the island of Puerto Rico. I was a staff for several years at the only Mission there which became an Org in the 90s. I’ve been out of lines for more than 12 years but I have kept reading about the Tech for years, non-stop, every day of the week. So I know one thing or two about the Tech. My E-mail is thetaclear68@yahoo.com
      Now you can check my credentials all you want.

      It is been a pleasure to post here ,by the way, till last night. Now, I just don’t know. I would feel violating my personal integrity if I did continue posting and ,personal integrity , is one of the few assets I have left these days.

      Peter Torres Rios

      • Well then…

        Uhhhhhhhhh…

        Nah. Not interested. No thanks, I’ll just have plain vanilla. Don’t think I like this Crotchedy Road stuff. Plain vanilla please.

  22. I am very pleased to have been of assistance Jim. I think this site is a breath of fresh air on the somewhat fouled internet as regards Scientology and what we must all remember is that (true) Scientology is the game where everyone wins, so good things should be supported – and defended. I hope Peter can get his questions answered as well and I am sure they will be in short order (no pun on Miscavige there – ha!)

  23. Greetings everybody.

    This post is for every person who comm in this blog. I recently posted some comments that were very rude and disrespectful to some terminals. In my ignorance of the way things are handled in the Field, some of it to protect itself from the long-reaching arm of the Church, I insisted on some subject that should have been taken up privately by myself with the correct terminals. Even if my concerns were correctly founded or not , and I think they were, there were others places to take that matter up less publicly. I might have pushed Pierre unnecessarily into answering my Qs, something he was not obliged to do. I am sorry Ethier, if my comments were rude and enturbulative. I should have made you feel more welcome instead. I apoligize to Falsedatastripper for my unnecessary abruptness. Even if I was in disagreement with your comments , I didn’t handle it with the proper manners expected of a good scientologist.

    I dearly apologize to you Lana for my suppressive threat to you and to this blog who does so much good. Even if I was in disagreement with your moderations actions (which we can discuss privately) I had no right whatsoever to snap like that and throw all that heavy HE&R at you and others. I should not have deviated off topic that much. There are others ways to get answers to our Qs and the proper places.

    It seems I have been out of contact with the 3rd dynamic for too long
    (12-15 years) and somehow have lost the knack of dealing with different viewpoints. I sincerely hope that I can get that ability back.

    Sorry for any upsets I might have caused to anyone and I hope that I can find ways to make it up for it. MS2 is a safe place for everybody to speak up, not just me.

    May everybody have a good day

    ARC
    PETER TORRES

  24. Thank you for a more serene tone in your e-mail.

    Before considering any Major Level (and perhaps before posting on a forum on a potentially restimulative subject) the correct cycle is to get a review, repair, and set-ups – you will know that the Auditor/CS is Standard because he will not leave any by-passed charge for another to adress.

    And ultimately if you want to know whether a Tech is Standard or not you have full possibility to get trained yourself, find a Standard CS, do your full internships till you get full uncompromising certainty. It’s a tough road to travel, but very worthwhile. But then you will know.

    Have fun, and I wish you the best.

    • Thanks a lot for the advice , I very much agree with it and will certaintly take it into action. I don’t mind tough roads with a good teacher. Best whises to you too.

      ARC
      PETER

  25. Jim, the Solo NOTs HCOBs themselves have never come out from the Church, as far as I know. There never was a “Copenhagen II” – for the Solo NOTs materials, as distinct from the Audited NOTs materials, as the Church’s security measures after “Copenhagen I” and later measures (the 6 monthly sec checks, security striping of HCOBs, locked doors and sealed rooms, no mobile phones with cameras allowed in the course room etc.) which Pierre ironically was involved in at the start of these measures (see his blog on “Synopsis of the Solo NOTs Rundowns…”), prevented such from happening again. It could be however, that others, nevertheless, have managed to acquire them from somewhere.

    There are some Solo NOTs and later Audited NOTs materials which became “public domain” so to speak when Wikipedia had them up on line, these are several “ancillary” (I suppose one could describe them as) but nevertheless very useful issues
    – but not the key ones.

    Now what is not known at all in the Freezone or Independent Field is that actually there was a second pack that came out of the Copenhagen “caper”. This was the “Advanced NOTs Pack” (it was called exactly that) at that time of 1983. This has never surfaced in the Freezone or Independent Field. This has/had, I am told, early versions of the Solo NOTs procedures that have been in use since that time. I know the reason why it never surfaced but I don’t want to get into that here but all I can say is that it was a very daft reason and a huge mistake, although the pack may still be sitting somewhere, on someone’s dusty shelf with 30 years of dust sitting on it (unless another huge mistake has been made and it has been destroyed since). The packs, saying that, were returned to the Church as far as I know.

    I am not sure if I should mention the specific titles of these Solo NOTs issues but there are several with the words “… Procedure” in, which are indeed LRH issues from the early 1980s, as Pierre mentions on his blog article and to which I have added just that little bit more of information here. Ronit or anyone else involved in the Solo NOTs line-up will or could undoubtedly confirm all of this.

    If one reads David Mayo’s “Solo NOTs – A Talk by Commander David Mayo” issued in December 1980 we find in this document the following text (in quotes below) in which Mayo is talking about (only one of these Procedures at that very early time of December 1980 – more were to come). I see no reason for Mayo to have fabricated any of this:

    “Ron not only developed the Mark VI E-Meter which was capable of registering at this level, but he also developed a technique by which a pre-OT, who now had the power to be able to face these things, could be able to handle them. It was a specialized technique for solo auditing. He refined this until he got a very successful technique.

    Now, there is a wide difference between something that Ron is capable of using as a solo technique and what you or I would like to take on and try to do. So he further refined it to a point where it could be written down, communicated and trained on others. He wanted to make the Solo NOTs technique available generally to everybody.”

  26. Now although the HCOBs have not “come out” the irony is – to the vastly improved security – that people on Solo NOTs had to more or less learn them verbatim as they were not allowed to take the key issues home with them. Certainly the commands and general structure and key points of the bulletins as well. Probably nearly all who have done this can probably even now years later remember the commands and the key data, as the drilling/flunking etc.was rigorous and of course they had to audit at home without the key issues to hand but just from what was in their heads. But that stuff is still mostly “in their heads”. So it doesn’t really matter, in the end, if you follow the point I am making here.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s