Home

lrh55

By Formost

A recent special briefing from the D/Captain FSO included the following information:

“SOLO PART I:

“… This course was taken back to just the pure LRH which is exactly and only what someone needs to be able to Solo audit.

“SOLO PART II:

“… What is often missed is that the Solo II Course was completely stripped back to the LRH Course exactly as LRH had it at Saint Hill.

“ADVANCED SOLO AUDITOR COURSE (New OT VI Part A):

“… This course has also been taken back to pure LRH and covers only those points that a Solo NOTs auditor needs in order to get through Solo NOTs.”

It is fascinating that the Flag is now promoting GAT II by overtly admitting they’ve squirrelled the tech previously. We have been using the LRH-approved checksheets for a number of years, out here in the field.

Of course LRH would have put a head on a pike on anyone proclaiming standard pre-1996 tech was the work of “The blind leading the blind.” Auditors had their certs cancelled and they were forced to retrain on GAT I. Those who objected could expect to find a golden-rod in the mailbox.

Last year GAT II cancelled all GAT I certifications. I consider this the biggest mass out-tech crime in the history of Scientology, but wait … let’s have an event celebration instead to acknowledge the hard, relentless and dedicated work of the ‘Charletan of the Board’ instead and pay for these services all over again.

Good to know that the LRH checksheets are out here in the field, and have been being used for a number of years!

61 thoughts on “LRH check sheets

    • We’ve set the Main Sails to the upper pre-OT Levels in no small part thanks to your monumental input and invaluable technical support. Hats off to you, Ma’am. 🙂

  1. ‘Charlatan of the Board’

    LOL. Good one, FM. Best yet.

    I wonder who got blamed for GAT I, even though it was DM himself who released it and took credit for it.

    Anyway, as Ron said: “When in doubt, do the usual; when all else fails, do what Ron says.” Maybe CMOI and RTC are finally listening.

    • Chris,

      Unfortunately RTC and CMOI never got the memo. Especially when they still have these Objectives marathons going on that remind me of the movie They Shoot Horses Don’t They and the ever added and inapplicable “Basics” making the runway so long that Porky would not only sprout wings but be certified by the FAA as an airline pilot by the time anyone gets to do any auditor training.

      And wa’sup with “GAT II”. As far as I’m concerned it shoulda been GAT CANCELED and CMOI, RTRC, RTC, and all Tech and Quals False Data Stripped.

      Also how do we know they are actually using the original SH check sheets. Practically everything the Church does these days is a False Flag Operation of some kind. So much so they should call it the Church of CIAology.

      • RV: Also how do we know they are actually using the original SH check sheets.

        I heard they’ve nearly built-in OT-like course room security preventing students taking them home to furnishing us a copy for inspection.

        • Typical of need to know and secure compartmentalized mentality of most if not all Orgs these days.

          They’re almost getting as bad as Dave’s “friends” in Government by classifying practically everything.

          Typical closing the barn door after the horse (in this case most of the AC materials) is stolen.

          Probably a PR effort by RTC and the Charlatan of the Board to make themselves look useful.

          • In 16 years we got a hold of about a dozen GAT I checksheets and they were already busy clamping down on that some time ago. Who the hell wants them? What we have out here in terms of original LRH & RTRC pre-1991 checksheets they longer serve up, so we got the best, the real deal. No need for GAT anything, but would be nice to compare the IIs for eval & commentary.

    • Hey Chris.

      That one just came to me … wasn’t even looking for it, thought the hand mighta done it … lol.

      Not sure if we should buy into Rathbun’s & Dan Koon’s explanation, but apparently DM conceived of it and saw the whole deal through.

      I think you are right about the RTC/CMOI listening part. Over 50 APIS/TFCU checksheets and complete courses had been released very very broadly, they inevitably got into some CO$er’s hands, then forwarded to the Powers-that-be. And who knows what whisper line went on for some years with accompanying complaints why courses take forever to complete, never mind all those who decided to pack in a ditch on the Pro E-Meter course.

      Also, every Level Auditor’s Course had some basic books to study applicable to, and with the written materials and lectures all part of an given Level. By introducing “The Basics” (2007) as a separate theory course, then removing the originally designated basic books from the training levels, checksheet sequences were altered, the proper sequentially flowing line-up no longer in existence … understanding subverted. But then that’s all OK if you’re only interested learning robot-auditing.

      • Formost,

        Supposedly the “bright idea” to squirrel the tech AKA GAT was based on an “Eval” conducted by the Charlatan of the Board which really proves he is a total charlatan since this so called “Eval” was not based on any DS Tech that I know of i.e. no ideal scene, no out point count to uncover the situation, thus no actual why found.

        I mean “the blind leading the blind” is not a why. It is a generality. It’s like if you did an S&D and came up with the Government or worse the Marcabs as an “item”.

        The secondary why “lack of drilling” could possibly be a why for an individual auditor per RED 176 Auditor Recovery but not an overall why for the entire area of technical delivery.

        From recall I remember Dave bitching about the fact that auditors weren’t getting an “F/N” on flying rudiments and ending off with a high TA and allegedly calling “false F/Ns”.

        The question I asked myself when reading this abortion called an “Eval” was if the auditor was why was an auditor getting such a high TA on rudiments?

        According to standard tech. If the TA soars or goes high there is either an overrun or protest per C/S Series 1 which means both eagle eye Davie and the auditor he was “observing” either missed an F/N earlier or the PC was protesting the rud or based on my experience at the Mecca of Technical Deception the auditor was trying to “Fly a Rud” over what he or she assumed was a “False High TA” when in fact it was an actual High TA which would explain why an auditor would never get an actual F/N on a rudiment in this or any other lifetime and if they did call a false F/N. It only shows that they were desperate to take any flicker of the needle as an “F/N” so they could get off that rudiment.

        A situation like this is already covered in the HCOB C/S Series 74 Talking the TA Down Modified.

        The only problem at Flag as I noted back when I was there and was probably a problem then that most interns there are only Class IV and are not capable of doing a 53. Yet are told to audit cases that need such actions before being put on routine auditing.

        So an actual *why* could be that the auditor auditing these case lacked the actual training and skill required to handle such PCs. Not lack of drilling or the blind leading the blind.

        Another one could be the auditor and the fraud observing them missed what is called a “fleeting F/N” and the duffuses O/Red the rud.

        Or the PC protested the rud for some reason which could have been handled by checking protest.

        Anyway.

        By reading the so called “Eval” that the so called “Evaluator” already had come to the preordained conclusion that it was lack of drilling and that the blind were leading the blind.

        Which is an interesting conclusion coming from someone who can’t apply the tech themselves and refuses to be audited.

        Regarding Dan Koon. The post he was on used to be called RTCU which stood for Ron’s Tech Compilations Unit and after RTC took over it became Ron’s Technical *Research* and Compilations Unit.

        Interesting how one small word can change everything and turn a unit that was supposed to merely compile per the HCOPL Tech and Policy Distribution to one now involved in “research” or to be blunt could be conceived to be squirreling the tech under the guise of “research” which is exactly what they did when they created the “Golden Age of Tech”.

          • True dat Ingrid,

            Dano also complains about how much of a squirrel Dave is but never bothered to book ’em.

            Also says BS like GAT was great idea that was suppressively implemented.

            As far as I was concerned GAT was a bad idea right from the start. There no way as our Prez would say to put lipstick on that pig 😉

            Yeah I suspect Danno like his former mentor Mayo tries to assume the role of source.

              • Very true Ingrid,

                He was head of RTRC at the time and were the ones who wrote the so called “S”TDs (They called ’em “Standard” I call ’em Squirrel Tech Drills) and made up those packs that were supposed to be treated with such reverence and deference.

                (Actually I enjoyed throwing Tech Volumes on top of them and dragging them across the table surface without that special cloth and “accidentally” dropping them on the floor.

                Who knows maybe I had an ev purp but I digress ;))

                Anyway Dan from what I know was the I/C of RTRC which was under Cap’n Trips AKA Ray Mithoff AKA Senior C/S.

                He also played Joe Howard in the original TRs Film.

                Personally I had my problems with RTRC long before the Gross Alteration of Tech. I mean as far as I was concerned the “New and Improved” Tech and OEC Vols were a totally overt product.

                Prior to that they were having auditors running ev ints R3RA Narrative on the revised 40X at least till I pointed out this flaw.

                And before that they magically turned a bunch of BTBs from the Auditor Admin series into “HCOBs”.

                In my opinion all Dave did was bring out Dan’s inner squirrel when he asked him to write up the GAT packs.

                In fact even after he left he’s still trying to justify that overt.

                  • No surprise Ingrid,

                    Back when I used to comment on Marty’s blog as RJ I used to spar with him on GAT.

                    Funny how these guy’s who claim to be the solution were originally part of the problem.

                    In my opinion GAT probably caused more damage to Scientology than any previous action combined.

                    Why?

                    The following HCOB explains it better than I could:

                    HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
                    HCO BULLETIN OF 28 AUGUST 1968
                    OUT TECH
                    After Standard Tech is out for just so long in an org, Scientology ceases to have any meaning.
                    Squirrel processes and repairs wind the staff up in a ball, enturbulate the field and cause a general lethargy and trouble.
                    Ethics then goes in hard or it all goes up in smoke.
                    There is only one Standard Tech! It contains only a few dozen processes and actions. It was not complete before 1966. Students study mainly the Research Line. Standard Tech consists of the exact grade processes and Case Repair.
                    Some still look for magic buttons that resolve a case all at once. Some can’t duplicate what they read and hear.
                    They need the broad body of knowledge.
                    BUT the actual application of Dian & Scn today contains only a few dozen STANDARD INVARIABLE SIMPLE actions and processes.
                    When these are not used, when opinion enters, it’s all gone.
                    STANDARD TECH ALONE RESOLVES ALL CASES.
                    No matter how bright, the other processes and new inventions of someone else (a) work only on a few and (b) are efforts to solve one’s own case by auditing others.
                    To let Standard Tech go out is an act of Treason as Scientology then loses all meaning in an org.
                    This is why I am teaching a Class VIII Course.
                    LRH-jp.ei.bh
                    Copyright © 1968
                    by L. Ron Hubbard
                    ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
                    L. RON HUBBARD Founder

                • The Dan Koon of the 80’s was in my view not the same guy of the later 90s. Prior to 1991 he, along with Russ Williams and others were catching up on LRH backlogs which culminated in the 1991 Tech Vols. After DM got on the lines in 1994 through 1996 he became indoc’d by the GAT nonsense and went with the flow.

                  I trust his RTRC days compiling up the LRH backlog completely as DM was not on those lines and they were in fact following LRH orders. But quite a few comments he made around 2009/10 in respect to GAT, I was not impressed with and probably got intoxicated like everyone else slurping the dwarf’s Kool Aide.

                  • Personally I didn’t trust RTRC after they issued the Auditor Admin Series which in many cases conflicted with actual source as “HCOBs”.

                    Then there were the Life Improvement Courses, followed by the Tech Vols which didn’t preserve the originals so you could verify what changes or revisions were made like you could with the earlier Tech Vol.

                    Minor beef but one I’ll mention and that was that they arbitrarily changed the dist on HCOPLs and HCOPLs from “Franchise” to “Missions”.

                    (Fact is that they were called “Missions” for PR purposes but the fact is that they were operated as “Franchises” for the most part at least until the Mission Massacre.)

                    Then that stupid Handbook for Scientologists which was basically an alteration as in squirrel version of the Volunteer Minister’s Handbook.

                    Not to mention goofy alterations to the New Grade Chart Streamlined like waiting for the PC to crash and burn on some level before doing a DRD. Changing the End of Endless Int *Repair* Rundown to a rundown as a rundown run on PC’s who were not up to running Dianetics when the fact is according to Time Track Bulletin 4 anyone with the exception of those who have gone Clear or are dead can run Dianetics.

                    Then there is the alteration of the EP for FPRD which like the CCRD pilot I worked on was personally supervised by the Ol’man.

                    While we’re on the topic of the CCRD. They altered that too by excluding parts of the RD that would have resolved any question of Past Life Clear.

                    As far as I was concerned they were on a Skippy roll long before Dave came up with his idiotic “bright idea” called GAT.

                    • I was mostly concerned with the HCOBs which were revised by LRH and I cross-checked with others such as Russ and it all seemed to be above board, I have no reason to think otherwise (There was no influence in repect to completing the LRH backlog from others, and they followed through by the book). I can’t comment on the other stuff you mentioned, but I do have to original CCRD HCOB.

                    • Formost,

                      If you have the originals than you know how much they were altered by the time they were issued as part of the newer tech vols.

                      Regarding back logs. The tech as far as I was concerned was pretty complete by the time the Ol’man dropped the bod.

                      There was some SPD(another “issue” I have an issue with) issued by Ray that Ron had left some orders or directions behind about revising the tech.

                      Talk about a *Hidden Data Line*.

                      Personally I’d like to see these “orders and directives”.

                      Anyway there wasn’t much of a back log if any:

                      Xdn had been pretty much been written up for export and any missing data about how to the RDs like Sanderson, Metalosis, etc is covered in the LRH C/Ses.

                      Same with Super Power and the various RDs such as the Bright Think, the False Data and Loss, Ethics RL, etc had already been written up.

                      KTL and LOC which was supposed to include full Product Clearing not the short form that came with it and PPC which was dropped from the check sheet were already written up by the Ol’man.

                      Same with the RP, TRD, CCRD and OT VIII which included from I understand some additional steps after NOTs.

                      Notes for the various levels above OT VIII (the one’s that Marty and Mike couldn’t seem to find and now say don’t exist after their “Entebe” like raid on Broeker at the Ranch) had existed in note form in since the early ’70’s.

                      Clues like “Orders of Magnitude”, “Character”, “Futures” etc. should have given any moron a clue as to what type of action to include on each level.

                      Just like the original lower levels. The Ol’man didn’t develop these all he did was say what type of action or process should be included on it and then let C/Ses figure it out. In the beginning then had the Board issue a BTB.

                      Then RTRC comes along and throws everything on them including the fricken kitchen sink with such things as a Disagreement Check (gimme a break) and other Qual Rds that are only supposed to be used in Qual.

                      Was’up with that?

                      I can only go off my own observation but if they were supposedly going “by the book”. I’d like to be able to read it.

                    • RV: If you have the originals than you know how much they were altered by the time they were issued as part of the newer tech vols.

                      I have spend hundreds of hours already comparing them to 1984 set and other core references in my posession, and they are pretty damn accurate to the originals. There were revisions, yes, alterations? Russ & Dan say otherwise, and they were there. Now if you look at the Co-Auditing Series in 1991, they were re-written by someone else because they took the SRD data out, in fact cleaned all HCOBs referencing it. I most certainly wouldn’t suggest they are 100% on-source, but it’s pretty close, based on my own investigations.

                      RV: Regarding back logs. The tech as far as I was concerned was pretty complete by the time the Ol’man dropped the bod.

                      Then one would have to surmize they are both bald-faced liers. Nope, not buying into that. The backlog took years to do, there is no motive to falsify events that actually took place, by 2 different individual with their own accounts. You could contact them, they’d be happy to respond to any queries you have.

                      RV: Personally I’d like to see these “orders and directives”.

                      So would I, but then not everything can be easily carted out of the CO$, and someone(s) accounts of it is as close as we can come to answers.

                    • Formost,

                      I’m not saying that they’re bald faced liars. So lose the ad hominem . I am saying by my *own* observation there was very little that needed to be added to the tech that was currently available and in use.

                      So what was “back logged” exactly?

                      Another thing was that the newer tech volumes as I wrote earlier *do not* I repeat *do not* and once again *do not* have the originals where one can compare the original to the revision.

                      Thus they violate the HCOB How to Defeat Verbal Tech.

                      Also what good would it be for me to contact Russ or Dan who would probably basically tell me the same thing you are telling me right now?

                    • RV: I’m not saying that they’re bald faced liars. So lose the ad hominem.

                      None ever intended.

                      I cannot comment whether anything needed to be done, but LRH did leave a phenomenal amount of work in terms of revisions, new materials that had never been released before, etc. that took years for the RTRC to complete. That was stated to be a fact by both Dan and Russ, and represented the time it took to do so. What I posted previously was not any opinion I had, but data as previously furnished by both of them.

                      RV: So what was “back logged” exactly?

                      For one, it was HCOBs and HCOPLs which culminated in the 1991 Tech & OEC Vols. Whatever else there was, get in touch with either Dan or Russ.

                      RV: Another thing was that the newer tech volumes as I wrote earlier *do not* I repeat *do not* and once again *do not* have the originals where one can compare the original to the revision.

                      The same goes for earlier Vols. unless I’m badly mistaken. Any issue that was revised, the version before it as well as any preceding versions including the original to be best of my knowledge was always cancelled, and never re-issued for anyone to see again. Unless you have a Remimeo from the days it was released or some hat or course pack, it’s gone. I don’t ever recall them issuing originals which were either revised or cancelled so that you can compare them.

                      When I stated the 1991 Vols for the overwhelming most part are very accurate, I’m referring to comparison of the same issues as found in earlier Vols released. If you find some HCOB in a 1978 Vol. and is the same revision, it will be, except for the updating of distribution and copyright notices at the bottom, in 99.9% of all cases … identical. I cannot comment how you would acquire originals … either they are the originals in the Vols, or they are the revised ones. Some originals were just cancelled, but you know all that.

                      RV: Thus they violate the HCOB How to Defeat Verbal Tech.

                      I’m not following on this point here.

                      RV: Also what good would it be for me to contact Russ or Dan who would probably basically tell me the same thing you are telling me right now?

                      I just pointed out some data I was in posession of as I usually do should something on the topic serve as further information, and to reiterate I trusted either before the days of GAT.

                    • FM,

                      Back in the days when we had mimeo the original was kept in place with its revisions at the date they were revised so you could refer back to it which is how the original tech vols were done.

                      On the other hand the newer tech volumes just were revised with no indication like ellipses or script to indicate what was revised and no explanation of why it was revised.

                      Most important because there have been instances where the original was reinstated after it was found that the “revision” was erroneous.

                      They could have and should have done that with the newer tech vols but they didn’t.

                    • FM: Re the original tech volumes, usually the earlier edition was left in the volumes – i.e., one could see the original unrevised copy as well as the later revision (most noted in original tech vols XI and XII). Oftentimes they would also have revisions in script and deletions in ellipses, making it easy for one to track the revision. This is something which I always found useful and a good idea but which RTRC and RTC and DM, etc. etc. took away.

                      Re the new tech volumes (1991), here are a few examples of major, major, major errors in revising HCOBs that can halt a case:

                      1. the 1987 revision of HCOB Confessional Procedure, dramatically altering it from the 1978 original and violating axiomatic basics in the process.

                      2. the Grades Process Checklists (not approved by LRH, although supposedly following LRH advice on quadding up processes) do not correctly quad many processes; Grade II also includes a confessional with no other reference I know of for it to be included.

                      3. C/S Series 73, Non-Interference Zone Clarified and Reinforced. Totally different than the original and the LRH approved revision.

                      There are other instances as well, so one best have both sets if one is delivering tech. Blindly following RTRC and RTC/DM releases is probably the only truth in DM’s why of the “blind leading the blind”, meaning it came from him and RTC and RTRC and CMOI and Snr C/S Int Office, not to mention it disregards LRH’s own advice in the area (re Verbal Tech, being skeptical, etc.) and is functionally stupidity (axiom 38).

                      RV: I didn’t know that the DCSI included handlings for past-life Clears itself. I do know that all the CCRDs I’ve delivered (inside and outside the CoS) addressed this area to resolution. So I don’t agree with you on that. But then, one needs a good CCRD C/S as well to ensure the area gets handled. And it ain’t handled until the pc knows it’s handled and says so. Otherwise, it’s quickie and just a brush-off.

                    • Chris,

                      As I remember from doing the pilot and reading the original HCOBs that Ron considered it very important that Clear and OT obtained in an earlier life was validated.

                      An emphasis that seems to have been lost in the current CCRD issues.

                      Chris I don’t remember writing that the DCSI had any specific past life handlings.

                      Funny thing is that there were when the RD was first released and included a series of 2WCs that were incorrectly used as a “D of P” and then were dropped out later when the DCSIAL came out.

                      One of the things that the CCRD did was reinstate these 2WCs as part of the RD.

                    • RV: “I’m not saying that they’re bald faced liars. So lose the ad hominem.”

                      Robin, while FM has already responded to this, just to throw my nickel into the works, firstly, I didn’t get that from what he said, just like I didn’t get you were calling them liars from what you said. Secondly, I know FM personally and as far as I’m concerned, he’s the last person you would get and kind of “ad hominem” or any other argument fallacy from; he’s just too “blase” and laid back about it all. Just my view on it, and to correct any misperception of FM.

                      Cheers, good buddy. 😀

                    • Robin:

                      “As I remember from doing the pilot and reading the original HCOBs that Ron considered it very important that Clear and OT obtained in an earlier life was validated.”

                      As you said yourself, I’d like to see these HCOBs. Otherwise one can’t apply “How To Defeat Verbal Data Checklist” and so it now acts as a Hidden Data Line. 😉

                      Oh, and there’s also C/S Series 123, Handling Past-Life Auditing.

                      “Chris I don’t remember writing that the DCSI had any specific past life handlings. ”

                      Ok, you didn’t, I just assumed that’s what you meant the DCSI when you said that they left it off the CCRD: “They altered that too by excluding parts of the RD that would have resolved any question of Past Life Clear.”

                      Regardless, as I said, it was on the CCRD auditor and C/S courses that I did, but was more specifically on the C/S course as it’s a C./S function to determine this. Now, that was back in the early 90s when I did it, before GAT I & II so who knows if it was later revised. When were you last on lines in tech, so I have a reference point?

                      The CCRD works fine, although some like the DCSI better. The CCRD was more streamlined, or more precise, requiring less input from the C/S and auditor – i.e., it was, IMO, more channelled as to what you could do. This has advantages and drawbacks, but any good auditor and C/S could use LRH tech from these two RDs to achieve the purpose of the RD.

                      Now, back to the piano! 😀

                    • Chris,

                      I would be nice to have the original HCOBs that were issued to us the pilot with out the later alter…er I mean “revisions” in the newer Tech Vols.

                      Problem was that they were Limited Dist and some were Confidential because they applied to a pilot.

                      I my opinion like the HCOB Noninterference Zone Reissued and Reenforced what was taken out wasn’t totally technical but philosophical to an extent.

                      Remember Ron talking about such things in the Lecture Study and Intention?

                      While I’m on the subject of the “Study” Tapes. Note how they stripped out all the Scientological terms like GPMs, R6, 3DXX etc, yet left all the highly technical “wog” terms in like bromoil, lithograph, sextant, azimuth etc in.

                      So as the student wouldn’t run into mis-us on the subject.

                      Maybe the list of Famous Justifications should be extended to include that one.

                    • Yes, it would be “nice”, but we don’t, so in essence it’s hearsay at worst, anecdotal at best. We have what we have. Besides, all the tech was written early on, just refined more and more as years went by. And pilots were just that – pilots. It was not a finished form and often underwent changes from LRH before being issued in final form. Unless there’s a verifiable reference one can unearth and read or compare with extant issues, then it just comes down to a “he said, she said” type of situation. I long ago forwent these kinds of situations of “Ron said to….”. It violates too many LRH advices on dealing with verbal data, including this from “An Introduction to Standard Tech”, Tape #1 of the Class VIII course:

                      This thing called a hidden data line is one of the most fascinating things I ever heard of. Now, Captain Joe Von Stodden, Captain of the Flag Ship, has given some thought to this as an old, old, old time auditor, as well as a very good captain. He sort of racked this around for a while, and he finally found out how a hidden data line occurs. Or how a hidden command line occurs. And I’ll just read his dispatch in full here as I received it this morning. It’s very, very good.

                      “Regarding the subject of a hidden data line, I have observed the basis of the hidden data line, and it is simply this: The hidden command line. This is the only way command intentions can get alter-ised apart from outright non-compliance, which I feel, if looked at closely, is also due to a hidden command line.

                      “For example, a level 3 auditor does a green form without an E-meter. A level 6 asks him, “What the hell are you doing?” And the level 3 auditor says, “I have just come back from the AO and they do it like that.” And the level 3 auditor gives a big explanation of why it goes that way. And the level 6 auditor pursues the issue and finds other auditors from AO doing a green form this way, and therefore it must be OK. So the level 6 auditor starts doing a green form in this way. This is an extreme example, but the point is the level 6 started backing off when the AO was mentioned.

                      “The higher up the command line, the level 6 wouldn’t have just taken it from the level 3, but the 3, being just…having just had close contact with a body higher on a command line than the 6, starts off the level 6’s doubt. And the higher on a command line the power is drawn from, the wider area the alter-is covers. Like it seems someone figured this out and just put god there. You know, somebody just heard from god, so that’s the right thing to do.

                      “Religion is a pretty good example of a hidden command line. There is policy on ‘If it’s not written it’s not true’, and ‘The only standard tech is found in HCOBs, tapes and books’, yet tech gets alter-ised in Orgs, and the form of the Org is difficult at times to keep. I conclude from this that command lines are misused and not understood always.”

                      Re the Study Tapes, I had heard that there were these types of alterations being done. I can’t believe they were done, no matter the reason or justification. Any able person could get through them easily enough using standard supervision and W/Cing tech.

                      ARC,
                      C.

                    • Chris,

                      Of course the most important thing is. Is does the current technology produce the expected result if applied correctly?

                      Unfortunately in my opinion when an issue is revised without giving the reason or reasons for the revision. This creates a Hidden Data lIne in itself.

                    • Chris: This is something which I always found useful and a good idea but which RTRC and RTC and DM, etc. etc. took away.

                      I’d be incl;ined to check with Dan/Russ why that was done. We don’t know if any order from LRH may have existed that after the backlog was cleaned off there wouldn’t be anymore revisions and decided to end all that … that’s what the 1991 Tech Vo;ls were supposed to represent. I get your just why you’d like to have the originals to compare, but it may also be that LRH decided to end cycle since all revisions have come to an end. And again, these instructions would only be available for those in the compilation unit and others it concerned. I’m very hesitant to jump to any conclusions without first trying to find out why and contacting those in the know. But I do understand your requirement to compare. I just don’t have an answer.

                      As far as the 3 HCOBs you mentioned, both Dan & Russ could delineate. By the way, the orignal C/S Series 73 and the subsequent revision are both full or errors.

                    • Personally I don’t trust RTRC and there is no HCOPL that I know of that changes mimeo policy about keeping the original.

                      This is the problem with a Hidden Data Line. The same that is used by the so called “critics” and former execs or “bitter defrocked apostates” when they say Ron said this and Ron said that but can’t back it up with anything in writing.

                      Or when they rarely do.

                      It happens to be a RED or an SOED or some unverified “order” against an actual Policy or HCOB.

                      Then we have the example of the Original Tech Vols which were approved by Ron and which do preserve the originals.

                      As far as I’m concerned any squirrel (I’m not saying Dan and Russ are) can say Ron said this and that but it was some type of “confidential order” you can’t see.

                      Right.

                      The GO used to pull this stunt and I’d demand to see that order and would sign any bond and waiver they required to see it.

                      And in most cases it was some arbitrary order issued by Jane or Mo or Herbie or someone else on behalf of LRH etc.

                      So unless I actually see something in writing that can be verified as the Ol’man’s I remain unconvinced.

                    • Chris:3. C/S Series 73, Non-Interference Zone Clarified and Reinforced. Totally different than the original and the LRH approved revision.

                      There are other instances as well, so one best have both sets if one is delivering tech. Blindly following RTRC and RTC/DM releases is probably the only truth in DM’s why of the “blind leading the blind”, meaning it came from him and RTC and RTRC and CMOI and Snr C/S Int Office, not to mention it disregards LRH’s own advice in the area (re Verbal Tech, being skeptical, etc.) and is functionally stupidity (axiom 38).

                      I just want to point out that this post contains inaccurate information. There was no DM on the RTRC line at the time C/S Series 73 was revised. You sent me a link this morning to Pierre Ethier’s site where he further delineates on the standardness of that compilation unit and confirms what I had stated here previously. It’s not because of “Blindly following RTRC” but the backlog completed based on LRH’s instructions. And again, I stress, find out from Dan and Russ … if we are going to assume people who were there and bore witness aren’t truthful, and we are also not in possession of any LRH-issued orders out here, we can make up anything we want, we can have 250 pages winding on with all sorts of opinions. I agree, the 73 is hooped, but the original also had tons of altered stuff in it like no Purif on Clears, etc. that simply is not correct. Perhaps Dan or Russ could shine some light on that for you. And I am also not trying to suggest the 1991 OEC & Tech Vols are perfect, I’m saying they are pretty darn close. When I need a reference, I use all Tech Vols, old or new to query any data.

                    • FM,

                      When C/S Series 73 was first issued there was no such thing as a Purif for Clears or anyone else.

                      Personally I don’t know what “errors” you are referring to.

                      This HCOB clearly states that it’s hands off once the Pre OT starts R6EW solo until they reach OTIII which is one reason why there is an OT IV Rundown as part of Class VIII.

                      Also I don’t agree with the assessment since I have never had any problem with following HCOBs that were indeed written by Ron.

                      You don’t have to get any more complicated than what he says in the HCOB Tech Correction Round up:

                      What makes tech correct? When it doesn’t get results it is incorrect. When it gets the expected result it is correct.
                      My own writings and researches are based wholly upon things that got and get results.
                      When another, through misunderstood words or other reasons, “interprets” or changes the original tech, it has been the general experience that results are not obtained.

                      Prior to this he says:

                      It is now forbidden to write an HCOB or an HCO PL and sign my name to it.
                      If anyone helped compile it or wrote it, my name is followed by “Assisted by_____” the person who helped get it back together at my directions.
                      Also no Board Technical Bulletin may cancel an HCOB. So from here on you are relatively safe.

                      Personally I place anything “Assisted by say RTRC or anyone else just slightly above a BTB.

                      If I have any questions or queries I consult the original just as it says to do in the HCOB How to Defeat Verbal Tech Checklist.

                    • RV:This is the problem with a Hidden Data Line. The same that is used by the so called “critics” and former execs or “bitter defrocked apostates” when they say Ron said this and Ron said that but can’t back it up with anything in writing.

                      Yes, that can be a problem, a problem unique to the FZ/Indies because the CO$ does give us access to all materials, originals, revised or whatever. Give you an example. A Solo NOTs issue called “Advanced Procedure” was never leaked from the CO$. Dozens of Class IX Auditors and Solo NOTers know its content off by heart. This alone assures that at least 2 camps will always exist: 1.) those who accept the reconstructed issue based on trusted sources using the multiple viewpoint system and want to make use of that tech as it’s necesary in order to properly complete that level 2.) Those that state the reconstructed issue’s authenticity cannot be verified because the actual HCOB isn’t available and refuse to make any use of it.

                      Now you have a third scenario. Rathbun comes along he’s seen some LRH write-up that says OT III can be safely skipped and NOTs revised can deal with it. And that’s all the data there is. Well, in my book that’s way to thin to be credible, and I would reject this claim, insufficient substantiation. And secondly, no need to double-guess, just do OT III and his claim becomes totally irrelevant.

                      Too often we get into each other’s hair because the materials are not available to us. Sometimes witnesses who were there is as close as we’ll ever get, other times the witnesses are just not credible. Third factor is that the original materials have long been swept under the archive carpet by GAT, and what we have out here in terms of extent data is all that we have to do with.

                    • FM,

                      BTW the OT IV RD is covered in C/S Series 13R VIII Actions whereas any discussion of NOTs is treading into dangerous territory.

                      Also originally a NOTs Auditor was a Advanced Course Specialist not a Class IX. Class IX is according to any HCOB I’ve ever read is a Hubbard Advanced Technical Specialist.

                      Regarding Marty. The same guy who says there are no levels above VIII yet there are clues all over the place that there are which means he’s clueless.

                      Also that BS in his book about skipping III is his own unreality of the level.

                    • FM: I’d be inclined to check with Dan/Russ why that was done. We don’t know if any order from LRH may have existed that after the backlog was cleaned off there wouldn’t be anymore revisions and decided to end all that … that’s what the 1991 Tech Vo;ls were supposed to represent.

                      First, I don’t hold Russ and Dan to be the end-all in what may have occurred or why. It’s just another “line”. Personally, IMO, the 1991 Tech vols – and all post-LRH issues into org mimeo – did not have revisions delineated. That is an outpoint. Period. Not jumping to conclusions, just obnosing and defining. Anything else, including LRH orders into the compilation unit, is speculation.

                      FM: As far as the 3 HCOBs you mentioned, both Dan & Russ could delineate.

                      Nothing to delineate – they are out-tech.

                      FM: By the way, the orignal C/S Series 73 and the subsequent revision are both full or errors.

                      As is the latest RTRC revision from 1990. And by the way, the original was not full of errors; written in 1971, it was correct for that time, needing updating to encompass later discoveries, but not full of errors.

                    • FM: I just want to point out that this post contains inaccurate information. There was no DM on the RTRC line at the time C/S Series 73 was revised. You sent me a link this morning to Pierre Ethier’s site where he further delineates on the standardness of that compilation unit and confirms what I had stated here previously. It’s not because of “Blindly following RTRC” but the backlog completed based on LRH’s instructions.

                      I never said that DM or RTRC was on the line for the C/S 73 revision. Re-read my post. There were no inaccuracies. And as far as that link, I could give a whoop; I sent it to you as an info re Solo NOTs, not anything else.

                      Re 250 pages of opinions, you’re right. And these opinions include ones that anything Russ and Dan did is without error. All I’m saying is that one should not be “blind” when using the tech, and that there are SERIOUS errors in some of the tech processes that were revised under RTRC that violate basic LRH axioms. Something LRH would never do (IMO). So, like you say, use both sets, compare, but don’t take the new as Gospel, such as why is the HRD on the Grade Chart now? Forcing morals? Seems like DM paranoia to me. IMO.

                    • Chris:Personally, IMO, the 1991 Tech vols – and all post-LRH issues into org mimeo – did not have revisions delineated. That is an outpoint. Period.

                      What I’m saying you can contact them to find out why that is so. Keep in mid they were the compilation specialists, they were the ones who placed the deliniations, they were the ones who left them absent. These guys WILL have an answer for you. They were working in this unit for decades, they are not a bunch of incompetent bumbling amateurs. Ask them, and they will answer you. You may not like like/agree with the answer, but at least it’s some information correct or incorrect you will now be in posession of. I’m not defending any point here, but when avenues exist that could shine some more light on some queries and these avenues are being shot down by suppositions, then I seriously wonder why invests are being cut short. I fully agree, I would also love to see revisions delineated with each and every single issue ever released. I don’t have that answer, but I also know Dan & Russ are no ninkampoops. LRH worked with these guys directly and trusted them, and so do I.

                      Chris:Anything else, including LRH orders into the compilation unit, is speculation.

                      And again, I suggest you check with them what the LRH’s orders were. As I mentioned above, Pierre claims the RTRC work is spot on. I don’t count on ever seeing LRH’s instructions to RTRC being made available to us.

                      Chris:As is the latest RTRC revision from 1990. And by the way, the original was not full of errors; written in 1971, it was correct for that time, needing updating to encompass later discoveries, but not full of errors.

                      Ok, I was referring to the 1 July 71RA (1985) (not the original) that everyone so far seems to champion out here as the correct one that was supposedly squirrelled up by the 2 Aug. 71RB (1990). Both of them have errors. I don’t have the original ’71 issue. Solo NOTers tried to get out of RTC Sec Checks claiming the RB was squirrelled and the RA was OK. Both had errors.

                    • RV:Also originally a NOTs Auditor was a Advanced Course Specialist not a Class IX. Class IX is according to any HCOB I’ve ever read is a Hubbard Advanced Technical Specialist.

                      Hi RV.

                      I have no clue what originally was. The 1981 Class IX Auditor Course is HACS… is HUBBARD ADVANCED COURSES SPECIALIST. It’s right on the first page of the checksheet.

                      RV:Regarding Marty. The same guy who says there are no levels above VIII yet there are clues all over the place that there are which means he’s clueless.

                      That’s my take of it too.

                      Chris:I never said that DM or RTRC was on the line for the C/S 73 revision. Re-read my post.

                      My apologies if I took your post out of context. I reread it, and no wiser. Maybe rewrite or rephrase.

                      Chris:And these opinions include ones that anything Russ and Dan did is without error.

                      You can ask them WHAT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. A report of what was done, not opinions. Recently Russ gave me the entire procedure he, Ray Mithoff and LRH went through to get the 1984 HRD compiled … all in great detail. No opinions of any sort.

                      Chris:All I’m saying is that one should not be “blind” when using the tech, and that there are SERIOUS errors in some of the tech processes that were revised under RTRC that violate basic LRH axioms. Something LRH would never do (IMO).

                      I wholeheartedly agree, I never meant to suggest otherwise.

                    • Formost – here is what I said:

                      “Blindly following RTRC and RTC/DM releases is probably the only truth in DM’s why of the “blind leading the blind”, meaning it came from him and RTC and RTRC and CMOI and Snr C/S Int Office, not to mention it disregards LRH’s own advice in the area (re Verbal Tech, being skeptical, etc.) and is functionally stupidity (axiom 38).”

                      It was not in regards to C/S Series 73, but just a general observation on what kind of stuff came out of those orifices, er offices. 😉

                      Re Ray Mithoff? Give me a break. I wouldn’t trust anything he had to say or contribute regarding the tech at this point.

                      Now, re Russ and Dan et al, again, see LRH above, what he said on the first Class VIII Tape, regarding hidden data lines. Saying Russ and Dan said this or that or did this or that IS perpetuating a hidden data line. Yes, YOU may have identified the value of the source of that information, but most have not and so again, it ACTS as a HDL. Best if it’s not perpetuated so that – as you said yourself – we don’t enter a lot of opinions into the discussion.

                      Cheers

                      P.S. RV: The HATS course, per the 1974 Grade Chart, gave one the ability to audit advanced procedures and special rundowns. This was pre-NOTs. So it kinda makes sense to roll NOTs under Class IX when this RD was released. They chould have kept the designation the same (HATS instead of HACS) except for one thing: the prereq for HATS was HSTS – Class VIII; HACS only needed to be Class IV. I believe, IMO (yes, my opinion), this is why the change. 🙂

                    • FM,

                      Frankly I don’t give a damn what the ’81 Check Sheet says. A Grad V who has done HACS does not make them senior to an VIII unless they have done the VIII.

                      Originally when it was first released in ’78 it was only HACS.

                      Even when I audited at AO in the 80’s they were called NOTs Auditors not “IXs”.

                      It’s like calling an Old NED Auditor who never did the levels a Class V.

                      BTW you’ll find the original IX on any Grade Chart published prior to 81 which is the same Grade Chart that omits the original OT Levels and replaces them with “New” ones.

                      Talk about a Tech Degrade.

                      Sheeeesh.

                  • Of course, Robin. And I don’t disagree with you re the reason for revision. As you know, in the “old days”, the reason for the revision was given, along with the revisions being in italics (like C/S Series 73RA).

                    Cheers, mate. 🙂

                    • Chris;

                      As you remember HACS was restricted to Sea Org auditors much like power and power plus was restricted to 5 year contracted staff and SO.

                      IMHO they should have kept it as a specialist level so one wouldn’t end up with such idiocies as calling a Grad V a IX because they did the NOTs course which in my opinion is deceptive.

            • GAT was supposedly the solution to circumvent standard Qual remedial actions. Instead of getting the Qual of the day back on track with standard Tech & Policy, they embarked on offbeat solutions to robotize training which is no remedy at all. All handlings are found in extant LRH materials, re-inventing training is not one of them. If one cracks open the Tech Dictionary and looks up quirrel, GAT designers and implementors perfectly fit that definition:

              SQUIRREL, 1. a squirrel is doing something entirely different. He doesn’t understand any of the principles so he makes up a bunch of them to fulfill his ignorance and voices them off on a pc and gets no place. (SH Spec 77, 6111C08) 2. those who engage in actions altering Scn, and offbeat practices. (ISE, p. 40)—v. to change and invent processes. (HCOB 22 May 69)

              • Exactly, FM., No need to “re-invent the wheel”; one only needs to find the correct outness and correct that. Much like cramming. That’s why there’s so much push-back against all these “new” releases and “new” techs – it’s wrong-way to! Just get working what wasn’t functioning before, like a real Qual, a real HCO, real training. AGAIN, as Ron says, “WHEN IN DOUBT, DO THE USUAL”.

      • Fundamentally, they’ve gotten complicated. Someone must have told someone they were simple. And essentially, they’ve forgotten the purpose. The Levels were to make people who could audit, fast. They were primarily for co-auditing one’s way up the Bridge, something LRH always wanted to see happening in volume. Ron never expected his Church to be turned into a clinic like it has been. Ron talks about those who want to become professional auditors doing the internship and higher level courses and burning the midnight oil. But the lower level courses (0-IV) were mainly to train auditors well enough they could slog through co-audits. It no longer is that, for sure.

        Ron wanted to make auditors, everyone an auditor. That’s covered in his RJs, in various Div IV policies, and in HCOB What We Expect of a Scientologist. And what about those that had to be pcs? He said to let them be pcs and to pay for that. Back in the heydays of the tech booms, if you weren’t on course but were just a pc, you were looked at as second-class. The “real” Scientologists were getting trained. These days, the DM Management Group has it all ass-backwards. Of course, that’s just fine if all you’re making is robots and not free beings.

        • Very true Chris,

          The levels and any other auditor training was supposed to be done according to Course Supervisor Stable Data.

          Also on co-audits according to various REDs you could skip set-ups and just get them to audit each level. This is why you’d need a trained auditor as a co-audit supe. So he or she could unwrap anyone who got wrapped around a telephone pole.

          Man all the arbitraries they put in the road of making auditors these days like doing a course that rivals the SHSBC before anyone gets behind an e-meter then when they do get behind it having them do EM 23 and 25 to a total loss along TR 8 Q.

          Then demand that they audit “perfectly” before they even get in front of a PC is so absurd that it can only have been conceived by an SP.

  2. I really get a kick out of this piece of nonsense from the D/Captain FSO:

    SOLO PART II:

    What is often missed is that the Solo II Course was completely stripped back to the LRH Course exactly as LRH had it at Saint Hill.

    Often missed“? By whom and how? The only way that could be the case is if you had at least a dozen or so “SOLO PART IIers” on that service in the 60s … and they are now doing it again GAT II style … lol. Who else could often miss it? Stuck on it for 50 years and just resuming it? They are trying to suggest this is something you ought to have known.

    I think the GAT I theme was “Standard Tech, GAT II is “Pure LRH”. Anyone care to venture what GAT III might be: “100% on-source unadulterated LRH Tech”. I’m getting dizzy already … I mean how much higher can go go? … lol.

    • Just PR hype and glutz. All of them like mini-DMs in how they act and talk. Same old sh*t. Best to keep pushing forward and getting one’s friends up the Bridge to have some company. 🙂

      • Yes, all just PR hype and glutz. I’m just surprised how obvious and overt in admitting the BS has become. Like criminals freely confessing to their crimes, and by not trying to hide it any longer, the hope to get acceptance to suggest it’s all just the normal and usual goings. 3D blind spots, the blind leading the blind in its full-blown glory.

    • Yeah that’s the annoying thing about WP is that the comment button mysteriously vanish if your comment doesn’t end in the right hand section of the box.

      A glitch I hope the good people over at word press will fix at some point.

      Anyway.

      Funny how Marty, Mike and Danny boy like to point the Fickle Finger of Fate at Dave. Yet were all in a position to do something about him at the time.

      I mean there are all kinds of 9′ fences that exist in Policy they could have used but instead Marty and Mike particularly covered his sorry ass and actually lied on his behalf in that pathetic puff piece in the SP Times “The Man Behind Scientology”:

      http://www.sptimes.com/TampaBay/102598/scientologypart1.html

      Aided and abetted him in committing a High Crime of falsely using Ron’s name to remove a senior exec. A crime that the little weasel actually brags about while blatantly lying about he and Mary Sue remaining “friends” afterward when the fact is they had the poor woman locked down at Chisholm Drive under virtual house arrest.

      Danny on the other hand under the Snr C/S Int office took over a decade to complete a pilot that should have taken a few weeks maybe a couple of months to complete.

      Then after it was released. It was released broadly to the public when it should have been delivered to staff first according to the directives I was familiar with when I was at NWC.

      Like I wrote Ingrid. They claim that they are the “solution” now after putting that little Frankenstein monster of theirs in a position of power.

      • “Yeah that’s the annoying thing about WP is that the comment button mysteriously vanish if your comment doesn’t end in the right hand section of the box.”

        Easy fix: just insert “spaces” with the space bar to carry you over to the right-hand side; or, go up a line or two that DOES go over all the way to the right-hand side and move the cursor to the end of the line. You’ll see the “Post Comment” button. I believe it’s a glitch with how the page itself is set up.

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