Hubbard's Antichrist Bulletin confirmed by two Exes or Indies

[CommunicatorIC]

Makes you think, what are "they" trying so desperately to hide that would put their maximum efforts into keeping this data a secret?

That "they" are pathetically stupid.

 

[lotus]

Please protect yourself!

 

[guanoloco]

On the Between Lives Implants tape LRH talks about the implant stations on Mars and Venus. The audience repeats these in acknowledgement, with some saying Mars and others saying Venus.

But if you listen real carefully, you will notice the men who speak out all say Mars and the women all say Venus.

Perhaps John Gray was right after all; more so than he ever imagined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gray_(U.S._author)

Note: there is a version of this tape that states "there's no such thing as between lives implants". This is a highly-altered lecture, perhaps the most highly altered of all. Makes you think, what are "they" trying so desperately to hide that would put their maximum efforts into keeping this data a secret?

Helena

Whenever I think of implants on Mars I think of this:

So what? Call me a pervert, already!

Didn't Ron say that prison planet Earth was full of perverts, criminals and artists? That more or less explains Ron having teeny boppers in hotpants and running a criminal organization as the crim mastermind because have you heard Ron's music lately?

That ain't no art!! It's more like some sort of...well...criminal perversion!

At any rate I'm bettin' those are some implants Ron would've loved to have gotten his hands on.








(This was cross posted from the 100 Stupidest Moments in Scientology thread.)

 

[guanoloco]

Here's another reason why I thought this OT 8 doc was bogus.

One of the biggest errors with this, although quite frankly Hubbard could've been just as guilty in making it, is that the word "Lucifer" has anything whatsoever to do with Satan.

That is not the case and is a mistake.

This was revealed to me on a recent episode of Decoded where they investigated whether or not the Statue of Liberty was a Luciferic icon (which it is) and they learned from a Biblical scholar that the word "Lucifer" appears only once in the Bible and has nothing to do with Satan as in this link How Many Times Is the Word 'Lucifer' Mentioned in the Bible?

Answer

The name Lucifer, meaning the morning star, was used in an ironic sense in Isaiah 14:4-22, to refer to the king of Babylon after his defeat by the Persians. This passage was misunderstood by Christian translators, resulting in the widespread Christian view that Lucifer and Satan are one.

The word appears only once in the King James Version, American KJV and NKJV, Websters, Douay-Rheims and Darby Bibles, but not at all in other major versions.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_t...#ixzz1hOn8reat

Merely Google the number of times Lucifer appears in the Bible and you'll get enough responses that say the same - it appears once and is/was mistakenly associated with Satan.

People, including myself, have mistakenly referred this to Satan and, by reference then, to an Anti-Christ.

There is no such connection, apparently. That's something that any serious Rosicrucian or Gnostic or whatever would presumably have learned right away, I'm guessing.

I'm certain Hubbard was aware of it.

However, whoever wrote the above was NOT aware of that and drew a Satanic connection to the name of Lucifer.

To me that is the most damning evidence that it is a fraud - although, admittedly, it is possible Hubbard could've made the same layperson common mistake.

You can buy the Decoded episode here: Brad Meltzers Decoded Statue of Liberty DVD.

In short...Lucifer has nothing whatsoever to do with Satan.

I don't know anything at length or in depth about Rosicrucian, et al, beliefs so I don't know if Lucifer and the use of that name play prominently in their lore or not. I was merely taken aback having watched this show and them discussing this point about Lucifer not being Satan...blah, blah, blah.

I figured the same for most folks run-of-the-mill sorts and somebody forged this doc to make Hu666ard look like a Satanist (which he was but I considered one who remained hidden) when they themselves were under the mistaken notion that Lucifer meant Satan, which only an amateur would make this mistake...or so I figure-figured.

 

[Veda]

Here's another reason why I thought this OT 8 doc was bogus.

One of the biggest errors with this, although quite frankly Hubbard could've been just as guilty in making it, is that the word "Lucifer" has anything whatsoever to do with Satan.

That is not the case and is a mistake.

This was revealed to me on a recent episode of Decoded where they investigated whether or not the Statue of Liberty was a Luciferic icon (which it is) and they learned from a Biblical scholar that the word "Lucifer" appears only once in the Bible and has nothing to do with Satan as in this link How Many Times Is the Word 'Lucifer' Mentioned in the Bible?



Merely Google the number of times Lucifer appears in the Bible and you'll get enough responses that say the same - it appears once and is/was mistakenly associated with Satan.

People, including myself, have mistakenly referred this to Satan and, by reference then, to an Anti-Christ.

There is no such connection, apparently. That's something that any serious Rosicrucian or Gnostic or whatever would presumably have learned right away, I'm guessing.

I'm certain Hubbard was aware of it.

However, whoever wrote the above was NOT aware of that and drew a Satanic connection to the name of Lucifer.

To me that is the most damning evidence that it is a fraud - although, admittedly, it is possible Hubbard could've made the same layperson common mistake.

You can buy the Decoded episode here: Brad Meltzers Decoded Statue of Liberty DVD.

In short...Lucifer has nothing whatsoever to do with Satan.

I don't know anything at length or in depth about Rosicrucian, et al, beliefs so I don't know if Lucifer and the use of that name play prominently in their lore or not. I was merely taken aback having watched this show and them discussing this point about Lucifer not being Satan...blah, blah, blah.

I also doubted the authenticity of the Lucifer HCOB of 1980.

That was mainly because some of the writing, IMO, was not in Hubbard's writing style.

Also, I knew of no persons, who were around Hubbard during that time, who had confirmed its authenticity.

Recently, there was sufficient evidence from reliable people to confirm, for me, that it was - for a while - on both the Class 8 and also New OT 8 course.

More recently, I had confirmed that Hubbard did author it. That it came via Pat Broeker, who was extremely excited about it, and wanted a new OT level built around it and based on it.

I have a question as to whether it was typed by Hubbard, or was dictated by Hubbard. If it was dictated by Hubbard and, then, formatted by Broeker, perhaps Broeker added some small amount of content to bridge from idea to idea; however the core, essential, document, was Hubbard's.

One additional bit of information was that Hubbard was using mind/mood altering medical drugs at the time.

Hubbard's reference to the Cabala is noteworthy, and his descent into yet more implant scenarios ("the third wall of fire") - this time with the implanters outside the physical universe - was predicable.

So, I stand corrected in my earlier rejection of this document's authenticity.

 

[Anonycat]

I also doubted the authenticity of the Lucifer HCOB of 1980.

That was mainly because some of the writing, IMO, was not in Hubbard's writing style.

Also, I knew of no persons, who were around Hubbard during that time, who had confirmed its authenticity.

Recently, there was sufficient evidence from reliable people to confirm, for me, that it was - for a while - on both the Class 8 and also New OT 8 course.

More recently, I had confirmed that Hubbard did author it. That it came via Pat Broeker, who was extremely excited about it, and wanted a new OT level built around it and based on it.

I have a question as to whether it was typed by Hubbard, or was dictated by Hubbard. If it was dictated by Hubbard and, then, formatted by Broeker, perhaps Broeker added some small amount of content to bridge from idea to idea; however the core, essential, document, was Hubbard's.

One additional bit of information was that Hubbard was using mind/mood altering medical drugs at the time.

Hubbard's reference to the Cabala is noteworthy, and his descent into yet more implant scenarios ("the third wall of fire") - this time with the implanters outside the physical universe - was predicable.

So, I stand corrected in my earlier rejection of this document's authenticity.

I just jumped in to this thread - but haven't a few people here confirmed that they did the OT level with that in it? And people who had been sued since are unable to provide it because of past litigation?

 

[uncover]

Here's another reason why I thought this OT 8 doc was bogus.
.....
People, including myself, have mistakenly referred this to Satan and, by reference then, to an Anti-Christ.

There is no such connection, apparently. That's something that any serious Rosicrucian or Gnostic or whatever would presumably have learned right away, I'm guessing.

I'm certain Hubbard was aware of it.
.....

And I am certain, that Hubbard was NOT aware of it. Simply because Hubbard spreaded so much bullshit as "truth" - (beside Xenu and the Space Opera) for example in "History of Man" the story of the Piltdown Man:

....

The Piltdown Man

​

Man’s first real Manhood is found in the PILTDOWN, a creature not an ape, yet not entirely a Man. It is so named not because it is accurately the real Piltdown Man but because it has some similarity.

The PILTDOWN contains freakish acts of strange “logic,” of demonstrating dangerous on one’s fellows, of eating one’s wife and other somewhat illogical activities. The PILTDOWN teeth were ENORMOUS and he was quite careless as to whom and what he bit and often very much surprised at the resulting damage.

Obsessions about biting, efforts to hide the mouth and early familial troubles can be found in the PILTDOWN. It is a wonderful area in which to locate GE overt acts.
....

Unfortunately the "Piltdown Man" was a hoax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

The same hoax as El Con Hubbard´s "science of the mind".

 

[Veda]

I just jumped in to this thread - but haven't a few people here confirmed that they did the OT level with that in it? And people who had been sued since are unable to provide it because of past litigation?

Yes, but the additional step of information from someone close to Hubbard, at the time, that confirms that the author definitely was Hubbard, is new.

 

[Anonycat]

Yes, but the additional step of information from someone close to Hubbard, at the time, that confirms that the author definitely was Hubbard, is new.

I thought it was. I guess that makes me either gullible or smart. Either way, thanks.

 

[guanoloco]

And I am certain, that Hubbard was NOT aware of it. Simply because Hubbard spreaded so much bullshit as "truth" - (beside Xenu and the Space Opera) for example in "History of Man" the story of the Piltdown Man:



Unfortunately the "Piltdown Man" was a hoax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

The same hoax as El Con Hubbard´s "science of the mind".

Wait just a darned minute here...are you suggesting that Ron was WRONG?

 

[ScienceNotScientology]

And I am certain, that Hubbard was NOT aware of it. Simply because Hubbard spreaded so much bullshit as "truth" - (beside Xenu and the Space Opera) for example in "History of Man" the story of the Piltdown Man:

Unfortunately the "Piltdown Man" was a hoax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

The same hoax as El Con Hubbard´s "science of the mind".

Actually you have to give Tubb-a-lard some credit here, his con was more sophisticated than Piltdown. You can easily see the percussion and shaving marks on Piltdown with the naked eye. You got to be kind of far into scientology (or properly social scientifically educated - and most in the US aren't) to see how scientology uses (steals steals) the small stuff in it that works from these (and a hodgepodge of other) places and by the time you get into the real CRAZY shit they've got enough blackmail material that makes it hard to leave. Hell of a con!

However I like how the internet NOW is making the crazy shit known right off the bat. Though I was on it early it wasn't ubiquitous (or as accessible) as it is now so the curiosity temporarily trapped this cat. Future me's won't get screwed and waylayed on their way to the things they should be doing.

Making up for lost time ...

 

[ClearedSP]

One of the biggest errors with this, although quite frankly Hubbard could've been just as guilty in making it, is that the word "Lucifer" has anything whatsoever to do with Satan.[/B]
<...snip...>
I figured the same for most folks run-of-the-mill sorts and somebody forged this doc to make Hu666ard look like a Satanist (which he was but I considered one who remained hidden) when they themselves were under the mistaken notion that Lucifer meant Satan, which only an amateur would make this mistake...or so I figure-figured.

I had believed the doc was fake based on writing style.
I now have to believe the doc is basically real.

I'm guessing that Hubbard's idea of Lucifer was the same as Crowley's -- the very common, but wrong one.

I cling unto the burning Æthyr like Lucifer that fell through the Abyss, and by the fury of his flight kindled the air.

 

[kate8024]

And I am certain, that Hubbard was NOT aware of it. Simply because Hubbard spreaded so much bullshit as "truth" - (beside Xenu and the Space Opera) for example in "History of Man" the story of the Piltdown Man:

Unfortunately the "Piltdown Man" was a hoax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

I would argue that we he says "not the real Piltdown man" it doesn't really say that the Piltdown man was real or a hoax, only that the thing he is describing shares a name with it and has some similarities. Also from the limited research I did it looks like around the time that was written there were a lot of famously smart people who believed in the Piltdown man... granted most of them were probably not claiming to know every secret of the universe but still. In my opinion he was essentially just describing the commonly held perception of the 'caveman' and chose an unfortunate name for it.

 

[uncover]

I would argue that we he says "not the real Piltdown man" it doesn't really say that the Piltdown man was real or a hoax, only that the thing he is describing shares a name with it and has some similarities. Also from the limited research I did it looks like around the time that was written there were a lot of famously smart people who believed in the Piltdown man... granted most of them were probably not claiming to know every secret of the universe but still. In my opinion he was essentially just describing the commonly held perception of the 'caveman' and chose an unfortunate name for it.

This hypothesis would include, that Hubbards "Piltdown Man" has its roots not in his - as claimed - own "whole track research" but rather that he stole it from others - as common. Or as his son said that
Hubbard made it up while talking. Another example: The Van Allen Belt. It was new at this time, and Hubbard claimed he was already there. Or the trains on venus....

Same with radioactivity. This was in the news when he wrote his "all about radioactivity". Everybody was scared at that time and therefore Hubbard thought that he could make some money with some junk-books on that subject.

 

[kate8024]

This hypothesis would include, that Hubbards "Piltdown Man" has its roots not in his - as claimed - own "whole track research" but rather that he stole it from others - as common.

It doesn't mean he wasn't describing whole track research, though I think the majority of the research in his books/lectures was done by others and then he slapped his name on it. It could be that people really experience something similar to a cave man past life or of course it could be that the cave man is a common symbol in our culture and people going looking for past lives to explain things in this one will inevitably come upon this symbol.

 

[guanoloco]

This hypothesis would include, that Hubbards "Piltdown Man" has its roots not in his - as claimed - own "whole track research" but rather that he stole it from others - as common. Or as his son said that
Hubbard made it up while talking. Another example: The Van Allen Belt. It was new at this time, and Hubbard claimed he was already there. Or the trains on venus....

Same with radioactivity. This was in the news when he wrote his "all about radioactivity". Everybody was scared at that time and therefore Hubbard thought that he could make some money with some junk-books on that subject.

I once saw a documentary on the late 40s/early 50s about the rise in media attention of UFOs and aliens right after WWII and the Foo Fighters and such. People were claiming abductions from Venus and Mars aliens and others claimed to be these aliens. Hubbard jumped on this trend and got right on this milieu and amongst this setting the trains on Venus and Marcabs with fedoras isn't so whacky. Per the documentary this stuff was taking the country by storm sort of like the hoola hoop and pet rock.

Hubbard was whatever direction the wind was blowing to sell a book for a buck.

 

[uncover]

It doesn't mean he wasn't describing whole track research, though I think the majority of the research in his books/lectures was done by others and then he slapped his name on it.

Exactly, the "research" of History of Man was approximately as follows:
He drugged his son, put him on the meter, and whatever druggie-picture came up was designated as truth. So in reality his son did the "research".

But from a scientific viewpoint this has nothing to do with true scientific research. Hubbard never did anything which can be called research. He simply made it up and said this is the truth, I am the source, and because I am the source you have to accept it as truth: "Keeping Scientology Working #1"

It could be that people really experience something similar to a cave man past life ....

No it can´t be that they "experience" it, you can only experience something what is happening NOW. Everything else is at best only a "mock-up":

MOCK-UP, v. 1. to get an imaginary picture of. (COHA, p. 100) —n. 1. “mockup” is derived from the World War II phrase which indicated a symbolized weapon or area of attack. Here, it means in essence, something which a person makes up himself. (Scn Jour, Iss 14-G) 3 . A mock-up is something the thetan puts up and says is there. ..... (9ACC-24, 5501C14)

.... but this is not a scientific proof that it is really there or ever has been there. That´s only mind-masturbation, nothing else.

 

[uncover]

Hubbard was whatever direction the wind was blowing to sell a book for a buck.

Exactly, and when "Star Wars" became a blockbuster suddenly he wanted to sell his so "super-secret deadly-dangerous OT-III Xenu-Space-Opera-story" as a hollywood-film: "Revolt in the Stars".

 

[guanoloco]

Exactly, and when "Star Wars" became a blockbuster suddenly he wanted to sell his so "super-secret deadly-dangerous OT-III Xenu-Space-Opera-story" as a hollywood-film: "Revolt in the Stars".

Ortega has a text-to-audio version on his blog of the first page or so of dialogue of this blockbuster.

He calls it "Tax Revolt in the Stars".

I call it "Revolting in the Stars" because it's a dog's breakfast.