The Pilot, Excerpts from his Writings

Discussion in 'Freezone, Independents, and Other Flavors of Scien' started by Antony A Phillips, Jul 23, 2012.

View Users: View Users
  1. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation


    A friend of yours was about to be a naughty boy but decided against it.


    There is no need for tekky references, endless significance or congratulatory pats on backs, most real world people already know that it's uncool to commit crimes (not due to 'case' concerns ... just due to it being 'wrong').

    ESMB is a part of the real world, not some silly cultic world, please stop encouraging people to remain in that mindset just because you choose to.

    I know this is the freezone area ... but I don't seem to care.


  2. Claire Swazey

    Claire Swazey Spokeshole, fence sitter


    Your comment to your friend seemed to be saying in another way, we're part of the universe, what we do creates ripples in it. New Age thought discusses that a lot, as did John Donne in his famous elegy.
  3. Rather than entrusting his mental health to a batshit crazy role playing game,

    he should have sought out some professional help instead,

    If he did, he could still very well be alive today.
  4. Pilot'sPosts Z24 -- Limited Bridges

    Pilot'sPosts Z24

    Limited Bridges

    From Post 42 – December 1998

    Let's hypothesize that there are 100 areas or levels that must be addressed to make it to OT.

    I'm talking major areas here, like grade 1 or NOTS.

    The CofS only handles about a dozen. A few more if you include older levels that used to be done (like grade 5 or the old OT levels).

    My impression (not knowing his materials in detail) is that Alan [Walter] goes after a few dozen, and I have the same opinion of Idenics and CBR's followers.

    TROM on the other hand only aims at a couple of targets and I have the same impression of Avatar from the various things that have been posted about it.

    The Self Clearing book was my own best shot at this and the 48 chapters probably cover half of the potential targets.

    There is a datum in orthodox CofS case supervision that anything can be handled at any level and that you use the processes of the level the pc is on to address what he needs handled. In other words, if somebody at level zero has a pain in the shoulder, then you use "from where could you communicate to a shoulder?" rather than some other technique.

    Although this only has limited workability, it does show that you can broaden out any one of these levels and try to handle everything from that perspective. My experience is that this will work for a little while and then begin to grind and act as a wrong why.

    When I was running solo NOTS endlessly, there was a short period where anything could be handled with a NOTS approach. The same goes for Dianetics and handling overts which are the other two areas that CofS pushes to the wall and tries to run the entire case on endlessly.

    You could handle problems by pulling overts and get a key out a few times, at least on some people, before it started coming up dry. The same for handling them by running incidents or blowing entities. I would assume that this would also be true of uncreating the problem as they do in Avatar or using a TROM technique.

    So you can fool yourself into thinking that one area can run the entire case.

    And different people will find different areas to be the most easily accessible. You can just throw away the idea that there is one sequence and everybody does best on that one pattern. Some people would find Dianetics easiest to run first, others would do better on grades, others might find Avatar's approach to be the easiest initially. I even know one guy (not a Scientologist) who finds entities really easy to confront and handle (and has good perception of them) and yet is heavily blocked on past track (his attitude is that this is our first lifetime, we are potentially immortal and go on to higher planes when we die but there is nothing before, it is all black).

    Besides this, there are different styles and techniques for approaching a particular level. It can be light or intense, narrow or broad, and there are many different ways to skin the same cat. Some will work better on a particular person than others.

    One size does not fit all.

    The hardest part is the first step. Once you make one big gain, it softens everything else up a bit and give you more space and horsepower to tackle another.

    The person may be very limited as to what can be run for that first step but as he progresses beyond that, more areas become available and the selection of what tools will work becomes much broader.

    Any practice that assumes what that first step will be is going to end up filtering their public for people on whom their first step works well. Even the Self Clearing book suffers from that because the chapters are in a certain order and that order will not be right for everybody.

    This tells us that we should not be unmocking other practices. Whatever gets someone started on the road to truth gets them started.

    The greatest weakness in metaphysics was not in its ideas but in its practical application. The big breakthrough in early Scientology was in how to process something rather than in what processes were being run.

    And in that regard, metaphysics is changing. Some of it may be due to spill off from early Scientology and some due to better dissemination and training of techniques which did exist but the main reason might simply be that it is growing in a culture that is infused with the practicalities of science and engineering.

    In other words, this synthesis of Eastern thought and Western methodology is a natural thing whose time has come. Scientology was simply a bit ahead of its time, moving in advance of the wave front.

    The big wrongness exists when a practice says that it is the only way and limits its approach and techniques rather than simply saying "Here is something helpful which works".

    Science and engineering are additive, bigger and bigger collections of data and techniques. There is more than one way to build a bridge. There are truss bridges and arch bridges and suspension bridges and there is no one way which is right in all circumstances.

    And so it should be with processing, many approaches and an assortment of tools rather than one right way.

    There is nothing wrong with pursuing a narrow technique as long as it is working. Take it as far as it will go. Go ahead and get to the big gain.

    But once that does happen, don't start overrunning it and grinding it into the ground. And don't expect that everything is now handled. Plan on moving on to another area for your next step.

    There may be a wondrous key-out with that big gain. Everything might seem like it is gone. Enjoy it. But don't expect it to last. If you have a big gain like that, there will be something which is a permanent stable gain, but there will also be a large amount which has not erased but simply has gotten off of your back temporarily.

    And don't invalidate it just because it isn't everything. These are huge steps when you make them.

    From what I remember of earlier lifetimes, one was lucky to make one such big step in an entire lifetime dedicated to seeking enlightenment.

    Despite what Ron said, I think that these states are not new, they have been achieved at various times. What is new is the speed. You can do in a year what might have taken a lifetime of searching.

    But don't stop at just one, go ahead and take the next step. They get faster as you build up momentum.

    There are many limited bridges. Don't let that stop you. Go ahead and string them together until the composite is long enough to get you out of the swamp.

    And if you want to mix techniques from the Self Clearing book into any other practice, be my guest. I am not a purist or an advocate of only one right way. You're going to need everything that you can get your hands on.

    And if somebody tells you that their one technique is all that you'll ever need, just realize that its a PR statement, similar to a box of corn flakes proudly proclaiming that it has all the vitamins and minerals that you might ever want.

    Expand your horizons, think broadly, and keep moving. Each forward step is its own reward. You will never be the same again.


    The Pilot
  5. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    That above is quite a brilliant write-up.

    Thanks, Ant.

    It makes me wonder what the Pilot must have collided with that then wasn't adequately or correctly handled such that his life became the mess that it eventually became.

    He sure was a brave researcher; which of course has its risks :yes: and I say that in the context of an awareness of the various things he might have collided with that are quite devastating if mishandled.

    But all that's by-the-by, his write-up above speaks many truths.

  6. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Re: Pilot'sPosts Z24 -- Limited Bridges

    Thanks, Ant. Excellent post. :thumbsup:

    There is an old saw: one mountain, many paths.

    That is very true. Also very true is the idea that revisiting a previously addressed area after some period of absence or inactivity can produce new insights and progress, sometimes exceeding any prior gains which may have been made.

    Mark A. Baker
  7. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    Some people (but NOT all) will react in a cranky or angry way when you "miss their withhold".

    However, sometimes the person is just under pressure and "having a bad day".

    The only way you can know, one way or the other, is IF you know them, what they are doing, and what their "normal" behavior IS. (i.e. you have to "calibrate" their personality in your own mind by KNOWING them.)

    Hubbard made this "missed withhold" stuff FAR TOO simplistic, as usual.

    It's sort of like when a parent knows their child so much that they know, by their behavior, when they are lying to cover up something.
  8. Re: The Pilot - what happened?????

    Well, my opinion only, based on a some familiarity with his life and achievements, and communications with him (in a private group) both before and after his wife revealed his identity to the "Church", is that he "collided" (using Roger's term) with highly secret activities of the so called Church. That they were criminal acts (including abduction), and thus kept very secret. Nothing to do with missing bits of bridge, and a lot to do with going alone to crowded places where some stranger can drop a drug in your drink, and with accomplices cart you off, telling people you are his friends, and they know how to help you when you get such "attacks". Highly criminal. Further opinion, he did not realise how much damage the "Church" felt he was doing to them, and how criminal parts of the "Church" were, and that they would do anything to stop him. Note that he struggled for some years, after his wife revealed his identity to the "Church" and he "caved in" and stopped posting to the web, before he finally took his life. There is background data at - look at IVy 83, and note the time line of how long he struggled before finally giving up - he was basically a fighter (perhaps his downfall, he fought the "Church" - whereas others like me have not fought the "Church", and flourish and prosper :) )

    But I have no concrete evidence. That is my opinion, and I see no use in my entering in a discussion on it. Use what you can of what I am relaying to you of his writings. But if anyone is hung up on the mystery of it, realise that any knowledge that can be use to "free" a person can be used to "enslave" - in this case, call it black Scientology.

    All best wishes,

  9. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    I guess the difference between this and PDH is enough pain or fear to cause an isolated 'alter. Anything is possible...

    The Pilot's intuitions were good. He felt overwhelmed by behavior 'driving' him. Enough heightened sensation can hardwire the brain into neurological patterning. Almost all of the young Mountauk guinea pigs were stimulated sexually or anally while using drugs to make the brain susceptible to suggestion and signals.
    Anything's possible.

    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  10. Pilot'sPost Z25a/b Self Auditing Vs Self Clearing PLUS Pilot'sPost Z25b Pilot..Solo

    [Two for the price of one today, categorising both as Z25, one a the other b. AntEd]

    Pilot'sPost Z25a

    Self Auditing Vs Self Clearing

    From Post 55 (May 1999)

    In the early days, there was "self auditing" and there was "self auditing" and the one was highly encouraged and the other was highly discouraged and the same word was used for both.

    Workable self auditing consisted of a trained auditor running processes on himself. Ron frequently encouraged his advanced students to do it.

    Unworkable self auditing consisted of a preclear sitting around and figure figuring to himself and pulling things into restimulation. It was not at that time forbidden, but it was seen as a major outpoint to be remedied on a case.

    And then there were the self auditing books done by Ron. The best for beginners was Self Analysis and also its creative processing variation Self Analysis in Scientology (doing mockups instead of recalls). There was also the Six Steps of Self Auditing as given in the tech volumes.

    There was even Handbook for Preclears, which was primarily intended for solo use in between professional sessions. It works well that way but leaves something to be desired as a pure solo book if one is working alone because it provides too little theory. The real theory materials that go with it are in Advanced Procedures and Axioms and for broad workability, I think that most untrained people would need to study AP&A concurrently with doing HBPC [Handbook for Preclears].

    Nonetheless, these self auditing materials were issued, and CofHA routes 1 and 2 were also designated as being good for self auditing. And many gains have been made using these various materials on a self audited basis.

    And then came modern solo auditing. This was only used on a very limited array of processes and under strict case supervision, but it still shows that successful self processing can take place. And note that the common misconception that one must be Clear to do Solo is quite false. Ron developed solo auditing for use before going clear because grade 6 and the clearing course had to be done solo.

    The conflict between the unworkable self auditing and the obviously workable use of self analysis even by a beginner was explained as "It's not really self auditing because the book is auditing you."

    But this doesn't really explain why the doctorate course students had such great success self auditing the processes nor does it explain why highly trained auditors do well in soloing rundowns on themselves.

    The better statement would be:

    PC plus Materials is greater than bank.
    PC plus Processes and Processing Skill is greater than bank.

    But of course this depends on the PC and how good the materials are and how good is his skill level.

    So maybe it would be better to say "can be greater than bank" rather than saying "is greater than bank".

    Since self auditing has a bad name, and solo auditing was defined very strictly in orthodox standard tech, let us coin a new definition:

    Self Processing is the action of running a drill or a process upon oneself to a result.

    We could use that as the broad definition, and then consider Self Clearing and Solo Auditing to be particular implementations of Self Processing. Both are valid. And so is Self Analysis, which is yet a third variation of Self Processing. Many bridges are possible, you can have more than one way to cross the same river.

    The figure-figure variation of self auditing, on the other hand, is not valid processing. In fact it is a contradiction even in how it is named because there is no "auditor" (listener) to listen to oneself.

    In self processing, you take a drill or a processing question and use it repetitively to push through non-confronts and confusion to see what is really there and bring about an as-isness and restoration of ability.

    In self auditing, one just mucks about going "What is it?", "What's it?", "What's it?", and "what about that too?", and "What about this other thing?", and "Now I feel miserable, why is that?" and so on. One is just opening up more and more questions and confusion without answering anything. This brings in more bank and soon the person will have too much bank in current restimulation to make any progress.

    In self processing, on the other hand, one limits the question, using just a single "What's it" aimed at a narrow target, and then one goes "It is a ...", and then "It's a ...", and then "It's a ..." and soon one is digging deeper and seeing more basic things on that single target and one ends up with some bank handled and less bank in current restimulation.

    Getting some well done professional processing can greatly improve self processing. Professionally done grades are wonderful for increasing one's depth and speed of processing, and it gives you an excellent subjective understanding of how it feels when processes are run at optimum.

    If you do get some professional handling, don't mix in self processing at the same time unless you have gotten an ok from the processor. If he is running one set of processes on you and you are going home and running a different set, it throws a wild variable into his processing and can get in the way of him being able to do his job. It really only works if he is giving you self processing assignments (just like the old days when an auditor would give the pc a section of HBPC to work on between sessions).

    In the long run the only way out is by self processing whether it is formal solo auditing or self clearing or some other similar technique. You eventually will have to come up to a point of complete understanding and full responsibility for your own case.

    At the beginning, you can make it alone if you're determined enough, or you can get some help and have an easier time of it. Do whatever works, but do something rather than just sitting around being the effect of things.


    The Pilot


    Pilot'sPost Z25b

    Pilot talking about Solo

    From Post 13 Oct 1997

    In the 1950s, Ron said that the rules against self auditing only applied to PCs and did not apply to people who trained as auditors. Although this changed in the 1960s, I believe that he was right the first time.


    From post 15 November 1997

    You can pretty much run [solo] any process safely except for Dianetic repeater technique. That one is trouble and may drag an implant into restimulation.

    So Ron was right in saying that DMSMH style Dianetics should not be self audited. As soon as they moved beyond Dianetics in 1951-52, self auditing was quite acceptable and Ron encouraged trained auditors to use the processes on themselves.

    This continued until the 1960s.

    People trying to solo audit quickie grades got in trouble. So Ron told them to stop doing that. But actually, everybody got in trouble on quickie grades, so it was not a valid test.

    You will find that you can pretty much run anything successfully as long as the command directs your attention adequately. The only processes that may fail are general "two way comms" that do not have a specific target to Itsa, and you might sometimes have trouble with a prepcheck because the questions are a bit too vague. But it is not actually dangerous to try these.

  11. Pilot'sRepost: An editorial sin

    Dear Ex Scientologist Message Board member or guest,

    In sending out the last Repost of the Pilot yesterday to three Internet lists, I failed to add the normal editorial finishing touches. Therefore if you want to send them further to friends or other lists (which you are very welcome to - it would be in keeping with the Pilot's intention) please paste and copy what you see at: (The ExScientologist Message Board) (That is to say _here_, above this :) )

    But the editorial "failure" I perpetrated gives a chance to stress the very different (from today) Internet circumstances the Pilot worked under which also ties up with why the Pilot, in those days was far more regarded as a threat to the "Church" than any one person today.

    The point is that in early email (and I think Internet news groups, like the two the Pilot wrote to, which were really the only public places on the Internet concerned with Scientology) you were extremely limited typographically. You could not write words or sentences in bold (this is an example of bold) or in italics (this is an example of italics), nor could you write "foreign" letters (like æ,ø,å). You could not underline words, or use different type faces (typewriter font, like this, was often the one used), and a custom came into use of setting an underscore before and after a word you particularly wanted to emphasize (like this: this is _important_ to note).

    What you are getting in these Pilot Reposts is both relayed and edited. And the editing concerns both correcting the Pilot's spelling, and adding emphasis in the form of bold or italic. With regard to italics, it has been fairly wide practice to put names of books, and perhaps films in italics, and this I have done (except in the last one to the three Internet lists). If you want to see the Pilot's posts in the original form (with his spellings :) ) you find all of nearly all posts at

    Here I am mainly emphasizing that the Pilot "attacked" the "Church" in a vastly different Internet environment than perhaps most of the present generation are aware of. It is also my impression that the "Church" was far stronger then, but that is a private opinion which I have not scientifically proved; certainly the people I knew then tended to have a higher level of "fear" of the "Church" than I meet now.

    All best wishes,

  12. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Re: Pilot'sRepost: An editorial sin

    Correct on all points, Ant. Particularly the part I highlight in red above.


    In Ken's day, to be "attacking" the Cof$ was to be a loner . . . today you are part of the daily scene. In Ken's day a stronger Cof$ could direct particular and concentrated force against you: but today they have so many invalidations, "attacks" and terminals speaking out and relaying truths that are unwelcome to it that one can get lost in the crowd.

    They are being overwhelmed by unpleasant truths and foot-bullets of their own making.

  13. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    I also very much like The Pilot's comments on "self auditing/processing versus solo auditing/processing" and the nuances of what actually occurs in correct processing sessions.

    He wrote:
    I would today go further, and say:

    PC plus Processes, Processing Skill and the knowledge and understanding of what comprises "case" is greater than bank.

    Personally, I have long known that my case is not the true me and nor is my "mind." One could, at certain levels of processing view it that "my case is not me."

    This enables one to address it without being overly affected or overwhelmed by it. With this understanding, and armed with precise techniques, one can address it precisely and restore the negative, charged life force back to positive and under one's knowing control.

    This action is indeed the correct action of auditing/processing and can be done solo at all levels . . . though it is fair to say a beginner person is limited to what they know.

    The Pilot is correct to note that one version of "self auditing" that is not really the act of applying any correct processing tech to one's case, but instead merely an action of rumbling through the garbage, will screw a person up :yes:

    I have long held that the "standard Bridge" and the demand by the Cof$ that all sessions be C/Sed and that no auditing/processing occurs outside of its purview is a suppressive money grabbing set up. I well remember, after I had done NOTs at Flag, being given ethics trouble for running a solo-assist series of sessions on myself while traveling the US. :duh: And when confronted with their own definition of "assist" etc., the bastards still could not get off the kick that every actions has to be done with a C/S . . . and with them :duh:

    They just simply do NOT like anyone to use the tech without paying court to them . . . :no::no::grouch:

    And hence its decline into cultdom . . .

  14. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    The basic problem of any religion and one of the key points which separates religion from spirituality: how to make it pay.

    Mark A. Baker
  15. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation

    Or ... you could finally accept that there is no 'case' or any 'precise techniques' and that you were probably fine in the first place.

  16. Spirituality was Pilot'sRepost: An editorial sin

    Yes. I can remember when I first mixed with Scientologists, I suppose my HPA course in 1955 in London, there was strong feeling against the "Americanism" of Scientology (somehow there was even some difficulties with Ron's American accent :)) and particularly antagonism with the idea of a "Church". Remember, in England, and I think in Europe generally, Church = a brand of Christianity.

    Even though I towed the line a bit, got a card (signed by John McMasters) saying I was a Scientology priest, it went against the grain. Still does, which is why I now (having regained a trifle of my integrity) put "Church" in inverted commas.

    True Scientology is a spiritual movement which really does something for ones spirituality.

    I regard the treatment by the "church" of the Pilot as the deepest level of evil and cruelty*, cleverly hidden so there is no evidence (yet) and we can waste our time discussing "was it suicide?". Generally speaking fruitless discussion. Read and discuss the "gems" of the Pilot friends of mine are finding and I am posting.

    All best wishes,


    * Remember I was witness to his years of misery after his wife revealed him, in his messages to the private list I was on while he was trying (with some success, but no legally viable evidence) to find a reason behind his "cave in".
  17. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Nice post, Ant.

    What riles me still, is the point that The Pilot's computer hard drive was wiped clean of his data . . .

    I can't imagine he'd have done that before he "suicided." After all, his shtick was communicating and making info available . . . I would consider him to be the last person likely to destroy the kind of info that was in his computer.

  18. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    We'll, he chose to wipe out his life. Maybe he figured that all he wanted remaining afterwards was be what he had already published. Would you want all of what is on your hard drive pored over publicly after your death?

  19. CarmeloOrchards

    CarmeloOrchards Crusader

    It was only cursorily "wiped clean". A knowledgeable computer consultant recovered everything easily within a short time. There wasn't anything of interest to the general public. Ken's mother got photos from it.
  20. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation

    Sadly, perhaps the poor man finally understood that it was all nonsense and wanted to dispose of it prior to disposing of himself.