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. Pilot'sPosts Z5 A History Of Abandoning Processes

    .
    Pilot'sPosts Z5 (first sent as Pilot Repost 12th May 2012)

    A History Of Abandoning Processes

    From Post 48 - February 1999

    With the May 1950 release of Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health came the idea that there was One Basic Why (engrams) which could be handled by a single technique to produce an ultimate case state which was at that time referred to as "Clear".

    Of course that went by the boards when the discovery of past life incidents made it painfully obvious that there was no way to run out all of an individual's engrams.

    At the same moment that the ultimate target was found to be unbelievably higher than the humanoid clear of DMSMH, the amount of material that would have to be handled had seemed to jump by a factor of about a trillion to one.

    Ron mentions, on at least one tape, that he had a moment of great despair when he saw that.

    Remember that this is before techniques such as mockup processing which could blow all the charge out of an area without actually running every damn incident that had ever been connected with something.

    And so the search was on to find faster more powerful techniques to undercut the bank and reach the target in a reasonable amount of time.

    And there was this idea of some key basic-basic which would undo everything.

    By the time of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course (PDC) at the end of 1952, not only was Dianetics old and abandoned but even the technique 88 processes of just a few months before were considered obsolete.

    Every ACC (Advanced Clinical Course) in those days had its own lineup of processes and most of the earlier processes were abandoned.

    They were not accumulating techniques in those days, instead they were using them briefly and then dropping them in favor of the next latest and greatest super techniques.

    Eventually, by mid 1954, we end up with Route 1 and 2 of Creation of Human Ability. And that was a great set of super techniques, probably the best single collection that was put together in the early days. But please realize that when it was truly in use, everything else was abandoned. That includes Dianetics, group processing, technique 88, fac one handling, running entities, the mockup processes of the doctorate course, the advanced OT rundown know as SOP-8C, the even more advanced roll your own OT bridge of SOP-8OT, and everything else from earlier times.

    And as always, there was a new bridge the following year. But unlike all the others, CofHA was so well consolidated that in later years route 1 would sometimes be identified as what to run if the current bridge was completed. But it stopped being used in the org's processing lineup.

    And then come the later ACCs [Advanced Clinical Courses], each again focusing on a limited target and trying to run the entire case that way.

    And finally we have the St. Hill Special Briefing Course [SHSBC]. Again most of the processes are old and we only use a limited subset. Techniques like R2-12 are used briefly and then abandoned with the ultimate target seen as GPMs and all other processing simply being a way to get the person up to running GPMs.

    If you examine the old tech volumes for the time period from the late 50s up until the grades are devised in 1965, you will see occasional HCOBs labeled as "HGC Allowed Processes". Those are complete lists of the techniques permitted in those times. All other processes could be considered to be canceled.

    But up until 1965 there was also the idea that a field auditor could use any process he was trained on and even that a new HGC auditor could run whatever he was best experienced at before learning the modern lineup. In other words, the cancellations really only applied to the standard HGC lineup at a central org, Ron was always happy to hear that some old process had been dug out and used in the field and he often related stories along those lines to his students when he would lecture.

    And so you wouldn't find route 1 being run in an org's HGC, but you might find a field auditor who was running it and nobody was going to make anyone wrong for doing that, any auditing was considered to be better than no auditing.

    But this thirst to knock out basic-basic by means of running a handful of techniques was still permeating the subject and in 1965 Ron thought that they had finally made it.

    I began training in 1966. By then KSW had come out so that all other processes were gone under pain of being declared as a suppressive and a squirrel.

    At that time I was not privy to what they were running on the clearing course, but I can tell you what was permitted at lower levels because it didn't change much during 1967 as I continued my training. And of course later I found out what I was not permitted to know about the upper levels in those early days.

    There were 2 assists permitted, the touch assist and the contact assist. I was threatened with being declared and having my certs pulled as a squirrel once in 1968 for using the "keep it from going away" assist on a fellow staff member.

    The only permitted Dianetic technique was "66 style" dianetics. R3R of 1963 was of course forbidden. I thought that was heartbreaking. Sometime in mid 1968 a telex came down telling us that we could use R3R for making a Dianetic release in the HGC instead of 66 style. You were allowed to get one FN on locks, one on secondaries, and one on engrams. This was all single flow of course. There was an HCOB about that which came out in 1967 (up till then Dianetics was only run by students on the 66 style HDA Dianetics course and not in the HGC). The HCOB, although supposedly by Ron, disappeared when Ron decided that "you can always run an engram" around the time of the Class 8 course in late 1968.

    Then you could run ARC straightwire. Just the one process, single flow. When it FNed you had a straightwire release. Of course self analysis was available to the public, and we didn't attack people for running it on themselves, but it wouldn't be run by an auditor, that would be squirrel.

    And then there was a process (sometimes a few processes) on each grade, but you couldn't continue a grade past it's floating needle. These FNs were hard to get because you didn't fly the ruds (that would have been counted as a grade release because FN meant release) so there was usually a big gain when the process finally did FN.

    But these were single flow processes, not even triples. So it was a few hours on each grade. This is before the true quickies of the Class 8 course.

    And of course Qual used the green form (and nothing else).

    And of course there were the S&Ds to handle the PTSness that was the reason for any instability in the grade releases.

    That was it. Everything else was old, canceled, we don't use it anymore and if you do use it you are a squirrel and a suppressive. Note that the tech degrades policy did not come out until 1970.

    The entire reactive mind, you see, was supposed to be coming from R6 and that supposedly dissolved when you ran the CC implant. So you should only run what was needed to set the case up for that.

    The brightly colored rocks referred to in KSW were things like R3R, CofHA, PDC, Tech 88, and so forth.

    Any process which might exteriorize somebody was seen as dangerous.

    Any running of whole track was seen by many as over restimulative. Some of us (including me) ignored that one, but it was a mixed bag. There are many tales of auditors stopping pcs from running whole track in those days. Common was for an auditor to add "in this lifetime" to a command if the pc came up with any whole track in an answer.

    Many were scared of restimulation. The idea was to get a good keyout and then do CC for the magical vanishment of the reactive mind.

    This was the heritage of KSW and ethics and a standard lineup that included HCOBs like "all sickness equals PTS".

    In the fall of 1968, the first class 8 course was delivered on the flagship and the graduates came back to the orgs and put in what we now know of as quickies.

    It is only at this point in time that it was discovered that a case can be gotten to FN with rudiments. And the 8 course had the concept of setting a case up with ruds and perhaps even a prepcheck or a bit of 2 way comm, which in those days was C/Sed as "chat with pc about ...." (his job or his 2D etc.).

    For the first time we were running grade processes with an FN before starting the process. And that makes it easy to get FNs while running the process. But it might be a small FN without the cognition or the big blowout. You didn't usually get those in the older days when the ruds were not flown, it usually takes a big cog to get an FN over out ruds.

    Of course the "FN And EP" bulletin had not come out yet.

    And then there were the situations where you got a persistent FN. If you did do a good job on the processes (usually by pretending not to see the small FNs because you would be tossed in the showers if you bypassed them), the odds were that you would turn on a persistent FN either on straightwire or on Grade 0 because you were running the key process for the grade.

    And the standard tech C/S was to run all the grades in one session because faster results were more stable and because then life wouldn't interfere and knock out the ruds in the middle of the PCs grades. So it was the key process of straightwire immediately followed by the key process of grade 0 and so forth. The rest of the grades would be lost to a persistent FN as you started each one and saw that the needle was still floating broadly.

    So either all the PC's EPs were chopped, or he turned on a persistent FN fairly early in the session, and in either case, there was very little processing done above grade zero. Even grade 4 might be lost on a PC feeling good and FNing while saying "I don't have any urge to make anybody wrong" (and of course most people wouldn't while they are on a persistent FN).

    However some new rundowns were put in to handle the problem of people falling on their heads. This was originally the 7 resistive cases, and was renamed the 7 special cases so as not to upset the PCs and then it became what we now know of as green form 40.

    I'm rambling a bit here, but it is to emphasize what the situation was in those days. The intention of the original standard tech of the 8 course was to do the minimum possible to get the person onto the clearing course to erase the bank and then get him up to OT 3 so that he could handle entities with incident 1 and 2. Those were considered the source of case and anything else was pretty rocks that might lead us from the path.

    And so most of the tech was gone, forbidden, and now we had a police force (ethics, the GO, and standard tech C/Ses) to make sure that it was never used.

    If people wonder why I have a bit of a dislike for KSW and the term "standard tech", this is the reason. In their original incarnation, they were used intensively to knock out what we now know to be valid tech and they made it impossible to fix what was wrong in the subject.

    PCs caved in, orgs crumbled, and ethics went in hard because the why was SPs and squirreling and the world conspiracy.

    1969 was probably Scientology's darkest hour.

    In 1970 the tech was reinstated. They didn't bother canceling all the cancels, Ron simply said that all the tech is for use. So you can argue about what is canceled and what is not. Expanded grade zero included at least one process from an explicitly canceled HCOB which is not in the New tech volumes (it is in the old tech volumes marked as canceled even though the canceled HCOB was also, at that time, on the level zero checksheet to be star-rated).

    But the hard line of standard C/Sing and following the grade chart pretty much makes it impossible to use most of the older processes legally, unless of course you call it an assist and do it without an official C/S.

    As to mockup processes, they were canceled back around 1963. But around the beginning of 1968, Ron issued the money process as "mockup a way to waste money", ignoring the cancellation. That was shocking to some of the tech people.

    Also, sometime in 1969 or 70 (if I remember correctly), Yvonne Gilham (later Heber's wife) came around on tour doing group processing with the old group auditors handbooks. That went very well and so group processing was put back into use.

    But those old books were full of mockup commands as part of the group processing sessions. And raw public would often go to them, and so mockup processing was used on raw public in group processing (where there is the least auditor control and handling of the PC) despite the fact that it was canceled. And I'm pretty sure that this was ordered by Ron (since group processing remained in use thereafter), so here again he ignored the cancellation without actually bothering to revoke it.

    By the way, most of the public loved it. The same goes for playing old group processing tapes of Ron's and letting the public do them. And he does wild things in those group sessions, some of the processes wound up on old OT 6 and 7. People coming in off the street can run these things, but it’s a hit or miss matter, one of the R-factors was that it was ok to skip a group processing command if you didn't feel like doing it.

    But this was during the brief exhilaration of the 1970 reinstatement of the tech. Later I saw people smashed for using mockups in group processing.

    In practice, you wouldn't find a standard C/S using mockups. And if I were C/Sing for an orthodox organization, I wouldn't dare C/S them because you can't do them by rote. I did a more extensive write-up on this awhile ago.

    Also, OT drills are supposed to be up above modern OT 8. Therefore it would be mis-C/Sing to use them at lower levels.

    Personally, I don't think that anything is canceled, but you would have to be prepared to argue this to get away with it in an org. Practically speaking, there are only two alternatives: Either Ron was chronically lying about the results produced in the 1950s, or those processes work and there is more than one way to skin a cat, it doesn't have to be modern standard tech. It should be obvious that I believe the latter. There is no third alternative where a process could only work in a certain year and not in other years.

    As to self auditing, the early days have this continual mix of considering that public PCs who self audited had some case outness while at the same time telling professional auditors that they could audit anything on themselves that they were trained on.

    The real bug in public self auditing was that they wouldn't know what they were doing and so would sit around figure figuring on a "whatsit" rather than running properly. And that was not forbidden, just seen as an outpoint. The only rule was against self auditing while in the middle of an HGC intensive because it threw in an unobserved action. The early green form had the question stated that way ("during an intensive") and did not have any question about self auditing in general.

    But here again, we have the late 1960s concept that all case was R6 or OT 3 coming in and messing up the works. The whole idea was to destimulate the case rather than handle it with the handling being to go and do the clearing course. And auditing involves restimulating things so that one can blow them. Therefore any auditing was undesirable except for the tiny amount necessary (quicky grades) as a setup for CC. And so all self auditing became forbidden.

    Of course there was solo auditing in those days. The PC might have had one or two intensives of auditing in their entire life, and done a solo course so that he could read a meter and run a command, and then you'd let him loose on R6EW with some real heavyweight self listing processes. Note that these were not people who were clear. These were not professionals. They had barely a lick and a promise as far as any prior case handling went. In later days, a new person who had done a self analysis co-audit (early 70s HQS course) probably had more auditing experience and had probably received more hours of auditing than the people who were being allowed to solo in 1968.

    The rules and worries about all this which were introduced during the quickie era never did get reviewed or canceled when things changed.

    The keynotes of 1969 were being afraid of the bank and scared of restimulation, and so of course people keyed in heavily and got restimulated like crazy.

    Imagine the attitudes of a time period where simply using the word "withdraw" in an auditing command was seen as so restimulative of R6 that you would wrap the pc around the flag pole (see the forbidden word list HCOB).

    And the higher trained somebody was, the more "OT" levels they had done, the more certain they were of the dangers of this and so as people moved up the line, they became greater suppressors of tech rather than greater encouragers of tech.

    Without the halfway reforms of 1970, the orgs would have been gone within a few years. But we still bear the scars in terms of fixed ideas and tough policies that were meant to solve a problem that is long gone.

    In a total scarcity of tech, you had better be afraid of a pin dropping because if you are only allowed one process and something goes wrong, you are dead. With an abundance of tech, that becomes silly, about like worrying about a single drop of coffee when there is an urn right next to you.

    Best,

    The Pilot

    *************************************************************
    Following written by Ant (Editor and relayer of this) in May 2012.

    My HGC (Hubbard Guidance Centre, Org's auditing department) [experience] was considerably earlier than The Pilot's and a few details may be of interest. It was around 1959 and in London Org (The Pilot, to my knowledge, was never outside USA). At the start we did not use an e-meter (earlier editions of Dianetics '55 give an explanation of that - though the advent of transistors, used instead of valve/tubes, and electronic advances, could have been part of the reason for its reintroduction). My auditor training in 1955 had no use of e-meters. When e-meters were re-introduced (Nibs Hubbard, L Ron Hubbard Junior, was a senior in London at the time) us HGC auditors were given an emeter (by Nibs), but received no training. Thus at that time and before, the phenomenon of FN (floating needle) was unknown. I remember once having a pc who was talking about his time in the far east, and the e-meter needle was making wild slashes, which I looked at in wonderment. They continued until his attention went on to another time period, and years later I learned that I had seen a rock slam :) . A little later I read in Bulletins of a "free needle", and a little later still of a floating needle - these concepts were not there when we started using meters, and came in in what I am inclined to call a covert way.

    We normally ran three hour sessions (2 on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday with an hour for lunch). On Monday and Friday there was a single session, before and after testing, and the preclear had before and after interviews with the Director of Processing [the posts of Case Supervisor or Examiner did not exist]. Day preclears received 25 hours per week. 25 hours was regarded as an intensive, weekend and evening pcs (of which there were not many) had 12½ hours per weekend or week. There was a rule that if the first four points of the persons test (OCA/APA) were below the halfway line, s/he was run only on objectives (CCH 1-4) [until the points came over the halfway line]. Otherwise new processes came in almost daily from Ron, and it once happened that I ran a preclear on the latest process, only to see in my in basket at the end of the afternoon session, a Bulletin forbidding the use of that process on any one! However, there was no atmosphere of fear of running a "bad" process - atmosphere in the 50's was different from when this thing called "ethics" came into the picture.

    The Pilot's experiences at different times would have been markedly different from mine.

    All best wishes, Ant.
     
  2. Cat's Squirrel

    Cat's Squirrel Gold Meritorious Patron

    There's a discussion on a different thread about SPs and PTSness. I thought it might be worthwhile to post what Ken said about it;

    (This is from Super Scio Archive 69, in onbe of his posts from 2000)

    23. PTS

    I also looked at the idea of being PTS in the area
    and came up with a new definition which gets all
    the wrong data about enemies and stuff out of it.

    PTS is having unwanted anchorpoints or masses jambed
    into your space. They might even be being put there
    out of misguided good intentions. It is the fact
    of the impingement rather than the intention behind
    it (lets stop looking for covert enemies under every
    rock).

    This unwanted impingement knocks you down scale.

    If you try to process over it, you will rollercoaster
    because the impingement continues and puts things
    back into restimulation after they are keyed out.

    You can still make progress by errasure. Something
    does errase with each cognition and that gain is
    never lost. But the things keyed out come back in
    fairly quickly. And the larger percentage of our
    fast gains are mostly keyout effects.

    If possible you handle the impingement. This does
    not mean that you spot an enemy and disconnect.
    It might mean that you try and handle something in
    life, maybe making a deal to get a heavily impinging
    thing off of your lines.

    Or you run some charge off of the impingment so that
    it impacts less.

    Or, if there is no other choice, you roll up your
    sleaves and process anyway, just being aware that
    the errasures are cumulative even though the keyouts
    are very transient and you keep spinning back in.
     
  3. Pilot'sPosts Z24 -.- Limited Bridges

    .
    Pilot'sPosts Z24
    First send as repost: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 04:53:00 +0200

    Limited Bridges

    From Post 42 – December 1998

    [The Pilot wrote:]
    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. [Idenics = from John Galusha and Mike Godstein; CBR = Captain Bill Robertson (RONS Org)]

    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.

    Best,

    The Pilot

    [Note from the about to retire (from this task) editor: When I previously sent this out on the SuperScio list there were 34 responses directly citing the subject "([SuperScio] Pilot'sPosts Z24 -- Limited Bridges" plus 11 with the subject "Subject: [SuperScio] The simple solution RE: Pilot'sPosts Z24 -- Limited Bridges" . So it seemed to have cause a little interest! Best wishes, Ant]

    --
     
  4. Re: The Pilot, Excerpts from his Writings - Last Pot Shot :)

    -
    Dear thetan that has dropped on to this modest little message,

    I have decided to send you on Tuesday one more short excerpt from a Pilot message to the two newsgroups ACT (alt.clearing.technology) and ARS (alt.religion.scientology). And then we are finished - you can see back numbers (with occasional saucy comments) at http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?27983-The-Pilot-Excerpts-from-his-Writings . I hope that remains up for some time, as I believe there are some important, as well as thought provoking, thoughts there for those interested in using some of the positive legacy from LRH and Co.

    Ken Ogger, The Pilot, was trying to find out why he had caved in (attempting to rectify the cave in). I was in email touch with him up to shortly before his death. One of the things he tried was to sort of renounce the title of The Pilot, which did not work.

    With regard to the Pilot, You can find a special edition of IVy (Internetional Viewpoints) which was sent out after we heard of his death on the Net. Go to http://articles.ivymag.org/pdfs.html and click on the front cover of IVy 83, and "bobs your uncle" - out comes a pdf file with a good deal on The Pilot. It was written at a time when we were somewhat in shock to hear of his death, and many at that time remember his earlier brilliance and audacity in his sayings about the "Church" and ability to find flaws in dogma from them, and there was a little bit of doubt as to whether the Los Angeles Police where in the pocket of the "Church" when they announced it as suicide.

    I will, probably in March, start again sending weekly portions of the Pilot's Cosmic History.

    It will go out on the list CosmicHistory . I have just notified the people who are on that list. If you want to join in, and have not just got such a notification, you will need to subscribe.
    Do so by going to: http://lists.worldtrans.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmichistory
    That site has a brief explanation of my intention (an Internet site is also being set up for Cosmic History).

    Should be rather fun. It is three years since I sent it out last time, and I have changed my opinion, and beingness a bit. After I had sent it out a few times with discussion, I began to wonder if there was some sort of a "datum of comparable magnitude" to The Pilot's Cosmic History, so some where on the net I asked. I was a bit unhappy at the result, which was someone giving me a link to something to do with the human race having their (our) DNA manipulated by some horrible "Science Fictiony" extraterrestrial race. That was certainly not what I was looking for. I was more interested in where the Human Race came from, and where did DNA come from. When I look out of my window now I can see Magpies flying with twigs to a tree the other side of the road, and building a nest, and I want to know how they got that idea (and the ability to build something like that without glue to hold eggs in a strong wind high up in a tree). I am interested in knowing how Polar bears get their mating habits. How the period table (atoms of different types) came about. The Pilot talks about a series of Universes, interesting in its way, but he gives no clue as to how these came about.

    Loads of things. You could say I am interested in getting back to basics, I have sent The Pilot's Cosmic History out seven times, and received interesting feedback each time. I have come to some, diffident, conclusions. I think we can have both fun and edification by looking at it again.

    Every Saturday on Channel Cosmic History, starting early in March (or when ever I pluck up courage to start)

    All best wishes,


    Ant

    P.S. I also have the intention of putting a biography of the Pilot on http://scientolipedia.org/info under biographies. While his real identity was still unknown to the "Church" he was (with good reason) somewhat afraid he would be found out and "handled" by the "Church" so he sent myself, and a few other people he had revealed an email address to, an autobiography we could issue if "they got him" and I will include that autobiography. In Scientolipedia, as it is based on Wiki principles, it is possible for others to add to what I write (I can moderate what is added), and I hope especially that those who have met him will add some reminiscences (I only "internettet" him).

    --
    Antony Phillips.
    www.antology.info
    http://scientolipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Phillips (English biography)
    ant.phillips@post8.tele.dk
    (+45) 45 88 88 69
    Admin to SelfClearing2004,
    SuperScio, Cosmic History
    mailing lists
    Jernbanevej 3f 4th
    DK 2800 Lyngby
     
  5. Pilot Repost Z-ZZ Farewell Address

    -
    From: pilot@scientology.at (The Pilot)
    Subject: SUPER SCIO - THE PILOT IS DESTROYED (FAREWELL ADDRESS)
    Date: 29 Nov 2000 00:00:00 GMT
    Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology,alt.religion.scientology


    THE PILOT IS DESTROYED (FAREWELL ADDRESS)


    1. I AM ENDED

    It is with great reluctance that I am announcing that the
    "Pilot" identity was destroyed by OSA and the CofS.

    My policy has always been to forgive and forget, to push for
    gentle reforms, and to live and let live. And so I hoped
    to heal and recover and let this matter pass.

    But it has been a year now and I have not recovered and there
    does not seem to be any way out but to abandon it all.

    Right now I'm a pitiful shadow of who I was when I wrote
    Super Scio and Self Clearing. I put those out on the net
    for free and they will remain there for whomever can use
    them or get anything out of them. But I am no longer fit to
    evaluate their contents or further extend the work.

    I can prove nothing of what happened to me. Consider this
    total delusion if you want. It is too incredible and
    unbelievable and I would just sound paranoid if I started
    ranting about it. But in November of 1999, I was drugged,
    raped, and implanted with the commands that I posted anonymously
    earlier this year as the OSA Sex-Drug-Hypnosis* procedure.

    * see: http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/osa-date-rape-drug.htm


    ***************
    The Pilot goes on with other subjects, for example:


    2. CONTROL, FREEDOM, AND RESPONSIBILITY IN SCIENTOLOGY


    ARS is pushing for articles on this topic right now, so I

    thought that I would say a few words on it as a parting

    gesture.


    The stated ...


    *******/*****************


    All (or most) of the Pilot's Postings are available at: http://www.freezoneearth.org/pilot/posts/eframeset.htm

    This one is 2000, beginning of the last one in that year (Farewell)

    The Pilot died (suicide) in May 28 2007. (some years after he wrote the above)

    All best wishes (this ends my self imposed "mission" on this thread),

    Antony Phillips HPA

    www.antology.info
    ant.phillips@post8.tele.dk
    (+45) 45 88 88 69
    Admin to SelfClearing2004,
    SuperScio, Cosmic History
    mailing lists
    Jernbanevej 3f 4th
    DK 2800 Lyngby
     
  6. DagwoodGum

    DagwoodGum Goodby Goodluck

    I found these on an old CD, if anyone is interested. They are .pdf's, I don't know how to post them as there's a lot of pages to some of them:
    Dart Smohen: The Real Story 132pgs., Penetration: The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy with Additional Commentary by Alan C. Walter - 98pgs.,
    Scientology vs. Scientology by Patricia Krenik - 72 pgs.,
    Self Clearing A Handbook of Enlightenment - 332pgs.,
    Super Cio by The Pilot - 818pgs.
    and of course 612pgs. - of you know what.
     
  7. The Pilot's Cosmic History - repeatd weekly on Saturdays

    I am starting sending weekly parts of the Pilot's Cosmic History beginning in a couple of days (Sat 1st February). You can see some details at: http://lists.worldtrans.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmichistory and also join there if you have not already joined (I sent a message a few weeks ago to those who are already members). You go lower down on that page to join. If you join, I get a message saying you have joined, so don't reckon to sneak in while nobody is looking. :)

    This will (probably) be the last time I repeat the series (I have done it seven times, myself getting changing ideas on the subject each time). I have found it most interesting, and, in a sort of way, as a result made my peace with life and Fate.

    So very welcome if you are on, or if you join, and you are very welcome to ask questions and state certainties of yours which you think every one else must agree with, and you can even ask others on the list about things you are a little uncertain of.

    All best wishes,

    Ant
     
  8. Hitherto not published Pilot Autobiography

    See http://scientolipedia.org/info/The_Pilot_(Ken_Ogger)

    He did not want this published when I asked him, as it might give his mother Louise Kelly away to the Church but she is now dead (hopefully beyond the reaches of that hateful organisation).

    All best wishes,

    Ant
     
  9. Re: The Pilot's Cosmic History - repeatd weekly on Saturdays

    This project is now completed and is posted on the net with a few small additions at: http://www.cosmichistory.info/

    All best wishes, Ant. (17th of May 2016)
     
  10. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    I took a peek, Ant. I see it starts off with the Pilot extending Hubbard's words on Arslycus. <sigh> I didn't get any further.

    All the best to you.

    Paul
     
  11. Re: The Pilot's Cosmic History - repeatd weekly on Saturdays

    Looking at this now (14th of June same year) I am confused! What is at the above link is The Pilot's CosmicHistory in the last of a number of serialise versions I issued, with peoples comments.

    I can add that in my opinion, having studied it a few times as I reissued it, that I see some truth in it. However it seems to me that the earlier part of the history, for example the Jewel of Knowledge and Womb, is well embroidered with fancy. And also the beginning of existence (time, I suppose) is rather unimportant compared with what is going on now. Ron has said, I believe in 1959 in the first Melbourne ACC, that it is only the first three axioms that are real axioms, the rest being agreed upon postulates and considerations.

    What is relevant to me and my life now is the beginning of this universe and my "experience" of it as described in that CosmicHistory site at the following link: http://www.cosmichistory.info/articledetails.php?id_art=48

    With regard to these gems of The Pilot's fortnightly postings, which a now deceased friend selected for me to post here, I think this is the only place where you will find them, so let us pray humbly that either this site remains up (paid for) for ever or that some brave soul will collect them from here and put them up in an independent site.

    But it ain't agoing to be me!

    All best wishes,

    Ant/Antony
     

Share This Page