If judged purely on debate skills, I'd vote for Heber.Here Bent "debates" Heber Jentzsch, also in 1988. Heber does the usual scn lies and half-truths and interrupts constantly. Video quality is poor in spots.
If judged purely on debate skills, I'd vote for Heber.
Thank you Pineapple. Bent did a good job except he didnt establish his credibilty; he was an ot7 and highly trained. That never came out. Good seeing him again though.I think I posted this video once before, but I can't find it now and it has far fewer views than it deserves, so I'm posting it now under "Scientology-related Videos." Here's Bent Corydon talking about "L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman" on TV in 1988.
I'd vote for Bent. But he was operating with a handicap: did you know mustaches make you appear less trustworthy? Especially if you smile a lot.If judged purely on debate skills, I'd vote for Heber.
Yeah. He clearly hadn't had much training in being a slime-ball lawyer-type, and so was unprepared for the tactics used against him by those who HAD been trained in that.Thank you Pineapple. Bent did a good job except he didnt establish his credibilty; he was an ot7 and highly trained. That never came out. Good seeing him again though.
I thought Bent did fine. He got his responses in and kept his composure but the interviewer let Heber talk over him and disrupt it. On one hand it wasn't fair to Bent but on the other it gave Heber enough rope to draw him out and let the audience see what you have to be to be a spokesperson for the COS.Yeah. He clearly hadn't had much training in being a slime-ball lawyer-type, and so was unprepared for the tactics used against him by those who HAD been trained in that.
Yeah. I think watching that video is a good object lesson: ignore what people say, and look at what they DO. If I didn't know Scientology, it would have been very easy to have been taken in by what Mike Rinder was saying there. But you only have to look at Tommy Davis in that John Sweeney clip, to start asking yourself "What kind of religious organisation would behave like that?" and "What has to happen to a BBC reporter in order to get into that state?" then to conclude "Not any kind of organisation that I would want to be a member of".I thought Bent did fine. He got his responses in and kept his composure but the interviewer let Heber talk over him and disrupt it. On one hand it wasn't fair to Bent but on the other it gave Heber enough rope to draw him out and let the audience see what you have to be to be a spokesperson for the COS.
That has to be a soul crushing post. Here is a vid of Mike trying to navigate it before he woke.
actually I think John McMaster did, Heber was second.To my thinking Heber set the gold standard as spokesperson. I have to wonder if Scientology molded Heber to it's standard as spokesperson or did Heber model all spokespeople for Scientology thereafter? But in this interview the impression that I'm left with is that Scientology is highly defensive, argumentative, deflective, obfuscating and paranoid and the constant thing about holding up Scientology books was culty and frenetic like a late night product for TV pitch. Maybe my impression is colored by what I know now and maybe audiences back then weren't so cynical? Somehow I think it isn't just me.
Heber clearly is self confident in his position but self confidence in the face of damning and convincing charges also doesn't look good. To the casual observer that's fanaticism. He didn't make a good case for Scientology. He didn't explain why it should be valued or supported and just claiming it does wonderful things doesn't fly. Where is the evidence of it? Where are their selfless charity programs and scholarships? Critics consistently point to Scientology's practice of "Dead Agenting" people by investigating or stalking them so they can dig up anything to publicly destroy their reputation instead of dealing with the facts of the matter and this interview exemplified dead agenting. It can be held up as a model of dead agenting by the best of the best in Heber's time confirming the charges of dead agenting as an official practice implemented from the very top of the organization.
Miscavige gave it a shot in 1992 and never did it again. It is a completely untenable position. All the policy and training that they must do makes them look unnatural and culty. It's just really bad optics, and this was before everything could be fact checked and countered in minute detail on the internet virtually in real time. No, I think their best strategy is to stay completely off TV and for the most part they seem to agree using over edited material, contrived CGI, with paid actors, highly controlled venues and lawyers instead of a stable official spokesperson.
If given a choice would Scientology prefer that this interview between Bent and Heber be available on the internet or completely scrubbed? My guess is they would choose scrubbed so in other words - another fail.
Scientology leader, David Miscavige, interviewed by by Ted Koppel Live on ABC Nightline show, 1992. This 90-minute segment interview earned an Emmy Award.
Hubbard's confidential instructions were that the erupting volcano on 'Dianetics' was part of "R6" and would re-stimulate "wogs" just enough to make them obedient.-snip- the constant thing about holding up Scientology books was culty - snip-
Good point. And there were some others like David Gaiman and Jane Kember who did public interviews.actually I think John McMaster did, Heber was second.