ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

The Pilot, Excerpts from his Writings

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

  1. The Pilot, Excerpts from his Writings -- Introduction

    Ken Ogger was known as “The Pilot” and used this name so the “Church” (of Scientology) could not “get at him”. He was quite a prominent figure in the independent movement (establishing Scientology outside of the “Churches” control) from the issue of his book SuperScio in 1997 to 2000. He also issued a book Self Clearing and also a Scientology Reformers Home Page and he made fortnightly postings to the Internet news groups and alt.religion.scientology. The Pilot died in 2007.

    It is highlights (excerpts) from these fortnightly postings which will mainly appear on this thread, together comments in accordance with the rules of Ex Scientologist Message Board.

    I will be posting once a week, on Wednesdays, and have already sent 13 issues out on the thread The old days - Aboard the Apollo – 1973 . You will find the 13th issue at ;
    The contents of the Pilot's Postings is varied, and a friend of mine has made a quite deep study of them, and helped me in selecting what I will be sending out. Though if you have a gem amongst them, let me know and I might include in the cavalcade.

    The full set of Pilot's Posts (except perhaps the last one) is at and on this you will also find The Pilot (A Brief Overview).

    In the hope of being able to avoid confusion between my numbering of these reposts of excerpts, and the numbering of the original posts, I have added a “Z” before the numbers of my excerpt reposts. Thus the current one is Pilot'sPost Z13 . I am also sending these out to three internet lists, one of which you (or your friends) can join if you would prefer to have formatted copies of these posts sent to you email address. You join at:

    If you want to look at the earlier posts in this series, here are the links:
    Introduction :
    Pilot'sPosts Z1 What Is Wrong With Confidentiality? :
    Pilot'sPosts Z2 Disagreement Checks (from post 14 Nov 1997) :
    Pilot'sPosts Z3 Clear OT -- ceasing to compulsively create a time track :
    Pilot'sPosts Z4 The Auditor’s Code – Old and New (From Post 44 – January 1999) :
    Pilot'sPosts Z5 A History Of Abandoning Processes (From Post 48 - February 1999) : (scroll down a bit)
    Pilot'sPosts Z6 Pilot's Humour :
    Pilot'sPosts Z7 - “Itsa”- Importance of and Common M/U on (From Post 54, May 99) :
    Pilot'sPosts Z8 Production and Expansion :
    Pilot'sPosts Z9 Knowingness and Creation Create as top of Know to Mystery Scale - August 1998 :
    Pilot's Autobiography - Possibly not published before 2012 :
    Pilot'sPosts Z10 Clear and the Time Track (From Post 58 – June 1999) :
    Pilot'sPost Z11 Looking Over DMSMH From Hindsight (From Post 6 – July 1997) :
    Pilot'sPost Z12 Pulling Overts, Importance of Balance (From Post 32 - June 1998) :
    Pilot'sPost Z13 Scn History, the Year 1967 From Post 28 – April 1998 :

    Incidentally, I have limited comm lines and if you know of someone who would be interested let them know. Likewise if you want to copy one or more and send to some one, please do so. The PilotPosts are also send to the mailing list superscio, and any one can join and have the Pilot'sPosts sent weekly as they come out (with comments made to that list). Go to: and sign in.

    Antony Phillips in Denmark
    (+45) 45 88 88 69
    Admin to SelfClearing2004,
    SuperScio and Cosmic History mailing lists
    Jernbanevej 3f 4th
    DK 2800 Lyngby
  2. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Thanks for starting the thread. :thumbsup:

    Mark A. Baker
  3. Pilot'sPost Z14 OT Research – Affinity Defined, Wavelength Drill

    Pilot'sPost Z14

    OT Research – Affinity Defined, Wavelength Drill

    From Post 26 -- March 1998


    I've made a tech breakthrough.

    Not the whole shooting match, but another piece of the puzzle.

    I began by trying to expand the Axioms and it yielded a wild
    little trick that doubles exterior perception.

    And the trick is easy to learn. I coached two people through
    it in a few minutes after explaining the theory and both got
    it easily and experienced the same effect that I got from it.

    Note that the trick is an amplifier rather than a method for
    turning on exterior perceptics [perceptions].

    If you don't already have some slight degree of exterior
    perception (usually mixed in with lots of dub-in and imagination),
    then do chapters 1, 2, and 11 of Self Clearing, which should
    at least get you to the vague level that people used to
    get from old OT 5 and 6. [Self Clearing is downloadable from - get the 2004 edition, which was not available when this was written, AntEd]

    I'll get around to explaining the trick later in this post.
    You should be able to do it with a few minutes of drilling.
    But you need the underlying theory first. And the theory
    is really a lot more important than the trick anyway,
    because it might lead to a lot more.


    If you look over the Scientology Axioms, you'll see that
    we have a very detailed definition of Communication.

    Basically it is cause, distance, effect, with intention,
    attention, and duplication. In other words, we have 6
    components, and one of them, “intention” is a very active
    component that we drill with TR 8 and it seems like one
    of the significant factors in OT abilities.

    We do not have a definition of Affinity that is of
    comparable magnitude, with components that can be
    drilled and used. And yet we know that it is a basic of
    great importance.

    I began by looking for an active factor in Affinity,
    something comparable to "intention" in the definition
    of communication.

    And I thought of having two tuning forks with matching
    pitches, and you strike one and the other vibrates in
    sympathy with it. This is a high school physics experiment
    and you can find the effect described in any good textbook.

    And if you raise the dampers on a piano (step on the right
    pedal) and hit a note, other strings which are harmonics
    of it (an octave above and below etc.) with also start
    vibrating slightly. Again, this is just high school

    This could be referred to as “resonance”. It is motion
    in sympathy.

    And I thought of a mother rocking a child. A sharing
    of motion. It builds affinity. The same for sex.

    And then there is matching tones on the emotional tone
    scale. If you think of these emotions as having
    wavelengths, again you have resonance.

    So let's begin by defining an axiom for resonance. Note
    that I'm using "axiom" in the popular sense (a basic
    principle) as did Hubbard rather than in the strict
    mathematical sense.


    Matching tones on the emotional tone scale is an example of
    resonance between beings. Sympathetic vibrations between
    piano strings or tuning forks is an example of resonance
    between physical object.

    I thought of the cause and effect sides of communication
    and felt that there should be something similar for affinity.
    After a bit of contemplation, it occurred to me that these
    would be “desire” and “acceptance” (thank you Allen).

    And of course liking and admiration would fit into it.

    And I felt that I should define it as an active thing.

    Putting this all together yields the following axiom.




    Of course most of this is old hat. We even know that
    duplicating motions as in mimicry tends to build affinity.

    But this idea of resonance opens the door to another
    level of practical application. And that brings us back
    to that trick I was talking about.


    I discussed resonance between beings and between objects,
    and that raises the question of resonance between a being
    and an object.

    Think of objects as having an inherent wavelength, a
    sort of musical note that they will respond to.

    A specific element will have electron shells at fixed
    distances from the nucleus. These are like frozen
    waves which have a wavelength. When we heat up a
    metal, it glows at a specific wavelength because of
    this. In physics, spectrums can be analyzed to precisely
    pin down the elements present in something based on this
    principle (spectrographic analysis). Again this is
    just textbook physics.

    Of course a complex object has many elements and should
    probably be thought of as a composite. But the
    oversimplified idea that an object will have a single
    basic vibration is actually good enough to start with.

    Here is the drill:

    a) pick an object

    b) imagine that you are sort of humming a note at it
    (this is done mentally, not by humming out loud)

    c) project this note into the object

    d) shift the note up and down until it matches vibrations
    with the object (you can feel this easily). Note that
    you don't have to hit the actual vibration, but just
    a harmonic of it, so it doesn't matter that much whether
    you use a high pitch or a low one, but it is important
    to slide up and down the scale by very small increments.

    e) permeate the object with the vibrations.

    Repeat this on a number of different objects.

    After you have assessed a few objects this way, matching
    vibrations, you should find that you can pretty much
    match wavelengths automatically without having to assess
    in detail.

    You should experience a startling increase in mental
    perception of an object whenever you hit it with a
    matching vibration, especially perceptions of the
    inside and far side of the object (it is a 3D perception
    rather than looking).

    Note that matching wavelengths goes way beyond simple
    permeation (I've played with that too).

    With hindsight, there are ideas like this in metaphysics.
    There is the idea in India of playing a specific musical
    note to heal somebody, and I've even heard mention of
    the idea that humming the correct note might enable one
    to move an object. And there is even Scriabin's idea
    that the ultimate musical composition would bring the
    world to fulfillment and allow it to end.

    When you first drill this, you can just look at an object
    or a wall and project a vibration at it. But once you
    get the knack of it, try it exterior in conjunction with
    any exteriorization drill that works for you.

    I think that you'll find that whenever you add in this
    vibration business, It's like turning on a light switch
    and your perception increases a notch.

    There is lots more that you can play around with. You
    can project broadband “roars” or play around with
    chords to match a series of wavelengths at once.


    Don't get into trying to prove things. Even with your
    perceptions raised a notch, it's still probably more
    dub-in than accurate data. You mustn't invalidate the
    half correct perceptions or they get weaker.

    Of course I ignored my own advise and tried to read
    some playing cards upside-down. I used 8 numbers (2 to
    9) in 4 suits to make calculations easy. I held each
    card up facing away from me and mentally roared vibrations
    at it until I had a clear visio of the card's face.

    The results were freaky. 50 percent accuracy on calling
    the suit. 25 percent accuracy on calling the number.
    Not one card seen correctly. Every perception a total
    dub in, but the suits and numbers were perceived at
    twice the level of random guessing.

    As a control, I dropped the mental roaring and the
    incorrect dubbed in perception and the accuracy immediately
    dropped to 25 percent on suit and around 12 percent
    on the number (the normal probability).

    It was crazy because I could only violate the mathematical
    probability by getting an obviously incorrect perception.
    I'd see a 7 of hearts clearly and it would be a 7 of
    clubs when I turned it over. Or I'd see an 8 or spades
    clearly and it would be a 3 of spades when I turned it
    over. But I'd be right on either the suit or the digit
    on about 3/4 of the cards.

    An hour of this and I was just about banging my head
    against the wall and getting exhausted and invalidating
    my perceptions because every damn visio was obviously
    wrong (I never ever saw the correct card, which was
    also contrary to chance because I should have accidentally
    gotten one right every 32 cards).

    That left me feeling quite frustrated, so I'm not going
    to try it again soon.

    And yet there was a consistent and dramatic violation
    of mathematical probability.

    I thought this over a bit.

    My first idea was that the true perception coming through
    must have been no more than a tiny flash of color or the
    shape of a single number and I was building an entire
    visio of a card based on that tiny signal of real data.

    But I talked this over with a friend and he suggested
    that it was more likely that I had gotten an accurate
    perception but something was overlaying it with an
    alter-is because there is some mechanism designed to
    block doing this with complete accuracy in this universe.

    There is more to be learned here.


    My thought right now is that there must be a dozen or
    so of these factors which sum up into the creation of

    One of them is intention. Another is resonance. Yet
    another is faith/belief. Each of these acts as significant
    amplifiers, and each one can be drilled individually
    and is fairly easy to master.


    I started thinking of affinity as a duplication of motion.

    So I reviewed the duplication in the communication formula
    and saw it as a duplication of data or content.

    And agreement would be a duplication of intention.

    By communicating, you might duplicate the fact that
    somebody else likes to fish, and yet you might not
    want to fish yourself. But you might duplicate the
    intention to fish and therefore come into agreement
    with them even if the two of you aren't talking.
    And you might both go fishing together and thereby
    duplicate the motion and come to feel more affinity
    for each other.

    These are 3 separate duplications. All 3 would be
    involved in a shared reality which I would see as
    a duplication of creation.

    From this comes the thought that the ARC triangle
    might be a limited perspective. Note that understanding
    seems to be a byproduct rather than the sum (complete
    ARC would be more than just understanding).

    And it should be obvious that agreement by itself
    may be a factor in reality but is not the sole
    determining criteria. After all, the majority of
    people once believed the Earth was flat (even though
    the educated people like Columbus knew better)
    and it continued to be round despite that.

    The real equation might be:

    Affinity plus Agreement plus Communication plus another
    half dozen unidentified factors all sum together to
    yield Reality.

    Or in other words, duplication of data plus duplication
    of motion plus duplication of intention plus duplication
    of various other things all sums up to duplication of
    creation (which is the reality of the physical universe).
    All this would be occurring on a compulsive level of course.


    As usual, finding an answer has left me with more questions.

    But the trick with resonance does work and the axiom on
    affinity has lots of implications.

    So have fun.


    The Pilot
  4. Re: The Pilot, Excerpts from his Writings -- Ant's aims with this thread

    Dear reader of this, There have been a couple of messages on the “Apollo” thread (where the Pilot reposts were placed until the last one) concerning my putting the Pilot's excerpts on a blog.

    To make clear what my aim is, I'd like to backtrack a bit.

    On 25 Aug 1997 14:00:12 when the Pilot started sending out posts from a non-existent domain: there was a “tradition” or agreement in the “Church” of Scientology that one did not discuss Scientology or parts of Scientology (it is a separate discussion as to how this came about). From the point of view of discussion and exchanging viewpoints on Scientology, things were pretty dark (freedom of speech wise).

    And suddenly, like a shooting star illuminating a dark world for a brief moment the Pilot came forward, and carried on discussions with brave souls on Internet (some writing from email addresses that could not be traced). Realise that at that time Internet was not as diversified as now. I think the only area open to all people concerning Scientology were the two news groups he wrote to alt.religion.scientology and Internet was “new” then. He created quite a stir. By that time the discussion of details of Scientology was not only a supposed threat to the stability of the “standard” tech, it also was a strong threat to those who now held power in the so-called “Church”. And those in power, jealous of their monopoly, could not do a thing, as the Pilot cleverly (and possibly illegally) was unreachable from his hiddenplace non-existent domain.

    On 1 Jul 1999 04:00:18 In post 60 he announced: “Well its happened. My identity has finally been given to the org. So you might as well know it too. My name is Ken Ogger. I live in North Hollywood. And I have been in Dianetics and Scientology since 1965. I am posting my bio separately. As of this writing, I am still a Scientologist in good standing, we'll see how long they leave it that way now that my identity is known. The person who turned me in is my wife Ann Tordai.”

    In other words the “Church” could now get at him. There is no evidence as to if they did.
    But there is evidence that he stopped posting shortly after. And I have a large amount of written evidence that in 2000 he caved in. Caved in is a vague generalisation, but it will have to do for now. He decided that he was not fit to act as “The Pilot”.

    On 29th Nov 2000 he wrote to newsgroups:,alt.religion.scientology :

    “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
    unbelieveable and I would just sound paranoid if I started
    ranting about it.” ​

    So far as my main purpose is concerned, you could add the adjective concerning what he believed happened to him: irrelevant.

    The shooting star had ceased to illuminate the area. Why he caved in (to use the broad generalisation again) is not my concern here.

    On 28th May 2007 The Pilot, Ken Ogger committed suicide

    A brilliant man worked on Scientology staff and heard every tape he could lay his hands on.
    He then got a non Scientology job, having learned to do computer programming, and earned very good money at it.
    He originated to Scientologists from a hidden place.
    His wife gave him away and within a year he was a shadow of himself and was unable to continue his work.

    I am only writing this to make clear what my aims are in reposting excerpts from his posts. I disagree with some of the things the Pilot has said, some of it is beyond me and some seems irrelevant (to me). It is a broad area. He opened up the subject for discussion, and (I believe) helped some to look at rather than accept without questioning some of the data. In other words he opened the subject up for discussion when a cult of tabu on discussion, examination and thinking had spread its dark cloud.

    My aim on this and other areas is to pass on to some degree his spirit. The spirit of thinking, of discussion.

    So you can see, a blog where only I was able to post defeats my purpose. People should be able to comment on what the Pilot wrote. And a blog where I moderate each post is also failing somewhat in my purpose. Who am I to act as censor?

    You can help, by passing this on, or its location, to the many areas in the now well diversified “freeScientology” area (free from control of a suppressive body). Many contributions in small ways can move a mountain – and of course my contribution here is only part of a wider movement of making positive data and techniques available widely.

    Thanks for contributing.

  5. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Well done, Ant.

    This along with your work over the many years has been stellar. And I know it is and has been appreciated by all the thinking individuals among us.

  6. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation


    I'd keep your spiteful pokes (at Ex scientologists) for your own tekky threads if I were you.

  7. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation

    I won't be trolling you Ant, you're polite and upfront about what your intentions are and (thus far) have not found it necessary to insult and lecture the Ex scientologists here that have no further interest in the tech and I respect that.

  8. PirateAndBum

    PirateAndBum Gold Meritorious Patron

    Touche! :lol:

    Thank you Ant. I appreciate your posting these bits of Ken's writing.
  9. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human


    "Grandiosity is chiefly associated with narcissistic personality disorder, but also commonly features in manic or hypomanic episodes of bipolar disorder.

    It refers to an unrealistic sense of superiority, a sustained view of oneself as better than others that causes the narcissist to view others with disdain or as inferior. It also refers to a sense of uniqueness, the belief that few others have anything in common with oneself and that one can only be understood by a few or very special people."
  10. Pooks


    I would like it stated for the record that Ken Ogger, The Pilot committed suicide.

    Ken was a very nice and brave man but all this self auditing did him absolutely no good as he was delusional with reports of OSA anally raping him and other hallucinatory incidents.

    Those still severely indoctrinated believed Ken and believe he was murdered, but the fact show that he was a severely depressed and unhappy man that killed himself.

    You are certainly free to read his writings but you should know that it didn't work or help Ken in the end.
  11. I wrote a private message to Roger on this, but it nagged me a bit, so this to any one who reads the thread.

    I think the bit I have put in italics that Roger wrote, is an exaggeration, and it is not concerning the Pilots posts.

    The bit I have put in bold, is again exaggeration, and a "put down" on all thinking individuals (what ever that means or implies) among us who have never heard of me.

    I hope that the comments we get on this thread will be what people in Denmark (some of them, anyway :) ) would call "saglig"*. I have a problem translating that, so I will give you the adjectives in the various translations which give a vague idea of what I have in mind:
    • matter of fact
    • objective
    • impartial
    • dispassionate
    • factual .

    And as an afterthought, also concerning the subject matter, not the people.

    All best wishes,
    Ant (or Antony)

    I also stated that fact, along with the timeline in my post #4 on this thread 26th July 2012 08:35 PM. So now it has been stated three times on this thread, so perhaps we can concentrate on what the Pilot wrote. There is food for thought and discussion there, for people interested in this area.

    "saglig"* . We pronouce letters (sometimes) very differently in Denmark, compared with the more heathen parts of the world (there - there is a put down for almost everyone who reads this :) ). "Saglig" would be pronounced something like "sowly" (You know, like a sow - I know its weird, but well aren't other people weird anyway?)
  12. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human

  13. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Well, Ant,

    I was referring to all the work you have done for 20+ years with Ivy Magazine and your current email list that provides good info and great food for thought for those who care to.

    I was was not referring to ESMB . . . there is a far bigger world out there involved in thinking thoughts than we have here on ESMB.

    We see that in the positive discussion on your email list.

  14. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Possibly all "the good stuff" was channelled from someone in the spirit world, or from someone in another universe, and its usefulness (or not) is disrelated to that human and his personal travails. I'm not asserting it is or it isn't. I don't know.

    I'm not a great fan of all writings Ogger, but I suggest taking them on their own merits. As I have said, in early 2000 I found Self-Clearing useful (even if now I would not agree with much in it) and audited about 240 hours from it over a few months. And from the first reading to today I think SuperScio is absurd, as I think is any effort to state as historical fact what one has "found" in session, expecially several universes ago. Your mileage may vary, but at least it's yours. :)

  15. Re: Pilot'sPost Z14 OT Research – Affinity Defined, Wavelength Drill

    My (Ant's) hope is that some will find these Pilot's messages give food for thought. Perhaps a different viewpoint on some thing, which might make more a bit more sense, or give a clue , like finding an extra piece to a jigsaw. You are welcome to post comments, but I can understand if you don't. It is by no means a requisite. Perhaps you just put it aside to think over.

    You might be interested in comment that some one sent to another list. I got permission to post this to you from someone who says: "I would like to stay outside the view of the church,". Therefore kept anon, Ant
    [SuperScio mailing list]
    My great respect to the pilot for communicating his understanding of the tech.

    I disagree with one of his statements in particular, and I think it is in his spirit to communicate it.

    I think his axiom X-2:

    is a crashing misunderstood. Which is not a particularly big misunderstood, but one that derails your thinking or acting. Actually, the axiom, taken by itself, may be quite true. But as a datum of comparable magnitude to axiom 10 or 28, it's plain wrong. Impelling anything across a distance etc. is communication, and I think the pilot attempts, with this axiom, to make a basic definition of affinity, not tell us how affinity is communicated.

    Axiom 25 tells us that affinity is a scale of attitudes, and an attitude is something happening within the individual.

    Dianetic axiom 112 defines affinity in a manner that is much in concord with what the pilot wants, I think:

    Affinity manifests itself as the recognition of similarity of efforts and goals amongst organisms by those organisms.

    It looks much like a resonance, but it is something that is created by each organism (the then viewpoint rather than a thetan). The other tuning fork resonates by itself, even though it is a result of a communication (duplication). It's a grade 0 thing, recognition being the awareness level that goes with grade 0. There is no dynamic principle, which would turn it into a communication - a do or an energy - but a comparable principle of recognition, which is on a thought level.


  16. Pilot'sPost Z15 - How to Keep Scn Free

    Pilot'sPost Z15

    How to Keep Scn Free

    Anatomy of the Spirit of Man Congress Lectures.
    Played in orgs in 1969 with a certain omission.

    From Post 21 - Jan 1998

    The ASMC lectures are unfortunately very overpriced, but it is
    one of the better lecture sets.

    There are 15 main lectures plus #7A which is an after lecture
    question and answer session. I hope that they did all of them
    without editing (does anybody have the new set? I only have the
    old reels), but I have my doubts.

    The first lecture is "The Hope Of Man" and the final one (#15)
    is "What Scientology Is Doing".

    That last lecture is one of the most Anti-Sea Org lectures ever
    given and is the rabble rousing one where Ron predicts that
    someday we will have to rebel against the orthodox organization.

    That is where my "AUDITORS ARISE" quote comes from that is
    on the Scientology Reformer's Home Page.

    In October of 1969, all the orgs world wide gave something called
    THE OCTOBER CONGRESS. It was actually a repackaging of
    the ASMC lectures.

    This was done as an emergency measure to try and handle the
    collapse of Scientology which was actually occurring due to
    quickie grades, suppressive ethics, crush sell, overboard style
    standard tech, and rabid Sea Org missions.

    Somebody researched the old congresses and found that the
    Anatomy of the Spirit of Man Congress (ASMC) given over a
    period of 4 days in 1955 was one of the most successful congresses
    ever done and caused a boom in the subject.

    A congress was a Scientology event where Ron would speak (or
    his tapes would be played) given full time over a weekend or
    a bit longer. It was open to the general public but usually
    contained a good bit of advanced tech watered down a bit for
    ordinary public instead of professional auditors. Usually
    there was an admission charge. Generally these were about
    25 dollars in the 1960s. I think that was the fee for attending
    the October congress.

    The October Congress (1969) was promoted a great deal and the
    impression everyone had was that it would be a new set of lectures
    from Ron and that it would save the subject.

    The tapes only arrived a few days before the event and I was
    surprised to see that it was really a repackaging of an old
    congress. But we were to play them as if it was a new release
    and so the few of us who knew kept our mouths shut.

    If I remember right, it was Thursday evening, and Friday
    evening, and then full time Saturday and Sunday.

    The very last lecture (the rabble rousing one) was OMITTED
    and a modern lecture about the grade chart was substituted.

    The lectures included 3 hours of group processing (Ron giving
    auditing commands to the audience). Some of the standard
    tech fanatics and the C/Ses almost shit their pants. Some
    of the wildest squirrelly auditing that the public had ever
    had in a decade.

    Remember, these were the toughest of the standard tech days.
    People would get declared suppressive for running processes
    like the ones on the tapes.

    The standard tech fanatics were sure that the people in the
    audience would get sick, cave in, have nightmares, or whatever.

    Instead the audience loved it, and a number of people even had
    the clear cog from one of the tapes.

    It actually did create a boom at the org for about two weeks.
    That was about how long it took for the public to cognite that
    the tech they heard on those tapes had nothing whatsoever to
    do with modern standard tech.

    After that the collapse continued on its downward slide.
    But somebody must have noticed that it worked despite violating
    all the rules of standard tech, so eventually Yvonne Gilham
    (later Yvonne Jentz) started going around to the various
    orgs on tour running 1950s style group processing.

    Too bad they didn't play the last tape in the set. We
    might have had our revolution right then and there.


    The Pilot

    The following excerpt is from that last lecture in the set, 5506c06 ASMC Lecture 15 [Ron speaking]:

    …When helping one's fellows becomes a specialized action to be performed only by the anointed, to be performed only by somebody who wears the right star, badge, or sign -- man's dead! Because the best of man comes into being when he is willing to aid and assist any of his fellows and is permitted to do so.

    We allow any dog to come around and sympathize with us when we're hurt, and even in a cave society they let a dog lick the wound to help it heal. But not in this society! And when men are made to feel that they do not have the right to aid and assist their fellows, but that Joe or Bill or somebody down the street is the only one who should be permitted to wave a magic wand or rattle a magic healing crystal, somebody had better look at the society real good because it's not a well society. Do you see that clearly?

    Now, it does not immediately presuppose that because a person has a right to heal that he is able to heal. That doesn't immediately follow, does it?

    But today we are at a level of understanding in Scientology sufficiently good that almost any human being alive could be put into possession of enough of that data to make anyone around him better and happier, including himself. And that is the goal toward which we are trying to win. And we are winning, using some of the artificial supports of the society which already exist. And one of those supports is organization.

    But I would be a very sad man to realize, after years of work, that we had created not a greater freedom in the society but a stronger and more powerful organization in place of existing organizations. And as Hendrik Van Loon* once said, "The more things seem to change, the more they remain the same." He says that in a book called Tolerance, which I recommend to you -Tolerance, by Willem Hendrik Van Loon, a very great writer, recently dead. Very fine man. But he says this in regard to revolution.

    We have this enormous mass of people swelling up out of the ditches and byroads and gutters and alleys and overwhelming a despotic government on the motto that "Everybody is going to be free. We're going to have liberty, fraternity and equality" and we get despotity! Instead of setting up a new free regime, all they do is use the extant communication lines of despotism in order to rule and govern. Anyone who would recommend the overthrow of a nation by force is a fool. He doesn't understand the least semblance of politics or of people. Because no nation is ever overthrown, they are just substituted for.

    If you want to know what kind of a government you'd get after you revolted against a government, look at the government you revolted against. Things will be a little bit bullet-nicked, but that'll be about the only difference.

    We could, at this time, put together an organization or a group in Scientology sufficiently strong, sufficiently powerful to run over everything it came to. This would be a fascinating thing to do. Be a game in itself. And then someday -- me gone, other guys gone – all of a sudden there sits this thing, this organization. And somebody has to rise up and say, "Auditors of the world, unite; overthrow this monster!" And everybody would see it go down very plainly, you see. Down it'd go. Then they'd say, ”Fine! Now we are free.” And they would get another handful of letters cancelling their certificates. (audience laughter)

    I try to look far enough in the future to forecast and predict what might be, so as to not do too many things wrong. You must allow me some percentage. And as I look into the future, I see that we are handling here, material of a potential control and command over mankind which must not be permitted at any time to become the monopoly or the tool of the few to the danger and disaster of the many. And maybe in this I am simply being overly proud, conceited or optimistic. But I would never for a moment step back from the role of being conceited just to be approved of, or just to be wrong in a prediction. And I believe that prediction is right.

    And I believe that the freedom of the material which we know and understand is guaranteed only by a lightness of organization, a maximum of people, good training and good, reliable, sound relay of information. And if we can do these things, we will win. But if we can't do these things, sooner or later the information which we hold will become the property of an untrustworthy few. This I am sure, because it has always happened this way. But that's no reason it has to keep on happening this way. I am not of an inevitable frame of mind.

    I have no illusions about either the unimportance of Scientology or its importance. You see, it'd be very, very easy to get a swollen idea either way.

    It'd be a very simple thing, you know, to take a look at it and then take an opinion of it, independent of its actuality. Scientology, well understood, is a very powerful thing. Well used, it can do a great deal for the social order and for the individual. Poorly relayed, poorly communicated, monopolized or used exclusively for gain, it could be a very destructive thing.

    Editor's footnote (2012):
    * you can google: Tolerance van Loon book

    This repost is also sent to SuperScio, Freezone-alliance and ivy-subscribers-1 lists
  17. Pilot'sPost Z16 - On Standard Tech, 1950s Tech, Free Tech

    Pilot'sPost Z16

    On Standard Tech, 1950s Tech, Free Tech

    From Post 23 – January 1998

    On 25 Jan 98, lakis agrogiannis <> posted on subject "To Pilot"

    > Hi again!
    > This is from Lakis. Well, I consider myself a free zoner, but I
    > haven’t yet made my mind up to deviate from LRH’s standard tech. (If
    > you disagree with LRH, would you like to tell me at which points?) I
    > believe that he was an honest being, with the salvaging of Earth’s
    > people in mind.

    I am very much in agreement with the LRH of the 1950s.

    In DMSMH he says to get busy and build a better bridge.

    In all the courses of 1952-4, you were expected to make up your
    own process commands as needed and also to self audit.

    In the 3rd ACC, the ultimate rundown was SOP8-OT where you
    were supposed to handle whatever else you could find that was in
    the way of going OT by designing your own processes on the fly.

    In the HCL lectures (1952), he defines Scientology as the study
    of how to bring absolute truth into workable form and says that
    any technique devised by anybody is part of Scientology if it
    works to accomplish that goal.

    Throughout that early period, the idea was that we had a logical
    framework that allowed us to evaluate the relative truth of the
    data and techniques used by other practices and that we could
    therefore create workable techniques from them.

    That was the true breakthrough. How to create processes. How
    to mix practices successfully. Every early auditor and Ron
    himself in those days would have been labeled as squirrels today.

    That was the research line. But it died in the 1960s. And we
    never made stable OTs (we did sometimes get sporadic OT phenomena).

    I believe that it was an honest research effort. In the early
    days, he talks about magic and Crowley and Krishnamurti, and
    how to extract workable processes from those things and evaluate
    which data were workable and which were just foolishness.

    He used to say that he was only an organizer rather than an
    originator of tech.

    I am in agreement with this and with the basics discovered in
    those days and with the entire attitude and approach which
    created people who could think with the subject.

    When the tech solidified in later days, we were left high and
    dry with only a subset of the tech that was discovered, and
    with strict and dreadful rules against altering anything, and
    without the research techniques that I believe had carried
    us about halfway to a total solution and simply needed to be
    taken further.

    Even as late as about 1965, he was saying that the rules were
    only for training new students and trained auditors should use
    their judgement instead (this is on an SHSBC tape called, I
    think "Tech Roundup").

    As to the later days, there is much good stuff, but I filter
    it all through the sieve of the 1950s material and evaluate
    it just as if I was pulling things out of Science of Mind or
    the Tibetan materials.

    So I see things like "Don't mix practices" and "Don't self audit"
    and toss them because they are in total conflict with the basics.

    I believe, for example, that Ron was right in 1952 when he said
    that ARC = Understanding and that you study successfully by raising
    ARC or handling barriers to ARC. That is a senior basic. I
    evaluate later study tech on that basis. Handling an MU is smart
    because the MU = out communication. Thinking that the primary
    out-point is MUs and doing endless hours of tiresome and
    unnecessary word clearing is an outpoint, it ignores too many
    factors and will end up reducing ARC for the subject. Letting
    the students talk about the tech is a plus because it raises
    ARC, making them all shut up is obviously wrong. And so forth.

    The 1952 attitude on implants is correct. The 1960s research
    gave us some valuable implant platens, but put them in a bad
    context, almost a suppressive context, by making them a big
    "Why" on the case. The correct attitude is that they are motivators,
    rather than major sources of aberration. Of course you want
    to get the person's confront up on them and do some handling,
    but if it is too charged up, you run the overt of implanting
    others rather than thinking that implants are oh so important and
    making the PC into a victim.

    Same goes for entities, which were looked on as trivial and not
    a major why on the case, but which could be handled if
    necessary by what we now know of as Nots techniques.

    Basically, I disagree with LRH's later efforts to freeze the
    tech into a standard.

    I do waffle on the question of what were his intentions in the
    later days. He really should have known better.

    > I believe definitely that the church should either mend their ways
    > or give it all up, and give it all up to us. In which case we must
    > really act responsibly.

    Truly mending their ways would mean making the tech available and
    spreading it as broadly as possible without restriction. They
    should be encouraging the freezone and simply being a "standard" in
    the sense of a yardstick against whom others are measured.

    When they train an auditor, it should be just like a university
    that trains a student. The university does not then police the
    student or force him to stop applying what he learned if there
    is some new discovery. He paid for his course, he did it, and
    he now is free to use whatever he learned in whatever manner he
    sees fit, restricted only by the laws of the land (don't use
    your knowledge of physics to blow up buildings) and not by
    arbitraries introduced by the school that he graduated from.

    A university has a right to demand certain standards of their
    computer students before giving them a degree, but they do not
    have the right to insist that nobody may write a program unless
    this one and only university or group of universities has trained
    that person. And the university does not have a right to stop
    people from opening up computer schools or reading about the
    pentium chip specifications.

    > By the way, has it not struck you how many different "scientology
    > schools of thought" we got? Suppose every thetan exercises his rights
    > and developes his own, *workable* version of the tech. How would you
    > like to have billions of "standard" tech, each one saying, "it works!"
    > Ha-ha!

    If you had real competition, maybe it really would achieve maximum
    workability and a high success rate.

    Those hundreds of different schools in honest competition and also
    trying to learn from each other would be the fastest way to really
    evolve the subject.

    People would go where they made the most gains. It would tend to
    be a self correcting situation.

    Look at the computer industry. If IBM had owned the exclusive
    right to build computers and transistors and so forth, a computer
    with 1 MB of memory would still cost ten million dollars (I
    remember those days, that was normal pricing when I started
    programming). And the competition didn't drive IBM out of
    business either, although there is much squabbling and they have
    to stay on their toes.

    Taking the analogy further, when IBM developed the IBM PC (a
    latecomer in the micro computer market), it swept the market by
    creating an open standard that anybody could follow and imitate
    without license or copyright fees. They immediately became the
    number one PC manufacturer and their name was a household word
    even though they had to share the market with all the clone

    IBM got stupid and thought about all the money they had lost by
    not keeping their PC standards a trade secret and licensed and
    so forth. So they designed the PS/2 and made the microchannel
    architecture a closed hidden standard. And with that they
    almost disappeared from the PC hardware market within a year
    or so. Even IBM stopped making microchannel PCs and went back
    to the ISA standard even though it wasn't as good (now we have
    PCI which is better than microchannel).

    So I think that open competition is ideal for everybody.

    If the org welcomed it and set the tech free and spread it
    around and encouraged everybody else to spread it around, they
    would boom despite the increased competition.


    The Pilot
  18. Pilot'sPost Z17 - Scientology and Metaphysics

    Pilot'sPost Z17

    Scientology and Metaphysics

    From Post 41 - November 1998

    [Relay point's note: These are excerpts from the Pilot's Posts. You could call them gems from the Pilot, in that an endevour has been made to pick the most useful posts. In setting this up I possibly have not made this clear, AntRelaypoint]

    In 1950 Hubbard took the radical step of allowing the preclear to run whatever the preclear came up with instead of insisting that the preclear run what he was supposed to find.

    Hubbard, after all, believed that the engrams were recorded in the cells of the body and thought that the source of the reactive mind was prenatal incidents in the current lifetime.

    But Ron, perhaps because he was not over-educated and certain of what he was doing, did not at that time suffer from the stultifying self-righteousness which might lead a practitioner into forcing a subject back into the acceptable channels.

    And so he let a preclear run an incident of having been a lion and eating their keeper. And the preclear seemed to get better. And when his own students took exception to this, he insisted that you let the pc run whatever the pc came up with.

    And then one time he asked a pc for the "death necessary to resolve the case" and the pc found a past life death. Now this was a misunderstood on the pc's part. The question was asking for the death of an ally (such as an aunt or grandparent) which was assumed to be in this lifetime, and Hubbard had started abbreviating the question because everybody knew what he meant, until he got a new preclear and failed to explain what kind of a death he was searching for. Again, he let the pc run what had come up without forcing him to run what was supposed to be run.

    Within a few months Ron was beginning to follow up on these things and experiment with past-life incident running, and eventually he found a past life recall of his own which had taken place in the Civil War. And this was quite startling to him, he talks about that in one of the early lectures.

    Please realize that Hubbard himself did not have any knowledge or recall of past lives prior to late 1950. If you have any doubt of this, please read the first 8 R&D volumes, the entire slow and painful process of his coming to a gradual realization of these things is laid out in detail.

    He might have dabbled a little bit in magic or philosophy, but as far as metaphysics and spiritual awareness goes, he was basically a novice rather than an advanced student. If you read the accounts in Bare Faced Messiah [Bent Coryden, 1987], his brief adventures with Jack Parsons in OTO are about the same as his brief adventures in the Navy lobbing depth charges at a mocked up submarine. So he was no more an expert at magic than he was a nuclear physicist. It would be better to say that he had a bit of exposure to the ideas rather than thinking he was any kind of an expert in these areas.

    He was really more of an adventurer with a sharp mind rather than a serious student of anything. And even the adventuring is light, being just enough to gather some seeds that could be blown up into fantastic pulp fiction tales. He'd go out in a glider first and then he'd whip up a ton of aviation stories. Really just a writer who wasn't afraid of getting his feet dirty to add a bit more realism to his stories.

    And the most fruitful dabbling was, of course, a bit of playing around with psychoanalysis. From the "Story of Dianetics and Scientology" tape we know that he was doing a bit of this at Oak Knoll, passing himself off as a doctor to a few of the patients and clerical staff while he was recovering from his "war wounds" (which according to his statement in the lecture were nothing more than having a bit of a limp, feeling depressed, and having his eyesight getting a bit weak).

    I would think that this was simply a bit more of his gathering of story ideas, and certainly one of those ideas wound up in the novel "Fear". And the general playing around as a doctor probably also found its way into the Old Doc Methuselah stories. But a writer will mine an area for lots of stories, going at it from many different angles.

    So I imagine that Ron would have envisioned some kind of psychological super science for his next batch of stories, and we have Van Vogt's "Null A" and Russel's "Diabologic" as existing successful pulp stories along those lines. And what better than to imagine a sort of super mental state, a "clear", which had all the potentials of the mind unleashed based on the premise that what any one mind could do must be an inherent capability of all minds if only they were used to their full potential.

    And so he dabbled some more, running people back through traumatic incidents, and with that he stumbled upon the easily repeatable Dianetic phenomena.

    It must have been a great big "Oh shit, this is real!". Not a scientific researcher but a kid at the candy shop saying "Wow, look what I found!" We all get a shadow of that in our early exposure to the subject, sitting there with a bag of trick well in advance of any thorough scientific progression.

    Out of this comes the Dianetics book, not at all well researched but instead a mixture of the futuristic speculation and the wild phenomena which were found and taken to be the proof that the speculation was correct. And the author is a pulp writer who just knows that it is the proper thing to exaggerate a few glider flights into wild tales of daring aviation. And so the dabbling is exaggerated into thorough research and the Dianetic boom is born only to flounder as the endless loose ends and difficulties became visible under actual use.

    And, as anyone who has had success with processing well knows, the biggest loose end was that most chains of incidents do not have basics in this lifetime but instead run back to earlier existences.

    With that, the whole apple cart is overturned and Hubbard makes his own attempt to think this through scientifically, based on his vague understanding of what a scientist is supposed to do. The end result of this is the Theta/Mest theory of 1951 and the Dianetic Axioms. Again we do not have anything resembling thorough research, but we do have an attempt to formulate a logical structure that will explain the wild phenomena.

    But the vague Theta Mest theory and that first set of axioms leave even more loose ends than DMSMH, hinting at things without quite coming to grips with them.

    So there is more dabbling in past lives and more guesswork, and then he takes the brilliant step of formulating the Scientology axioms.

    And so we have the wild period of 1952-4 where these ideas are being researched and organized.

    Take a look at the Time Track of Theta lectures which FZBA posted to the net recently. Notice the statement (which I've quoted before) about taking anything that works in this area and adding it into Scientology.

    That is not an idle remark. That was an order which was implemented. The students were set to digging into metaphysics and finding things for Ron.

    In 1966 I was on course with a very old lady (I think she was in her eighties) who had been with Ron in the 1950s. She was still looking around for books (especially metaphysics) which would help in the research and whenever she found one she would buy a copy and mail it off to Ron.

    So in those early days other practices were tried and tested and anything which worked was fitted into the Scientology framework.

    But note that this was a small batch of students. Those early courses (ACCs etc.) usually only had about 20 or so students on them and there were only a small number of courses given in this time period.

    So what we really had was a light, cursory survey of what was around and easily available in metaphysics during the early 1950s. We gained a lot from it, but that research line was cut off far too quickly.

    And the scan of metaphysics was very shallow and lacking in expertise. An example is Kundalini and the chakra system. Somebody finds out a little about that (a particular system of 7 chakra), and Ron immediately assumes that the 7 chakras are just an altered perception of the 7 entities he was finding in the HCL lectures. He mentions that in the PDC lectures (somebody posted the quote recently). He never notices that the locations in the body, the properties, and the effects are quite different. Instead he has a know-it-all attitude and doesn't bother to look.

    So the ideas of metaphysics made their way into Scientology on a very hit or miss basis.

    And by the late 50s, Ron was already beginning to turn his back on any other sources, and so that very fruitful area of research was cut off.

    And by the late 60s, the research is blocked entirely by the foolish idea that we have all the answers despite never having made a stable OT.

    There is a lot to be gained by bringing more of the metaphysical ideas into the Scientology logical framework, devising processes, testing them, and expanding the horizons of the subject.


    The Pilot

  19. Simultaneously with sending these Pilot'sReposts here, I have been sending to three other places. One of them is the SuperScio list ( Someone responded there, and I have permission to post here on ESMB a slightly edited version.

    All best wishes, AntAdmin.

    Hello Everyone:

    I am long overdue in introducing myself.

    First of all I want to sincerely thank Antony Phillips for
    inviting us all to post here [SuperScio Internet list], for telling his stories elsewhere,
    and especially for devoting himself to the task of editing IVy
    magazine and managing this e-mail list, refreshing the valuable
    tech extensions Pilot first introduced back when the Internet was
    young. This work is so appreciated and I will share some of the
    benefits as I go (not all of that will fit here!)

    My real name is Scott Gordon. I was on Scientology org staff for
    over 16 years, first in Dallas (it was "Celebrity Centre Dallas"
    then) and then in 2004 I moved to Costa Rica to be with my wife and
    decided to spend 5 more years on staff there. I started out in
    Dallas tech-trained and supervising public courses, but then I
    became "Director of Special Affairs" for the "Office of Special
    Affairs" (OSA). If you like a good fight (I warn you, it is
    aggressive) and want to take a look at mine, you can visit my
    reform blog at:

    I was introduced to the Pilot's writings shortly after I woke up to
    the corruption in the church and had finished my career on staff,
    all in December 2009. I was immediately in full agreement with
    Pilot's intelligent calls for reform, and fascinated with the
    opening chapters of Super Scio!

    A story I have not had time to tell elsewhere, is that I read Pilot
    avidly as soon as I could after finding it, amazed that one could
    actually "solo" the tech that I loved so much, and started to apply
    his solutions for handling "Int phenomena" (this can include as it
    did with me, excruciating migraine headaches) and soon I was
    putting my tooth pain "into the wall" successfully, and "going in"
    to the nearby mountain (a drill) to some benefit and relief, and
    finally I took the plunge and used my e-meter training to pull
    myself out of Int trouble and put an end to those migraine

    Over the next two years I stayed "undercover" as I came out of the
    abuse and suppression I had encountered in the org, solo-auditing
    "list corrections" and even solo auditing the wrongly-feared
    "Introspection Rundown" (although the Pilot did not have much good
    to say about it - I found it phenomenal as a solo action,

    I went through this period of "undercover" solo auditing and church
    reform posting, and lived something eerily similar to some things
    that the Pilot went through - even with the "in-the-church" wife
    (who, like Pilot's wife, also "turned me in" to the church, thinking it
    would be a "simple" matter of getting a "correction," after she
    caught me solo auditing in October 2011!)

    Some of the parallels are astounding, but although I have made
    significant contributions to Scientology in general, from my
    position on staff, I am in amazement at the command Pilot had of
    the human mind and spirit and the degree to which he could clarify
    and extend important areas of the tech which I, like everyone else,
    had believed all along, was complete and even, "perfect."

    Therefore, I selected a name that might be logical as an "adept" of
    "the Pilot" - "Watchful Navigator" (and started to post on
    Independent Scientology reform blogs) in deference to the Pilot and
    in hopes of somehow following in his footsteps as a seeker of the
    as yet unknown and undiscovered riches ahead in the area of the
    human mind and spirit.

    So as I set about exploring solo auditing and after handling areas
    of my case and turning my life around by handling my own case
    (staff at all levels suffer abuse in today's orgs, and I am still
    an "unattested Clear"), I began including research auditing (sorry -
    not "OT research" yet - I specialize right now in introductory-
    level processing and Scientology Grades)

    While I find the work of Ken Ogger, the Pilot, fascinating and
    exciting, just like his predecessor Hubbard, I realize that he did
    not have it all worked out. Much like the Pilot did towards LRH,
    in turn I find fault with some of Pilot's conclusions. However, I
    find that Pilot took the subject further (in my opinion) than any
    other contributor (and there were many) as far as useful technical
    developments. Only I think that the Pilot would have tolerated my
    differences of opinion much more graciously than his predecessor!

    I have seen unflattering criticisms of the Pilot since first
    indulging in his work, as many of us have also heard and read about
    LRH. We all have our shortcomings and I am no exception. These
    things are only important to me to put into context the time-track
    of the research. Pilot at least, had the honesty to step down from
    his researches and writing when he encountered a period of extreme case

    Thanks once again to Antony and friends, IVy magazine has
    collected and featured a wonderful collection of significant tech
    developments, including Pilot's, which have enriched the field

    Like the Pilot, I have plans to release a great deal of the tech
    "free," and in a form that the church has no way to predict or
    stop. This, along with 'expose' technical articles that will
    embarrass RTC and RTRC with their gross errors in their
    compilations of LRH's "Expanded Grades." My co-audit twin and I
    have found dozens of case-stopping alterations there (which make a
    lot more difference in professional auditing than they would solo,
    due to the "mind's protection" being bypassed in modern "auditing").

    This project, which I am also calling "Process Library," will also
    be a rich resource for Pilot's Self-Clearing readers, adding
    processes adapted for "solo" use. After I release it (these are
    mainly "LRH" processes, many of which have lain un-utilized and
    some of them never released even in the church!) I will try to work
    on an extended version of Self-Clearing, or at least an expanded
    solo auditing manual, as I believe Pilot would have wanted to see

    Many of you have heard of or may even be a part of, the new
    "Independent Scientology" movement. (I know these people!) But
    they would not agree with what I am doing, either, and do not
    accept Pilot as any kind of resource to be looked at.

    As I grow discouraged with efforts to reform the church (which
    situation has worsened since Pilot was posting) and to prevent the
    repetition of the same errors of the church in the new
    "Independent" field, I continue to co-audit and solo audit and
    research the tech full-time. Though my posting identity as a
    reformer has been exposed, I still work somewhat "under the radar"
    as far as researching, since I am an accomplished (though low-level
    - - - Level I) "Standard Tech" auditor - and since it is verboten to
    engage in "research" amongst the new, self-appointed "Standard Tech

    I hope I do not come off too pretentious as to my intentions to add
    contributions to the great body of work left behind by the Pilot,
    nor overly enthusiastic for your taste (though I think my
    enthusiasm is justified!) I am here mainly to learn, and there are
    many people like Antony and other old-timers at IVy, doing many
    great things that are worth studying and learning. If I can help
    anyone personally, or contribute helpful suggestions to the group
    discussion from time-to-time, I will be very happy to do so.

    A lot of people have trouble accepting that I could know much about
    the tech, since I was an intelligence officer for the church so
    many years. The truth is that I was always studying the tech and
    am thoroughly trained in applying it. So much so, that I handled a
    fellow staff member who had been sent to a mental health facility
    after experiencing a psychotic break, bringing him back to sanity
    and a successful life outside the church (this was done to
    safeguard public relations from my "DSA hat" but also as a friend
    and it required rapid and thorough study of the tech to
    accomplish). And for the last 3 years I have been heavily engaged
    in studying the LRH tech from '50-'90 and all things Pilot and much
    more (I am still getting through back issues of IVy - wonderful

    I should point out that solo auditing processing rundowns on
    oneself also teaches you a great deal about how the tech works and
    I have also successfully audited many persons on all levels of
    auditing, as I am still doing regularly.

    And oh yes, I am currently receiving Grade 0 (communication
    processing) from my co-audit twin. I have found that
    communication, overts and service facsimiles process faster and
    deeper with a twin. But in-between Grades (including very
    recently) I still do solo work. And in-between sessions now, I am
    beginning to do Self-Clearing drills. I will write up sometime,
    what I feel are the advantages and disadvantages of either
    approach. (But significant case progress can very definitely be
    accomplished "solo" so keep going with it!)

    Thank you for reading this and for your contributions to this e-
    mail list. I have been lurking and "too busy" for too long, and I
    am so glad to come out and join friends of like interest here.

    Scott Gordon
    Watchful Navigator
  20. Pilot'sPosts Z18 History of Early OT3 Running

    Pilot'sPosts Z18

    History of Early OT3 Running.

    From Post 30 - April 1998

    [Here we have another example of a sort of two-way communication between The Pilot and different people writing to him via the newsgroup (ACT). It deals with Operating Thetan level III, which was confidential in the "church" and which has come out in bits and pieces on the Internet. It deals partly with a supposed incident on earth and neighbouring planets many years ago, and sort of "disembodied" spirits (also called entities or body thetans, BTs), nevertheless attached but not in control of one's body. Might be an idea to skip this one if you do not know much about it, as it is somewhat confusing and "fantasy-fictiony". AntRelayer ]

    On 16 Apr 98, johnmack@dev.null (John Mack) asked on
    subject "To Pilot Re OT III"

    > Presumably many beings arrived here in the last 76 million
    > years who weren't in Confederation space when the OT III
    > events happened. They'd have dormant entities around, but
    > no experience of the Wall of Fire and no active BT's of
    > the kind OT III handles. If so, and if one of the dormant
    > beings had Inc 2, what would happen when a "natural OT 3”
    > ran the level?

    There are earlier similar mass implants. According to the
    Hubbard College Lectures of 1952 [some of Hubbard's recorded lectures], there are at least 5 of them and it is only the most recent one which happened on

    But Incident 2 would give the person the wrong date and
    location while at the same time restimulating slightly
    different but similar incidents.

    And even for people who did have Inc 2, it is late on a
    chain and would often be the wrong incident.

    This is real trouble only for the first few years that OT 3
    was delivered because eventually they added the "cumulative
    cluster" bulletin and you were allowed to assess for and
    run whatever kind of incident needed to be handled (one
    assess things like implant, impact, electrical, and so
    forth and date/locate it).

    Once that change was made, they continued to push Incident 2
    but you had an alternative if it really didn't seem right.

    And there still remained the other problem of blaming one's
    case on entities which is a good way to spin somebody in.
    That is even mentioned in A History of Man.

    > Way I read the NOTS material, he would have a raging pack
    > of restimulated, cross-copying hellhounds in full cry.
    > Whereas if he'd let sleeping dogs lie, he could have worked
    > on positive abilities until he could dust of what entities
    > he had rather easily.

    Exactly correct, except that this applies to everyone, not
    just the ones who did or didn't have Inc 2 on their track.

    > And beings that able would have been
    > heavily represented in the Church in '67. If this makes as
    > big a mess as I think, then by the time NOTS arrived , the
    > Church was in the hands of those who got into the mess first
    > and had been in it the longest --- Sea Org.

    As I mentioned above, the restim and wrong indication of
    running Inc 2 exclusively was at its worst for the first
    few years which was exactly the time when the Sea Org was
    formed and recruiting heavily.

    Furthermore, they were mostly forbidden to recruit org and
    mission staff during the first year or two because of orders
    not to unmock the existing orgs (this had changed by 1970).
    So a large percentage were untrained new people, especially
    ones who had gotten through OT 3 in the quicky era.

    In early 1968 it was possible to reach grade 5A on
    25 to 50 hours of auditing at a total cost of 1 or 2
    thousand dollars. In 1969 one could do it in 5 or 10
    hours of auditing. A further few months and a few thousand
    dollars at St. Hill or (1969) AOLA and one could be on
    OT 3 with little preparation and little confront and much
    encouragement to blame one's remaining case on Bts.* footnote

    For an example of the typical bridge in early 1969, when
    the original standard tech and quickes were at their
    peak, see Bob Kaufman's book (which is up at a few web
    sites [see]).
    People who got audited after 1970 probably
    don't believe it, but he had a totally standard bridge
    for 1969 and just about every process that was run
    on him is listed in that book. It is a pitiful handful.

    And yet he did make gains on lower level processes and
    says so. It was only getting losses on Clear and OT 3
    that spun him in. The only inaccuracy in his book is that
    he used fake names for all the people involved, possibly
    to protect them.

    This was the experience of new public who came in
    during that era. Those who trained or those who
    came in a little earlier or later fared better. But
    his was not an unusual experience. The only difference
    is that he decided that Ron was nuts and most people
    decided the opposite and became Sea Org fanatics. The
    level of charge and dub-in by the time they did OT 3 was
    probably about the same.

    I'm not talking here about the old timers or existing
    trained auditors. Most of them did not join the SO except
    for the very first wave that signed up when Ron created
    the SO. Most could not join during that first year
    because of the policy I mentioned above, and by the second
    year, most of the old timers were very leary of getting
    sucked into that mess. I would have joined in early 1968
    if I had been allowed to leave org staff to do so, and
    I most certainly would not in 1969. By the time it was
    possible for me to join, I was totally recruiter resistant.

    So about three quarters of the 1968-9 Sea Org recruits
    were untrained newbies who had been in the subject for
    six months or a year and rushed up through OT 3 and got
    dazzeled by the Xenu story and signed up for a billion
    years. There are exceptions, but this is the most common

    In those days, I would often hear a new SO member who
    was on a recruiting mission say things like "When I
    did OT 3 and saw what had happened to us, I realized
    that the only thing I could do was to dedicate my life to
    salvaging this sector".

    > Or am I missing something?
    > John

    As I see it, many of the early SO recruits had the incident
    in full restim and were dramatizing implanting others.


    The Pilot


    * (by editor, Antony Phillips) On the Thursday before Easter in 1968 I flew with a number of others on a chartered plane to Alicanti to receive my OT III. The only advanced org at that time had been moved from a ship to a hotel in Alicanti (Spain). We were told that a non Sea Org crew had been running the Advanced Org, made a bad job of it and had been replaced by Sea Org. Everything was done by fast flow (attesting, no examinations). Sea Org members got all their auditing free, and we heard that on that day one Sea Org member had done his Clearing Course, and OT levels I to VI (I think) and was very disappointed that the lines closed before he could make his final attestation for the last OT level available at that time.