Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Introduction to the event of losing a Bridge  or      A technology can get lost... “within 5 years...”  (Lost tech: 1965 → 1970  vs  A lost Bridge?: 1972 → 1977...)

(to other Scientology pages)

1) General overview/introduction:   Mission statement, overview, present-day Scientology Introduction to Scientology and LRH Scientology in media and Internet (+ forums, Wikipedia) Scientology: Its true history exposed? Scientology Q&A (FAQ) External links Materials want list Recommended list of materials 2) Responses (with annotations): Appreciative responses to my pages Critique received (1) from churchgoing Scientologists Critique received (2) from out-of-church Scientologists Critique received (3) from anti-Scientologists 3) Topics of particular interest: (a): General topics Story of Mary Sue Hubbard Holy Scriptures vs Scientology LRH vs Dictionaries LRH vs theory of evolution LRH's works of fiction (b): Organizational topics A printing history of the materials of Scientology Scientology Membership: HASI vs IAS LRH vs pricing policies The copyrights issue and licensing (c): Technical topics History of Grade Chart: a) General History of Grade Chart: b) Detailed ‘Clear’ defined NED for OTs The ‘Primary Rundown’ 4) Controversial topics: Mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified The Fair Game Law Practice of Disconnection Security Checking Freeloaders vs Ex-staff members The ‘Rehabilitation Project Force’ (RPF) 5) Changes in the flow of ‘information’: (a): Alterations (LRH or non-LRH?) LRH vs Alterations Non-LRH turns into LRH? & Proposal to solution The ‘Cramming Series’ - LRH or not LRH? Based on LRH publications (b): General overview LRH vs A New Order (introduction) → Administrative and organizational matters Setup of the printed materials (1973-86) The RTRC, the unit that wrote LRH issues (1973-82) The dawning of RTC and new management (1982-83) → Technical matters Introduction to the event of losing a Bridge) Analysis of HCOB “Tech Correction Round-up” Lost Bridge: Tech changes during 1978-82 The history of the original OT VIII ‘Golden Age of Tech’ (GAT) analysis Drilling in Scientology (c): The matter of David Mayo Story of David Mayo ‘SO ED 2344 Int’ analysis Training drills (TRs) Mayo reference list 6) Conspiracies - In L. Ron Hubbard's footsteps Scientology vs a New World Order →Where is L. Ron Hubbard? (chronology of Scn history) Whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology The era of adoration; Presentation of L. Ron Hubbard L. Ron Hubbard into artistry: Music & Film 7) Scientology under attack (a): A premeditated series of occurrences? (’80s conspiracy) Introduction & Ron DeWolf Gerry Armstrong (‘affirmations’) Russell Miller ( ‘Bare-Faced Messiah’) A religion created for the money? (b): Battles fought and the internet (2016- ) Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath (TV show) planned

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

	“Note: Neglect of this PL* has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all-out, international effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL, with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. ‘Quickie grades’ entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore actions which neglect or violate this policy letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not ‘entirely a tech matter’, as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2-year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it.”
	L. Ron Hubbard
	(from 15 June 1970 reissue of HCO PL* 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)

Previous technology replaced with new technology - Introduction

“Wakey! Wakey!”

	Lost tech: 1965 → 1970
	A lost Bridge?: 1972 → 1977...
		- Prelude of something gone haywire... (1976-77)
		- The Bridge turns around... (1978-82)
	Have we not been forewarned?

The purpose of this page is twofold. It functions as:
(1) a brief introduction of the matter how a functioning technology was altered and folds out some of its surrounding circumstances in where these alterations occurred, and;
(2) it urges to reflect on the rather important question, would we actually notice it happening whén it was happening?

This may very well function as a rather serious wake-up call.

“Man ís asleep ...”

I like to reflect back a moment to that interview from May 1966 in where L. Ron Hubbard was asked by the interviewer Mr. Hitchman: “You said that through Scientology processing a person was able to look at the problems, to confront the problems that they were facing in their everyday life. Is this some form of hypnotism?”

Sound snippet

So, had this so-called Scientologist become more awake or... were parts of him still asleep? Or it must be that man chooses to just being convenient or should we call it lazy as opposed to alertness?! After all is the purity of the technology not all already taken care of?

True, L. Ron Hubbard did write earlier in 1957 that “I'll not always be here on guard.” It would have been figured he was still around and taking care of things, but then are you to ónly have your focus set on a believed physical presence of a person? In particular if that person is not seen in public anymore?

The mind is a peculiar thing. That which you are not aware of you can not run or get rid off, and that will thus not disappear with processing either. If it does not want to see, then it will not see..., if it will not see, then it can not act... You can trick a mind.

A deliberate comparison is made of the 5 years time period 1965 → 1970 and 1972 → 1977.

	Lost tech: 1965 → 1970

Release of HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”.

“As orgs grow, my assistants grow also and become more competent and refer less to me and work on delegated authority. My work is lighter the bigger we get so eventually I will hold only titles with no actions or duties.”          LRH (from HCO PL 4 Jan 66 VI “LRH Relationships to Orgs”)

	“In that new boards of directors are being elected for the various corporations and their branches, I am resigning the title of Executive Director ...
	This is not a retirement but is a resignation from all director posts and the conducting of organizations by myself.”          LRH (from HCO PL 1 Sept 66 “Founder”)

	A lost Bridge?: 1972 → 1977...

	Prelude of something gone haywire... (1976-77)
	The Bridge turns around... (1978-82)

	“So technical progress has been:
	CLASS VIII - 1968.
	COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
	COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.
	This is quite an achievement.”          LRH (from ‘LRH ED* 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)

L. Ron Hubbard went on a plane trip 4 December 1972 and after that no one seemed to know where he was or what happened with him for a period of about 9½ months.

Next we see that, upon his return in mid-September 1973, after having been mysteriously out of reach during these 9½ months, that matters from there on out would witness of being completely void of any public appearances of his person.

 
Prelude of something gone haywire... (1976-77)

We see the release of HCOB* 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” that revealed an array of tech that had been discovered to have gone out and that was handled during the previous year 1976. This HCOB was issued to make the Scientology parishioner aware of all that had gone wrong and how it was handled. It listed a total of 24 listed topics/areas (‘A:’ to ‘X:’).

The problem here is that the solution may itself have become the problem!

	HCOB 2 Aug 65 “Release Goofs”		HCOB 8 Jun 70 “Low TA Handling”
	HCOB 21 Oct 68 “Floating Needle”		HCOB 13 Jun 70 II “Hubbard Consultant Study Stress Analysis”
	HCOB 28 Apr 69 “High TA in Dianetics”		HCOB 24 Oct 71 “False TA”
	HCOB 7 May 69 V “Floating Needle”		HCOB 15 Feb 72 “False TA Addition 2”
	HCOB 1 Aug 70 “F/N and Erasure”		HCOB 23 Nov 73 “Dry and Wet Hands Make False TA”

They all state something to the effect of “The TA goes to any place between 2 and 3 and the needle floats.” or “An F/N is NEVER an F/N when above 3.0 or below 2.0.”.

Of course this makes you wonder who actually wrote HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”. Whoever wrote it, this error was never caught nor corrected, instead it was insisted upon and pushed through. The solution offered was HCOB 10 Dec 76 “Scientology F/N and TA Position”, a reference that is thus clashing with each of these here above listed HCOBs.

	“A floating needle is a rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even pace of the needle.
	That's what an F/N is. No other definition is correct.”

Full text of the technical bulletin is given here above. Obviously this HCOB was especially issued with the purpose to overshadow all the other HCOBs that directed something else. It is always this HCOB that is being referred to and we find listed on course checksheets and not the other ones. Now, does that make it somehow right?

Anyone care to explain this all to me? The whole story and analysis of this example can be consulted here (separate window).

 
The Bridge* turns around... (1978-82)

		Standard Dianetics abolished: 30 Jul 78*
		Originating a postulate turns to digging for a postulate: 16 Sept 78*
		Power processing (Grade V-VA), R6EW (Grade VI) & Clearing Course (Grade VII) virtually abolished: 24 Sept 78*
		Sequence change, first grades then Dianetics: 12 Nov 81*
		OT III Expanded, OT IV, OT V, OT VI, OT VII & OT VIII dropped: 19 Jan 82*

* See ‘The Auditor 151 (US edition)’, Sept 78: * See HCOB 16 Sept 78 “Postulate Off Equals Erasure”; * See HCOB 24 Sept 78 III “Dianetic Clear”; * See HCO PL 12 Nov 81 “Cancellation of Class 4, NED Prereq”; * See HCOB 19 Jan 82 “New – Streamlined Classification and Gradation Chart”

Neither of these things or their replacement procedures (like NED* for Standard Dianetics or NOTs* for OT V & VI) have been introduced by L. Ron Hubbard in person which previously was very customary for him to do. That he would refrain from doing so for these new releases are just not very good indicators.

Then if we already have clear indications that HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” could be this wrong, then should we be accommodative towards this Bridge turnaround that was established during 1978-82?

	Have we not been forewarned?

Now, whoever said that that which was commuicated to us in that reissue notice from June 1970 appearing in HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working” would not be able to repeat itself? How wóuld you know? How cóuld you know?

Did we not receive our forewarning that something like this could happen, and... possibly repeat itself if we do not watch out? Even if L. Ron Hubbard was still around, although only not on the lines? It happened in 1970, did it not? Did you think all was safe?

Surely HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” tries to make us believe that when it ensures: “So from here on you are relatively safe.”.

	“SPECIAL MESSAGE
	THE FOLLOWING POLICY LETTER MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.
	IT WAS TRUE IN 1965 WHEN I WROTE IT. IT WAS TRUE IN 1970 WHEN I HAD IT REISSUED. I AM REISSUING IT NOW, IN 1980, TO AVOID AGAIN SLIPPING BACK INTO A PERIOD OF OMITTED AND QUICKIED FUNDAMENTAL GRADE CHART ACTIONS ON CASES, THEREBY DENYING GAINS AND THREATENING THE VIABILITY OF SCIENTOLOGY AND OF ORGS. SCIENTOLOGY WIL KEEP WORKING ONLY AS LONG AS YOU DO YOUR PART TO KEEP IT WORKING BY APPLYING THIS POLICY LETTER.
	WHAT I SAY IN THESE PAGES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, IT HOLDS TRUE TODAY, IT WILL STILL HOLD TRUE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO HOLD TRUE FROM THERE ON OUT.
	NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN SCIENTOLOGY, ON STAFF OR NOT, THIS POLICY LETTER HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOU.”          (attributed to have been written by LRH)

►	HCOB/PL 27 Aug 80, KSW Series 21 “Examples of Quickying and False Declares”
►	HCOB/PL 28 Aug 80, KSW Series 22 “How to Handle the Quickie Impulse”
►	HCOB/PL 29 Aug 80, KSW Series 23 “How Not to Miss Out on Gains From Your Auditing”
►	HCOB/PL 30 Aug 80, KSW Series 24 “Wins, ‘States’, and Grade Chart Declares”
►	HCOB/PL 31 Aug 80, KSW Series 25 “Programming and Handling Cases Who Have Been Quickied or Falsely Declared”

Well, one may be shouldn't feel that reassured after all?! Also do not forget the incidence of HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”. Further observations are:
	(1) that it was reissued like that before something had gone awry again, it does even say so in the reissue notice. As in prevention? In a sense that is a bit awkward in particular when you realize ...
	(2) that it was reissued 3 years after the main alterations of the Bridge already had been implemented and nót in 1977! The year 1977 at least would have been logical. Mind ...
	(3) that it was previously reissued in 1970 with a justified reason. Now, what reason does justify it being reissued here in 1980, what circumstance exactly urged it, and this time printed in CAPITALS as well?;
	(4) Then is this new reissue text not overdoing it? Just read it and compare with the 1970 reissue text. Why was the 1970 reissue notice not figured sufficient? It is basically a repetition. Was the reason may be ...
	(5) to silence any opposition towards the Bridge alterations from Jul-Sept 1978? And the natural Clear consternation from 1979, many Scientology parishoners (not just “a very few thetans*”) were standing in line at their organization to attest for it. Was it here we lost Scientology? Much later they have all been recalled.

The bridge as it stood tall in 1970 holds, but the tech changes from the late ’70s are to say the least a bit shaky.

So, can we really, really, really get past that?!

Ensurances, verbally or in written form, are not a quarantee for anything. Did we forget about HCO PL 16 Mar 72 I “Look Don't Listen”? It states: “THE SCENE IS RIGHT BEFORE ONE'S EYES,” but to see it you need to look and not listen. “Questions, sharp and pointed, as in an investigation, yes.”.

Lost tech: 1965 → 1970  vs  A lost Bridge?: 1972 → 1977...  Duh, that is a repetition of events!

So, how many warnings do you need to get, really?

	“Now, the moment you have found the exact, precise mechanics which apply to all minds, you can then get a broad agreement on the situation because they override the minor data on which the people are fixated. In other words, they also would have this broader perimeter of data and they'd recognize the truth in the broader perimeter of data. But the moment that you move even a sixteenth of a millimeter sideways off of what is generally applicable to all minds, you are again into the particularities and opinions. So therefore, if you had a broad sphere of knowledge which was true, and these were all high generalities and everybody would agree with them, frankly it'd be very easy to bankrupt and upset that whole operation by taking it, and by false relay—you see, bad instruction and bad relay of the material and dropping out a datum here and a vital datum there and substituting something or other—you eventually could then again effect a sort of a slavery out of that information.
	In other words, even if you arrive at the technology, you still have the task of safeguarding the technology because, once more, it can easily turn and become a false technology.”          LRH (from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #308, renumbered 1991: #338 “Saint Hill Service Facsimile Handling”, given on 18 Sept 63)

Sound snippet

“Now there've been people on the line who have put out re-written bulletins and things like that, and there is a re-written bulletin which shows just that happening. But that is bonkers! So we can assume that people who are a bit inclined to malign, knock apart and shoot the human race, and have that as their only goal, can get into Scientology and can remove things from the technical line, or pervert or alter things in the technical line, which then makes Scientology unworkable.”          LRH (from Class VIII Course lecture #1, “An Introduction to Standard Tech” given on 24 Sept 68)

Sound snippet

Therefore, “Look Don't Listen”  LRH

Vocabulary:

     Bridge, The:
1. The route to Clear, the bridge, which we call the Clasification, Gradation and Awareness Chart. On the right side of the chart there are various steps called the states of release. The left-hand side of the chart describes the very important steps of training on which one gains the knowledge and abilities necessary to deliver the grades of release to another. It is a guide for the individual from the point where he first becomes dimly aware of a Scientologist or Scientology and shows him how and where he should move up in order to make it. (The Auditor 107 ASHO)  2. A term originating in early Dianetics days to symbolize travel from unknowingness to revelation. (Auditor 72 ASHO)
     Comm Ev:
‘Committee of Evidence’. A fact-finding group appointed and empowered to impartially investigate and recommend upon Scientology matters of a fairly severe ethical nature. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 28)
     floating needle (F/N):
The idle uninfluenced movement of the needle on the dial (of an E-meter) without any patterns or reactions in it. It can be as small as one inch or as large as dial wide. It does not fall or drop to the right of the dial. It moves to the left at the same speed as it moves to the right. It is observed on a Mark V E-meter calibrated with the TA (Tone Arm) between 2.0 and 3.0 with GIs (Good Indicators) in on the pc. It can occur after a cognition, blowdown of the TA (Tone Arm) or just moves into floating. The pc may or may not voice the cognition. (HCOB 7 May 69 V)
     F/N:
‘floating needle’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     LRH ED:
‘L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC EDs (Secretarial EDs). These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)
     LRH HCOB:
This is to stress that this HCOB was in actual fact written by L. Ron Hubbard and not someone else. See further at ‘HCOB’ in vocabulary.
     NED:
‘New Era Dianetics’. Officially released to the public on 30 July 1978 (ref.: ‘The Auditor 151 (US edition)’, Sept 78). It replaced and abolished the previous in use Standard Dianetics (St Dn).
     NOTs:
Short for NED (New Era Dianetics) for OTs (Operating Thetans). Consists basically of auditing processes that aim to address somatics in a person that has progressed onto the OT-levels with other means than standard Dianetics procedures.
    P/L or PL:
‘HCO PL’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     pc(s):
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
     TA:
‘tone arm (action)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     thetan:
1. The living unit we call, in Scientology, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scientology to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Ability Magazine 1)  2. The person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Auditor 25 UK)
     tone arm (TA):
1. Tone arm refers to the tone arm or its motion. (HCOB 13 Apr 64)  2. Tone arm action. A technical term for a quantitative measure of case gain in the Scientology processing of a preclear for a given unit of time. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 38)  3. The measure of accumulation of charge. (Class VIII No. 6)  4. A measure of the amount of encysted force which is leaving the case. (SH Spec 291, 6308C06)