>> 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.
“So technical progress has been:
CLASS VIII - 1968.
COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.
This is quite an achievement.”
L. Ron Hubbard
(from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)
A prelude to technical and administrative reversals - The year 1977 (page 1)
Examined here is if there is any truth to be found in the claim of a rather subtle and carefully worked out planned operation having been carried out to get a working technology interfered with, made less workable and/or ‘changing its direction’, this by means of use of a falsely accredited authority.
- Various impressions expressed
- About designated authorship (once again)
A ‘missing link’ attended to
This was something that had to be written because it pretty much functions as an actual missing link. The release of HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” is an actual prelude of things to come. Its analysis clarifies in which direction we were going from here on out. Here various new approaches were being introduced that would set a new line or rather confirm it, it was set into movement already since earlier, as I folded out in my analysis.
For some time I was aware that an analysis on this HCOB would be warranted, but it would be quite a task to undertake this with its 24 listed topics (‘A:’ to ‘X:’). Some 6 months ago now I got in a quarrel with a person that swore by New Era Dianetics (NED). The communication got a bit hectic, and seeing that it would not get anywhere I ended it. However, that what followed as a result of that was that I at that time decided that an analysis of this HCOB would now be a necessity. After all if one could cast a serious doubt upon that HCOB, then it would in turn dispute the validity of all the changes in the technology that came into effect after that. I made preparations for the research, but it took a while before I tackled it. The study and its findings also forced me to rewrite and update various chapters in my previous studies. Today some 4 weeks later, this task has been completed.
The situation here is that you only find out about these things if you start sitting down and actually start to differentiate about the information that is being forwarded by this release. You will find out that inexact and incomplete information is being relayed. In particular if you follow up on the claims and the reasoning it forwards. Add to this a tracking of references and their publication record, as I have done and present, then you really start finding out things. Then focusing on the things that it should have contained, but that are omitted gets the picture more and more complete. Tackling this study took a bit more effort and time then I had anticipated, various parts of previous studies had to be adapted, corrected and even rewritten, but I also was rewarded with a lot more findings than I had calculated.
Well, this is being offered to the scrutiny of the reader, although some persons will rather be scrutinous about that what I present or even my person. And this is all fine. It is my experience however when lacking valid arguments that people do and will resort to personal invalidations and ad hominem type of attacks. For example I have had thrown at me that I was running “some kind of twisted jihad” on matters. Another person wrote to me: “you need to Word\clear and \False Data strip a number of relevant issues, as a number of your statements are PATENTLY FALSE” saying that he “stopped counting at 50” and utterly failing to forward even a single argument that I could put to the test, although I in each email specifically asked this individual to forward this to me, but he never followed up on that. Well, thank you very kindly! This sort of responses however are simply not my problem. See, I need something I can work with, and I simply can't do anything with unsupported opinions. All it will do is draw my attention on areas that apparently are charged up, various of my studies started with that. I then want to find out and learn why people got so uptight about it. The deal here is that I am a RESEARCHER and offer RESEARCH. So, any person that chooses not to be scientific about it, are kindly requested to refrain from sharing me their grunts!
Any valid arguments forwarded to me about this analysis will however be welcomed with gratitude. Corrections/new data will be implemented if I can confirm you offered valid information, and/or if I see you made a good point.
Introduction of this study
“With the cat gone, will the mice play on the table?”
If you would attempt to hijack and/or distort a subject matter, then what would be an effective way to get this aim realized without too many people asking questions and at the same time somehow persuade the receiving public not giving too much attention or credence to possible critics? Distortion would mean here that you make the technology less effective and/or promote a direction that interferes with the original aims. It may very well be a very ingenious thought to simply release an official notice that runs of a whole array of approved and supposed corrections, and... that is being released under the name of the founder of this, until then, optimum working technology.
The actuality here is that people as a rule and in general simply do not think for themselves, they rely on other persons what to do or will decide for them what is true to them. Man submits very easily to authority. No distinction is made even between good or bad authority (and both may very well be equally disruptive). Here of course you then have to rely on the naïvité of man. For sure you would have some persons protesting, but... who would listen to them? You can overthrow these few protestors easily by means of exerting this same authoritiveness. This can be managed in various ways. One-eye would indeed be king in the land of the blind, but it is the blind that would make out this majority. Therefore the tale of the blind would be the one that is pushed through and will enjoy authority.
The object of this page will be to establish if any grounds can be found for that an attempt was made that was pathing the way for a destruction or a change of direction of this technology? The one thing that can substantiate that is by means of a detailed analysis of such an official notice if such would have been published. And we do actually have a reference here that we can work with, which is HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”. This reference thus has to be examined for the way it is presenting its claims. If it be true that this reference would be part of a deliberate attempt to distort or confuse some of this working technology, then this reference will have to rely largely on statement by authority. Statements that may sound very convincing, but that would fall apart if carefully examined for its accuracy. The changes/corrections promoted by this HCOB also need to follow a logical line of development in the technology. They may thus not act against earlier established basics.
This HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” was released at a convenient time as we have seen vast-reaching changes of the technology occurring during the 1978-82 time frame. Well, just remain watchful towards the following:
“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 (1:28)
(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)
“The situation with regard to standard tech at this time is we have had a few mice. And I imagine down through the years there will be a few other mice. A bulletin gets altered, a tape gets pulled off the line, some vital action is shifted. Somebody comes tearing in with a brand new idea that seems to be absolutely vitally essential, and the first thing you know, why we have trouble of one kind or another. And tech fails. And it suddenly ceases to give the results which it should attain. ... These are the danger points of the past and of the future.” LRH (from Class VIII lecture #5 “The Standard Green Form and Rudiments”, given on 28 Sept 68)
Sound snippet (1:05)
(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)
And thus don't just accept matters as true if they are relayed to you by means of just authority!
HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” analysis
§ followed by a character and a number (for example §Pro:4, §TC:2, §A:6, §B:8 etc.). Means paragraph number (#) in respective indicated section: ‘Pro’ means section ‘Prologue’; ‘TC’ means section ‘TECH CORRECTIONS’; ‘A’ means section ‘A’, etc.. This thus always refers to a paragraph found in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”. Each section has a reference source which can be consulted while clicking “Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)” that is found at the top of each of the 26 listed sections.
Auditors and Scientologists for 27 years have tended to be suspicious of HCOBs and Policy Letters not written by myself.
Until a few months ago my opinion was that this, while flattering, was not entirely justified.
However, these last few months have sharply changed my belief into total agreement with all those who have expressed some fear of reinterpretations of bulletins by others.
I have been engaged for some months now in a round-up of out tech issues.
And I have found, I am sorry to say, that mice have been gnawing at the pillars of the Bridge, putting up traffic barriers and false detour signs.
I have been finding serious out tech issues and correcting them.
Whether because of misunderstood words (the commonest cause of out tech alterations) or other reasons, there have been a staggering number of tech sectors that have been corrupted by issues by others that alter-ised.
The corrections I have been doing have been, are being or will be issued shortly. However, not all auditors and Scientologists keep pace with current issues and so I am here giving you a rapid summary of the gross departures from standard tech which have occurred in the past 3 or 4 years and their corrections.
So you were right!
A very few people (3 or 4) have wittingly or unwittingly brought about outnesses which could easily make the difference between successful case handling and failed cases.
Action has been taken to handle them and there are a great many good people at work now in compiling and reissuing the workable tech which I developed in the first place.
It is now forbidden to write an HCOB or an HCO PL and sign my name to it. If anyone helped compile it or wrote it, my name is followed by “Assisted by _____” the person who helped get it back together at my directions.
Also no Board Technical Bulletin may cancel an HCOB.
So from here on you are relatively safe.
I am always the first to tell you and this is no exception.
This prologue found in the HCOB basically lays out the reason for it being issued. Which was primarily about that the existing technology had been interfered with, or at least this is the claim that is being forwarded in these paragraphs. Then it also spend some paragraphs on the culprits that supposedly are the cause for these deviations from the technology. At that any references written by any other person than L. Ron Hubbard is made to be looked upon with suspicion.
On top of that it forwards an actual change in the set up of the signatures that are added at the end of references, which in reality seriously confuses and obscures the actual authorship.(see for this the next chapter “Authorship designations etc.”)
“Gross departures from standard tech ... in the past 3 or 4 years” passing by undetected?!
Paragraphs §Pro:4-6 read: “I have been engaged for some months now in a round-up of out tech issues. And I have found, I am sorry to say, that mice have been gnawing at the pillars of the Bridge, putting up traffic barriers and false detour signs. I have been finding serious out tech issues and correcting them.”. And then in paragraph §Pro:8 it says: “... and so I am here giving you a rapid summary of the gross departures from standard tech which have occurred in the past 3 or 4 years and their corrections.”.
The first question that arises is why all these out-tech matters had not been discovered and corrected at such times that one deviated from that original technology? If one goes over these 11 paragraphs it is proposed as if it all occurred sudden and as a complete surprise, this is evidently the take of the events by the person that is writing these lines. Everyone seems to have missed it or passed it by, well... that really sounds like a lot of folks! Indicators of deviations however must have been present literally all over the place. Things just do not occur suddenly, are passed by unnoticed and in particular not in such a large volume of deviations as the HCOB is claiming that there were! See, there are warning signs for these things, it is all in these policy letters, enabling you to catch them before they do any serious damage!
The ruling guide of statistics, reduced income and all such indicators thus must all have been so evident and visible all around! And these indicators are supposed to be acted upon, but for some reason this was not acted upon. And hey, even ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ had passed it all by!
Do you see what is wrong with this reasoning?
It has fabulously skipped all of the standard actions which would have prevented a prolongation and worsening of any out-tech situation occurring at all!, there would have been found a rather steep downtrending statistic spread out over these 3-4 years, that then no one saw!?;
L. Ron Hubbard would have missed all of these indicators too!; and
that L. Ron Hubbard would have changed his mind, this about suspiciousness of tech written by others, for all of the wrong reasons!
I will repeat my original question here... “Why did these deviations of the tech, as claimed by this HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”, came as such a surprise?”
Promoting that references not written by L. Ron Hubbard should be regarded with suspect (Includes: Only written by L. Ron Hubbard will do... (a new concept gets born))
Now, the very first sentence found in this HCOB (§Pro:1) is forwarding the conjecture that “Auditors and Scientologists for 27 years have tended to be suspicious of HCOBs and Policy Letters not written by myself.”. Well, some people may have preferred materials written by L. Ron Hubbard, but that is still a long way from being suspicious about materials that were not written by L. Ron Hubbard. I have found no base of truth for this claim, and the HCOB also fails to support it.
This first sentence though does appear to make way for the comments following (§Pro:2-3) that read:
“Until a few months ago my opinion was that this, while flattering, was not entirely justified.
However, these last few months have sharply changed my belief into total agreement with all those who have expressed some fear of reinterpretations of bulletins by others.”
These paragraphs tale about a person (L. Ron Hubbard) that is completely changing his mind about matters and accordingly makes a stated conclusion, this just after a couple of months. It makes notice here also of “reinterpretations”. Now, why would there be “reinterpretations”? You have an original reference and you work with that, any reinterpretation then comes from the person(s) that is/are misinterpreting that!
Another thing that does sound being off here is that this writer responds to all these years of suspiciousness as being “flattering”. This is really not something L. Ron Hubbard would write or appreciate, simply because it is for the wrong reason! See, the suspiciousness here is born out of ignorance. It is because of a misunderstanding of how the workability of the technology gets validated.
Anyhow in paragraph §Pro:9 it acknowledges the suspicion baldly with “So you were right!”.
Now, the problem that surfaces here is that it is a recorded fact that a significant portion of the technology had in fact been worked out, developed and was written down by others. Indeed very many have contributed through the years in various ways. The matter of this technology is simply that it has to actually work and deliver a predefined end phenomena. You can call this the verification process. If it does that, and it comes through, then there would be no reason to be suspicious about some technology written by some other person. Its proven workability would in truth have been the determining factor!
See it just wouldn't take a whole 27 years to find out about that it doesn't!
As if in irony we then find in §Pro:11 the line: “Action has been taken to handle them and there are a great many good people at work now in compiling and reissuing the workable tech which I developed in the first place.”. Now, one may wonder where all these “great many good people” actually were when the proposed deviation of the technology was occurring??
Only written by L. Ron Hubbard will do... (a new concept gets born)
To summarize this it thus first says in paragraph 2 that the suspicion “was not entirely justified”, only to then in the 9th paragraph confirm that with (change it to) “So you were right!”. Evidently implying that it apparently “was ... entirely justified”“to be suspicious of HCOBs and Policy Letters not written by” L. Ron Hubbard himself.
Mind that this is the first reference ever to forward this concept! It was the starting point within the Church of Scientology from here on out that everything had to be written by L. Ron Hubbard (or just carrying his signature will do) if it was to carry any degree of trustworthiness! And indeed it has been the guiding rule ever since till this very day! Everything written by someone else (1) issued previously as HCOB/HCO PL or BTB/BPL and various other issue-types since were eventually gotten rid of (cancelled), or (2) it got reissued now attributing it to L. Ron Hubbard (stripping the original author or demoting that person to an assistant), or (3) still were written by someone else but issued with an L. Ron Hubbard's signature anyway.
For an overview see below study: (separate window)
Mind here that the person that is said to have written these lines would be the same person that previously in 1965 had written HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”, to only then to re-issue it with the following text 5 years later:
“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.” LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 (Reissued 15 Jun 70) “Keeping Scientology Working”)
While regarding all this, where are these first lines written in this HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” talking about? Where is it coming from, as it really doesn't make much sense.
Authorship designations according to HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”
In §Pro:12 it reads: “It is now forbidden to write an HCOB or an HCO PL and sign my name to it. If anyone helped compile it or wrote it, my name is followed by ‘Assisted by _____’ the person who helped get it back together at my directions.”. And now break this paragraph apart in the 2 sentences that it consists of, like this:
“It is now forbidden to write an HCOB or an HCO PL and sign my name to it.”
“If anyone helped compile it or wrote it, my name is followed by ‘Assisted by _____’ the person who helped get it back together at my directions.”
Now, what is it that we see here? In fact they contradict each other. First a forbiddance to write an HCOB/HCO PL and sign it with L. Ron Hubbard. And in the next it tells you to just do exactly that! Demoting the actual (co-)writer/(co-)compiler to an assistant. In reality this is seriously confusing the actual authorship of references.
This authorship change ultimately also gave rise to and justified the creation of the so-called RTRC, the unit that was to write (or compile) LRH references for L. Ron Hubbard. This unit is said to have been formed in or about 1978. You can read up more about this here (separate window).
There is also an irony present here, considering that this HCOB spoke out rather heavily out against references written by others! See §Pro:1-3.
It would appear that the solution was; an ironical one at that!; to instead obscure the authorship of references. It still meant though that these were still written by these others, but instead one let it appear as if they were written by or originated by L. Ron Hubbard.
One could simply continued having been honest about this all. In references published during the ’60s we could find publications carrying notices such as “Ordered by L. Ron Hubbard” or similar such, and even such occasions were rare. The authorship however was still attributed to the actual compiler/writer of the reference. You gave exact data about what is happening, what has been done, and who has done exactly what.
HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” basically guides that (example):
“Lt. Cmdr. Diana Hubbard
L. RON HUBBARD
As directed by
L. RON HUBBARD”
would turn into
“L. RON HUBBARD
Lt. Cmdr. Diana Hubbard
Per all the above it would appear that HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” at least in this matter of authorship did not solve a problem, it rather created a problem. A problem is as well that these “directions” had to be assumed to actually exist! You see, in the earlier years we seldomly saw issues carrying “By order of L. Ron Hubbard”, but now suddenly we apparently had lots and lots of them, although it was actually hiding behind the “Assisted by” notifications! In this way we were obviously losing track of actual authorship and accurate information.
A later consequence of these obscurity activities was that many references that were issued like this were massively cancelled during 1991-93 by amongst other HCO Admin(istration) Letters indicating that “None of these issues were written by LRH and were falsely (or incorrectly) issued as policy (or HCO bulletin).”, or stating that “None of these ... were written or approved by LRH”. And during the 2nd half of the ’80s we see the release of a whole variety of HCO PLs and HCOBs giving listings of references that were now being cancelled for this same reason.
Noteworthy is as well that these HCO Admin Letters dare to say that these “were falsely (or incorrectly) issued as policy (or HCO bulletin).”. Part of the references they were cancelling were dating back to the ’60s, at a time that the HCO PL and HCOB issue-type was not reserved for L. Ron Hubbard. In regards to these it is thus a false statement.
Ironically the practice as promoted by the HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” appears to have already been in use since an earlier date. This is evidenced by the occurrence of HCOB 27 Jul 76 “PTS Rundown and Vital Info Rd Position Corrected” (see ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume VIII, 1972-1975’ (1976 release) on page 427-a). In its first paragraph it makes notice of HCOB 9 Dec 71RA and HCOB 6 Oct 74 stating “which were written by then CS-4”. When we consult the latter reference, which is found in this same ‘Volume VIII’ on page 327, we see that this CS-4 is indicated as an assistant. Nonetheless it is written in the ‘I’ person and attributed to L. Ron Hubbard as if being the writer. Most remarkable!
The obvious irony here is that which HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” aimed to establish (correct it to) was thus already in practice even as early as October 1974. It gets even more interesting as HCOB 27 Jul 76 revised this HCOB 6 Oct 74 because so the former states about the latter it “restricted PTS handling and Vital Info Rd to Expanded Dianetics which is a false position”.
So as it appears HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” thus confirms an incorrect practice (it already being in use), as the one to follow up on! And thus no correction was thus employed in this matter by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”. You see, there is an obvious contradiction present here. On one side this HCOB talks about so many deviations from the technology that occurred during 1973-75, although here the deviation of a standard practice is instead kept in place. Do you see where this is going?
Reflecting on all the above information, now what do we do with the following 2 references that till this day are valid references? For reason that they can not coexist with HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”:
“Only when I have personally written a bulletin, a policy letter or a Sec ED should it be signed ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ or ‘L. Ron Hubbard, Executive Director’.
When I have knowledge of or have okayed a bulletin, policy letter or Sec ED but have not actually written it, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (the name of the actual writer) for L. Ron Hubbard, Executive Director’. ...
The field or public must not be led to believe that I have written or issued things I have not. Further, other people have authority, too.” LRH (from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”)
“Any Policy Letter I have not personally written must bear the signatures of:
1. The actual composer
2. Each passing agency or identity required to make it legal
This may mean as many as five or six names may be signed to policy letters I did not personally write.” LRH (from HCO PL 20 Oct 66 “Signatures of Pol Ltrs”)
“So from here on you are relatively safe.”?
Here we are facing another irony when we find that §Pro:14 reads: “So from here on you are relatively safe.”.
Well, are we?
1978: In September 1978 we have a person listening to the name David Mayo assuming the position of Senior C/S International. This was a promotion from his position as Flag C/S (since 1975 also referred to as Class XII Senior C/S Flag or Flag Senior C/S) that he had held since September 1973. Theoretically this new position would mean that he was the top technical person worldwide after L. Ron Hubbard. He would remain on this position until he was forcefully removed from post close to 4 years later in July 1982. What followed then was that he was subjected to the worst sort of defamation campaign that was ever witnessed in the history of the Scientology organization, it was portraying David Mayo as being the worst of all evils. First top dog, then thrown down the gutter. Since then everything that David Mayo had touched was considered bad, and had to be gotten rid of, shredded or thrown away. As a result of that we see a rather long list of references that were being cancelled, rewritten, and/or signatures changed, mostly so during 1983-84. The cancelling and/or replacing references usually said in its revision notices something to the effect of “It was written by another who is no longer on the lines.” or referred to as “Another, now having left us”.
For more information consult the links here below: (separate windows)
1981: Now, let's go to August 1981. Here we have an L. Ron Hubbard introducing a new cramming series of references. We see that this is introduced by HCOB 17 Aug 81 “An Introduction to the New Cramming Series” that is signed underneath with L. Ron Hubbard, and we see that the previous cramming series of references gets cancelled (with detailed explanations why) this by HCOB/PL 1 Sept 81 “Cramming BTBs and BPLs Cancelled” that also is signed underneath with L. Ron Hubbard. These 2 references are accompanied with an additional 13 references that were newly written that same month and each and every one of them was signed underneath with L. Ron Hubbard. I then know for a fact that these series of references were in full use in the Cramming section of the Flag Service Organization (FSO) in Clearwater, Fl, at least until the end of 1989. So far, so good, you may think. Then suddenly all of these 15 references were cancelled by HCO Admin Letter 20 Oct 91 “Cancellation of Cramming Series Issues” that provides the reason that “None of these bulletins were written or approved by LRH.”. Not to be worried though as HCO Admin Letter is comforting us in the next paragraph that “The complete, on-Source Cramming Series is now found in the new Technical Volumes.”. So were we “relatively safe”, really?! In addition one should mind that it would be rather difficult to attribute a “complete, on-Source Cramming Series” all to L. Ron Hubbard, as the cramming procedures were for the larger part written down and worked out byother persons (late ’60s/early ’70s).
When we investigate the signatory at the bottom of these Aug/Sept 1981 references more carefully we see that they are all “Assisted by Research and Technical Compilations Unit”. This would then confirm that this RTCU was in effect writing and publishing references over the name of L. Ron Hubbard, and the matter of these cramming series of references took a whole 10 years to be found out about? And be assured, these are not even an isolated matter. It was during these early ’80s that we started to see a whole array of references getting published carrying this RTCU. Now, what to do about all of these? Can we trust then when 15 non-LRH cramming series references could slip through?
You may consult publication and signatory information of 1981 cramming series in link here below:
So, are we “safe”? Even “relatively”? 1990: Preparatory actions were undertaken for the forthcoming release of the new volume sets of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’. These were finally released in 1991. These actions involved among other implementing the following:
(1) Largely implemented particularly during the 1990-91 time frame we see that original authorship of older dated references (issued prior to 1975) were simply demoted to now be named as an assistant, and their name removed. For example:
L. RON HUBBARD
“L. RON HUBBARD
Mind that the act of removing the name and only leaving the post title is also obscuring the person behind it, because you need to track down which person was holding that post at the time of publication.
Just a later phase confirming once more that since about the mid-’70s the practice was introduced that actual named assistants were the writers/compilers of the reference. And it was HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” that said it was ok to do so and promoted this good deed!
All the references that had been written by other persons and that were considered still worth having around or were considered indispensable, and that not previously during the 1974-75 evolution had already been reissued as a BPL/BTB or cancelled, received this treatment during 1990-91. It was either this or if they already had been transferred into a BPL/BTB previously, they were then restored back becoming a HCOB/PL with original compiler initials stripped and attributed to L. Ron Hubbard. It was during the early ’80s that all Board issues (BPLs/BTBs) basically got abolished.
A variety of these references and detailed publication tracking can be consulted in the link here below:
(2) Also since 1990 we see that person initials were exchanged with post initials. For example an issue could say in an earlier version:
“L. RON HUBBARD
Assisted by CS-4/5
“L. RON HUBBARD
Assisted by CS-4/5
Capitals would indicate composer initials, lowercase are typist initials. The “JE” would denote here John Eastment.
Usually accompanied with the revision notice reading something like: “Only change is to correct the signatory of the issue.”. Indeed there are references that have been reissued solely for implementing this. Indeed this was the next phase into unacknowledging actual persons even more!
(3) Last but not least we see that the new 1991 releases of ‘‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes skip mention of all these composer/typing initials altogether. It even skips revision notices. Meaning that 1991 introduced the practice that we have 2 versions of references that nonetheless are supposed to be the same. We have the version included in the volumes, and we have the original mimeo print-offs.
Now, all this obviously would be obscuring the authorship/‘assistantship’ to the utmost! Not to mention the many references, originally written by someone else, that had their contribution stripped all together and were now attributed to L. Ron Hubbard as the author.
I address that at great length at various places on my website. See the studies at main index: “5. Alterations (LRH or non-LRH?)”. And for various related historical information my study, see main index at “3. A printing history of the materials of Scientology”.
Further relevant information can be found in study at link below: (separate window)
There follows here a long list of incorrect procedures or data found to have been issued.
Also a brief rundown of the correct procedure will be found, which is the correct and standard tech.
What makes tech correct? When it doesn’t get results it is incorrect. When it gets the expected result it is correct.
My own writings and researches are based wholly upon things that got and get results.
When another, through misunderstood words or other reasons, “interprets” or changes the original tech, it has been the general experience that results are not obtained.
By studying this list you may very well find some alter-ised points which caused you to have trouble or which caused confusion.
Therefore, the subjects themselves are described in summary form.
Not all issues are out yet which accomplish full correction. Their HCOB numbers therefore cannot be given. Some of the issues are not yet released but will be soon. However, there is no reason to deny you the essence of the material and so I am giving you the full list to date.
I trust this list and HCOB restore some stability.
I hope that any failures you may have had due to alter-ised materials will be spotted by you. And that you will be able to apply some of these right now and get the full materials later.
I like results, you like results. And the following may include some of the reasons you may have had a hard time with some sessions.
I am sorry for that. I have come back on tech lines especially to correct it, and have spent seven months spotting areas where there has been trouble or failures, evaluating them and discovering the alter-is of original materials and issues. In many cases the alter-is sure was hidden. This completes 7 months of search for tech outnesses.
Here is the list.
In the previous prologue section of the HCOB, §Pro:8 it mentions interestingly: “... gross departures from standard tech which have occurred in the past 3 or 4 years ...”. Then in this section in §TC:12 it notes that the author has “spent seven months spotting areas where there has been trouble or failures, evaluating them and discovering the alter-is of original materials and issues.”.
It sure seems that these “very few people (3 or 4)” that “have wittingly or unwittingly brought about outnesses” (HCOB prologue section, §Pro:10) did a thorough job in these just “3 or 4 years”. This can not have passed by unnoticed. The signs must have been all over the place, and so why were they not found out about much earlier? After all this section in §TC:3 does say: “What makes tech correct? When it doesn’t get results it is incorrect. When it gets the expected result it is correct.”.
We also do not learn who these persons were or what “Action has been taken to handle them” (HCOB prologue section, §Pro:11). What they had done obviously must have been of a rather serious nature as this HCOB section notes
in §TC:12 that “In many cases the alter-is sure was hidden.”.
Now the HCOB goes on to its 24 corrective sections listed as A to X.
The first shock (which actually began this current search for out tech issues) was the discovery that PTS conditions were going unhandled across the world and had been for some time.
“PTS” means Potential Trouble Source and means the person is affected adversely by a suppressive in his life. A PTS person can be a lot of trouble to himself and to others. The condition is not too difficult to handle and to find that all the tech of handling it was in disuse explained why there had been a lot of trouble and upset on various lines.
After a great deal of search, it was found that PTS handling and another rundown (The Vital Information Rundown) had been restricted only to Expanded Dianetics. Thus one would find on pcs’ programs that they were supposed to go all the way through Dianetics and their grades before their PTS condition was handled. In actual fact a person who is PTS cannot be audited on anything else until the PTSness has been straightened out. This was operating as an effective barrier to cases.
Fortunately, the Technical Bulletin Volumes were not quite off the press and this one was caught with HCOB 27 July 1976 which will be found on page 428 of Volume VIII.
The first thing you do for a pc in any grade or without grades is handle his PTSness.
As long as the subject was hot I decided to look further into it to make sure that the actual tech was still available and to get a pilot done to verify its use in actual practice since few had had any PTS handling for a couple of years.
I initiated a pilot project and it was well executed by CS-5.
The results of this project are found in HCOB 20 Oct 1976.
The outcome of this further research as contained in that HCOB was that the person, for full handling, should be gotten through his PTSness and then should study the complete pack of PTS/SP Checksheet, BPL 31 May 71RC, so that he knows the full mechanics that had been wrecking his life. This is contained in HCO PL of 20 Oct 1976.
While the above named checksheet is quite adequate, a project is now in progress to collect up all original LRH Case Supervisor notes (C/Ses) and handwritten materials on PTSness so that additional issues may be brought out and the checksheet extended. The reason for this is that there is a sector of non-audited handling of PTSness which has never been fully released. This comes under the heading of additional material and the existing PTS material is not only workable but is vital.
So this scene was rounded up and PTSness is again being handled successfully over the world.
As an additional note, a cassette is now being made for general distribution and sale which will soon be released so that PTS people can get one and send it or play it to persons antagonistic to their leading a better life.
The claim as made in §A:3 in this section reads: “After a great deal of search, it was found that PTS handling and another rundown (The Vital Information Rundown) had been restricted only to Expanded Dianetics. Thus one would find on pcs’ programs that they were supposed to go all the way through Dianetics and their grades before their PTS condition was handled. In actual fact a person who is PTS cannot be audited on anything else until the PTSness has been straightened out. This was operating as an effective barrier to cases.”.
I am not sure why a great deal of (re)search had to be spent on this. It seems to me that if it is found that something had not been applied to some case, that you just get in there and find out why this was not done. It had also been clearly determined that one can not audit over a PTS situation, the person will not get wins. He will go up, and he will go down. This is a known datum and can easily be located in for example both the ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ and ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’. The attention should thus be directed onto the actual PTS situation, if handling with the Ethics Officer will not work, one will resort to handling it with auditing. A simple sequence of action.
The following paragraph of this HCOB (§A:4) then relates about the corrective action: “Fortunately, the Technical Bulletin Volumes were not quite off the press and this one was caught with HCOB 27 July 1976 which will be found on page 428 of Volume VIII.”. When consulting this reference, HCOB 27 Jul 76 “PTS Rundown and Vital Info Rd Position Corrected”, we find that the 1st paragraph reads: “It has just come to my attention that HCOB 9 December 1971RA and HCOB 6 October 1974, which were written by then CS-4, restricted PTS handling and Vital Info Rd to Expanded Dianetics which is a false position.”. The remainder of the HCOB basically runs of the datum that you first handle the PTS situation before doing anything else, also it is urged that staff educates themselves on the subject through this “PTS Checksheet” (a course).
Now, it was claimed in HCOB 27 Jul 76 that both “were written by then CS-4”:
HCOB 6 Oct 74 “The Vital Information Rundown; The Technical Breakthrough of 1974”
notes at the signing area “assisted by CS-4”. Initials indicate “RS”. It can be revealed that this stands for Warrant Officer Ron Shafran. He was noted as having assisted, although as per HCOB 27 Jul 76, he wrote it. The restricting sentence itself reads: “Otherwise and for public, this RD belongs on Ex Dn as OCA right-hand side handling.”.
HCOB 9 Dec 71 RA (Revised 21 Oct 74) “PTS Rundown”
notes at the signing area just L. Ron Hubbard, and there are no other composer initials found then ‘LRH’. Compared with the HCOB 9 Dec 71 version it added the line: “With HCO B C/S Series 93, ‘New Grade Chart’, the PTS RD is done as part of Ex Dn after a full Drug RD and Exp Grade IV.”. Per HCOB 27 Jul 76 it was the “then CS-4” (Ron Shafran) that would have added this line (it is probably a misnomer that he wrote the whole HCOB, also because it dates back to 1971).
* RD. Rundown; * Ex Dn. Expanded Dianetics; * OCA. Oxford Capacity Analysis (a personality test with a graph); * Exp Grade IV. Expanded Grade IV.
HCOB 27 Jul 76 “PTS Rundown and Vital Info Rd Position Corrected” also notifies of the corrections implemented: “The HCOBs are being reissued as HCOB 9 December 1971RB and HCOB 6 October 1974R to correct the error ....”. And indeed I found that these corrections were made in both these references, simply by deleting them and adding clarifying text. You however will have to be the judge of this yourself, but would it be likely that these lines would lay at the cause of the problem? We got one reference that restricted the use of the Vital Information Rundown, and we got one reference that restricted the use of the PTS Rundown. The main problem addressed and ‘corrected’ in this section is this PTS Handling. As I earlier folded out a simple observation (with understanding) could probably have reversed it just like that.
In §A:7 we learn about that “I initiated a pilot project and it was well executed by CS-5.”. So, initiated by L. Ron Hubbard and executed by someone else. Then §A:8 reads: “The results of this project are found in HCOB 20 Oct 1976.”. This is HCO 20 Oct 76 “PTS Data” (also as HCO PL same date/title). We learn here from the composer initials that this project had been carried out by John Eastment who also wrote the HCOB/HCO PL, although noted as an assistant. This reference presents the conclusion of the project.
There is also HCOB 20 Oct 76 II “PTS Handling”. This folds out data about the project itself. This HCOB as well was written by John Eastment, although, once again, just noted as being the assistant.
This section A: of the HCOB doesn't say much else about additional causes to the problem. I would say that this then is a bit meager...
No auditing is a technical situation. The ability to procure auditing has a considerable bearing on people’s case progress—naturally.
It was found that some organizations were slow in delivery and were backlogging which tends to create a no auditing situation amongst pcs.
To remedy this backlog, the Technical Secretary of every org was given a new statistic, “VALUE OF SERVICES DELIVERED.” This gives an index of the delivery of the org and brings backlogs into view and will serve as a means of alleviating a no auditing situation in the field where it exists as it calls the fact spectacularly to the attention of all management, local and international. This is HCO PL 12 Nov. 76.
Along with this another situation came to view which again was a matter of other people writing HCOBs.
The Director of Processing had been given in HCOB 16 June 1972R a statistic which encouraged him to simply route pcs out of the org once they had completed a small part of their processing.
Accordingly the statistic of the Director of Processing in an org was revised in HCOB 16 June 1972RA to “the number of pcs routed back into the lines.”
The Director of Tech Services was given a stat of getting actions completed on pcs.
With these two stats operating, one after the other, a no auditing situation in an area is further alleviated.
People do not sufficiently consider no auditing as the most basic failure of cases. It seems so “of course” that it gets entirely overlooked yet it can cause a great deal of trouble.
The problem noted (§B:3) was: “It was found that some organizations were slow in delivery and were backlogging which tends to create a no auditing situation amongst pcs.”. A remedy was issued through HCO PL 12 Nov 76 “Statistic Change” that introduced a new statistic circumscribed as “VALUE OF SERVICES DELIVERED”. The problem as laid out in the first 3 paragraphs of this section of the HCOB did thus not involve writings from others as yet.
Then we find in §B:4: “Along with this another situation came to view which again was a matter of other people writing HCOBs.”. Accordingly §B:5 explains that HCOB 16 Jun 72 “Auditor Rights Modified” through a revision dated 27 February 1975 had given a statistic to the Director of Processing which, as is claimed, “encouraged him to simply route pcs out of the org once they had completed a small part of their processing.”.
As we are told this was “a matter of other people writing HCOBs”. When we look at this HCOB 16 Jun 72R (Revised 27 Feb 75)“Auditor Rights Modified” we find that the original version was written and issued in June 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard. Then almost 3 years later it got revised, however no other person is indicated in the signing area of this revised version itself! We strangely enough are then informed in the RA-version (next revision issued 7 Dec 1976) in the signing area: “Revised by W/O Ron Shafran in 1975”, it also added the composer initials as “RS”. Why was this not noted in the R-version, why do we only learn in the RA-version who had revised the R-version??
It should be mentioned here though that the R-version did list revision notices at the top of the reference. It said: “(Revision in this type style on next page to make D of P and D of TS stats very clear)”. We find accordingly in the reference itself the following adjustments indicated (and thus the altered/new text shows in “this type style”). This is all in accordance to revision rules, excepting only the missing actual authorship of these changes. (note: I gave them a colour in the text to make them stand out more clearly)
It reads: (from HCOB 16 Jun 72R (Revised 27 Feb 75)“Auditor Rights Modified” )
“The D of P's stat may only be fully completedcases.
When the stats are this way the C/S can get his programs done without worry.
The D of P can get cases completed.
The D of Tech Services has only completed cases and course completions for a stat.”
So, these lines are then claimed to be the cause for “encouraged him (D of P) to simply route pcs out of the org once they had completed a small part of their processing.”. I don't actually see how this would work. May be someone would care to explain that to me? A “small part of their processing” does not equal “fully completed cases”. I rather tend to think that this D of P had some misunderstanding here.
Now, let's compare that with the original LRH text of HCOB 16 Jun 72“Auditor Rights Modified”:
“The D of P's stat may only be fully completed programs.
When the stats are this way the C/S can get his programs done without worry.
The D of P can get cases completed.
The D of Tech Services has only completed programs for a stat.”
Now, there is some difference here. This actually, for me, clarifies how the misunderstanding came about of the R-version. The word “cases” was confused with “programs”. A program is just one action, a case involves a lot of actions. Imagine a person first having worked from the original version and then had to work with the revision from 1975. It would be easy to see why things then got wrong here. A misunderstanding obviously. But seeing the original text I also find that this was in no need of revision.
Anyhow, a corrective action was implemented (§B:6): “Accordingly the statistic of the Director of Processing in an org was revised in HCOB 16 June 1972RA to ‘the number of pcs routed back into the lines.’”. Well, one could ask why the text was not simply restored to its original. Instead another solution was chosen. In fact the Director of Processing that was herewith given an additional stat to be kept, he had now a “dual stat” (see HCOB 16 Jun 72RA).
Oddly it said in §B:9 of this section: “The Director of Tech Services was given a stat of getting actions completed on pcs.”? The situation here is that the Director of Tech Services did not receive any new stat! The only thing that HCOB 16 Jun 72RA added was a further clarification of this stat, but it was the same stat as before.
The worry here may be should be directed to incorrectly listed release notices! You see, would this have been indicated in the signing area that some other person then L. Ron Hubbard had revised it, then people might have woken up sooner! After all HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” said in its very first paragraph: “Auditors and Scientologists for 27 years have tended to be suspicious of HCOBs and Policy Letters not written by myself.”.
But you see, you don't just change LRH issues or even references written by other people, and do not write your name under it and do not tell who did exactly what. The RA-version also tells us that L. Ron Hubbard did not carry out this correction himself as it says further in the signing area “Revised by Julie Gillespie, Training & Services Aide in 1976” with composer initials “JG”. The involvement of L. Ron Hubbard in this is noted in the next line in the signing area saying: “Approved by L. RON HUBBARD, Founder”. And in fact this last line should also have been included in the R-version, but for some thus far unexplained reason it just was not.
So, my objection would be to ask if all corrective actions had been taken to fully handle the situation? Obviously there were some other wrong situations going on here as well!
It is by the way a misnomer that this was, as claimed, “a matter of other people writing HCOBs”. This Ron Shafran did not actually write HCOB 16 Jun 72R “Auditor Rights Modified”, the outcome here is that the only claim that had been made is that he revised it, but not saw to it that his name was added in the signing area as the reviser. In addition it should be considered a failure that it had not gone through and was approved by L. Ron Hubbard. His implemented revision was not authorized, and I agree here on the point that it would not have been approved by L. Ron Hubbard if he had seen it.
The first inkling that the Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course curriculum had gone adrift was noticing that two key drills had been omitted and even cancelled by others even though they were vital to an auditor's skill in handling a Dianetic session.
These drills were Dianetic Training Drills 101, 102, 103 and 104. These have to do with student auditors remembering their commands in session, making him practiced in using commands while handling his meter and admin, training him to use the right command in the right place according to what the pc does and finally training him to use commands and handle the session in spite of any and all distractions or reactions from a pc. Obviously if a Dianetic auditor cannot do these things he cannot run a Dianetic session.
These drills now have been emphatically reinstated in HCOB 19 July 1969R reissued 9 Dec 1976; they are for use in all Dianetic training.
Looking into this further, I found that there was a new unauthorized Dianetics Course which supposedly was based on Dianetics Today being issued which would be a sort of a competitive course to an HSDC. In following this further it was found that even the most fundamental formats of the HSDC which I personally developed and piloted had been grossly alter-ised, that a number of persons had been writing HCOBs on the subject, and that the format had been lost.
The original HSDC is being gathered together at this time with all instructions, C/Ses and drills in the pattern and format which was originally developed and which DID make GREAT auditors. So you can expect a considerable resurgence in the quality of Dianetic auditing some time in the future.
At the same time, a new course, which makes a senior Dianetic auditor, is being put together which is a post-graduate step after a person has become an HSDC. This will take in all the materials found in Dianetics Today and should cover areas of special Dianetic application.
Already in §C:1 it lays out a situation, it reads: “The first inkling that the Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course curriculum had gone adrift was noticing that two key drills had been omitted and even cancelled by others even though they were vital to an auditor's skill in handling a Dianetic session.”. Then in §C:2 first line it notes: “These drills were Dianetic Training Drills 101, 102, 103 and 104.”. Now is it 2 or 4 drills? By tracking the publication history of the applicable references it appears that just the 2 drills 101 & 102 had been cancelled.
The publication history can be tracked in link here below: (pop-up window)
True is that L. Ron Hubbard developed the actual concept of these drills (see HCOB 16 Jul 69 “Urgent – Important”). The detailed pattern of these drills however had been written down by 2 other persons. Issued as follows:
HCOB 17 Jul 69 “Dianetic Command Training Drills” which was written and issued by:
“Brian Livingston, CS-5”, initials ‘BL’
Revised reissued as BTB 17 Jul 69R (Revised 19 Feb 74) “Dianetic Command Training Drills 101 & 102”
The TRs 103 & 104 were more detailedly explained in HCOB 20 May 70 “TR 103, 104 Rundown” which was written and issued by:
“Ulf Ronnquist, Flag Course Supervisor”, initials ‘UR’
Reissued as BTB 20 May 70 (Reissued 28 Mar 74) “same title”
They were reissued under the BTB issue-type format because of this revolution during 1974-75 to reserve the HCOB issue-type for L. Ron Hubbard alone. This meant that information that had been written down by others that had been issued as HCOBs but that was still considered valuable were then reissued as Board Technical Bulletins, many others however that did not pass the test were simply cancelled.
Concerning the cancellation of drills 101 & 102, it appears that BTB 17 Jul 69R (Revised 19 Feb 74) “Dianetic Command Training Drills 101 & 102” was cancelled on 10 December 1974 by BTB 10 Dec 74 VI “Cancellation of Bulletins 1969”.
During this aforementioned revolution during 1974-75 we had these missions being send out that were then going through all the HCOBs and HCO PLs that were not written by L. Ron Hubbard, and they had to determine which of these were going to be re-issued respectively as BTB or BPL, or were permanently being cancelled. Their findings/decisions were published in a series of BTBs and BPLs (see list here, pop-up window). In the case of this HCOB/BTB 17 Jul 69 it appears that it had already been cancelled as a HCOB and was revised re-issued as a BTB in February 1974. Then for some reason it was called upon once more and it got then terminatedly cancelled only 10 months later by BTB 10 Dec 74 VI. We won't find details about the why's in the cancelling BTB, as these were just long listings of references that either got cancelled or re-issued under another issue-type. I recall however that it was mentioned in them that some reference had been missed and may have been previously re-issued as a BTB, informing that corrective measures were taken to correct various such omissions. Mind that these missionaries had to go through many hundreds of references, mistakes obviously must have been made.
For that reason the notice in §C:1 that “two key drills had been omitted and even cancelled by others even though they were vital to an auditor’s skill in handling a Dianetic session.”, does not bear all that much weight as it is meant to imply. You see, if you have a missionaire that is not technically skilled (and that happened), that person will/can not see the importance of vital technical references. Note that there were only 2 persons carrying out this particular mission. Then these missions were also done rush rush, and there is a lot of push to get it completed as well, and to make targets. That which worries me a lot more is that no technical person got it reversed! That is what should have been investigated! Or may be persons did actively object, and they were silenced or simply ignored by those having a higher position in the organization.
Alright, back to these Dianetic drills 101 & 102. It all becomes even more confusing as these very Dianetic drills 101 & 102 were also included in HCOB 9 Oct 71, Auditor Drills Series 7 “Drills Course for Auditors, Dianetic Drills”. These lists of drills had been compiled for use in so-called cramming actions in the Qualifications Division. This list was in use until 8 Nov 1976 when it was cancelled by BTB 8 Nov 76 “Drills BTBs Cancellation”.
Strictly per this then these drills 101 & 102 were banned (cancelled) from use by students doing a course since 10 Dec 1974, and they ought to have been in use by the Qualifications Division, where students came that needed corrective actions, this until 8 Nov 1976 when they were cancelled there as well. Of course they may have been excluded in this Qualifications Division as well since December 1974 as their drills lists counted many pages, this is probably so.
Then of course we have the instance of the release of HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”only some 2½ months later, about “two key drills had been omitted ... even though they were vital to an auditor's skill in handling a Dianetic session.”. We can at least see here that it is all a bit more complicated than what is actually presented by this correcting HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”. You see, when it involves this much randomity, and matters still got cancelled/banned, then was actually anyone thinking about what was happening? Why was this not caught if this was such a vital matter? Did no one act, send in a query or anything? Did everyone pass by HCOB 16 Jul 69 “Urgent – Important” in where L. Ron Hubbard promoted and introduced them? What actually happened here?
Anyway the drills 101 & 102 got officially and “emphatically reinstated” (§C:3). First by BTB 17 Jul 69R (Reissued 3 Dec 76) “Dianetic Command Training Drills”. This got already replaced only 6 days later by HCOB 17 Jul 69R (Reissued 9 Dec 76) “Dianetic Command Training Drills”. I am not kidding here! This at that time latest release listed now all the Dianetics drills 101, 102, 103 & 104. That it was re-issued so quickly after 6 days also involved taking away the recognition for those 2 persons that laid out the pattern of how to perform the drills, instead it was now all written and presented in the ‘I’ person. Giving out the erroneous message that L. Ron Hubbard had done it all! In fact a most interesting happening of affairs! It actually acts against: “The field or public must not be led to believe that I have written or issued things I have not. Further, other people have authority, too.” LRH (from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”).
‘A new unauthorized Dianetics Course’?
In §C:4 it relates about “that there was a new unauthorized Dianetics Course which supposedly was based on Dianetics Today being issued which would be a sort of a competitive course to an HSDC.”. In that course “it was found that even the most fundamental formats of the HSDC which I personally developed and piloted had been grossly alter-ised, that a number of persons had been writing HCOBs on the subject, and that the format had been lost.”. I really have no idea what course is referred to. Anyone has any information about this one? Then please email me!
* Dianetics Today. This is a book publication issued in 1975 (carrying 1057 pages) that functions as a handbook for the technique of Standard Dianetics.
Ironically, a little over one year later (July 1978) this whole Standard Dianetics technique got literally wiped out of existence basically, at such time that a new replacement course made its entry, and this was called New Era Dianetics (NED). It also caused that the book publication of ‘Dianetics Today’ was discontinued, as after all this laid out and was the handbook for that Standard Dianetics technique. The grand irony here can be found in that HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” just had made mention (§C:4 of this section) that: “I found that there was a new unauthorized Dianetics Course which supposedly was based on Dianetics Today being issued which would be a sort of a competitive course to an HSDC. In following this further it was found that even the most fundamental formats of the HSDC which I personally developed and piloted had been grossly alter-ised, that a number of persons had been writing HCOBs on the subject, and that the format had been lost.”. Just over one year later this is exactly what was accomplished by the new adjusted technique New Era Dianetics.
Thus here we have HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” acting against that “new unauthorized Dianetics Course”, and was putting forth much effort to restore the original Standard Dianetics technique, only to shortly after do EXACTLY what the HCOB at first had acted against, and followingly completely abandon this very Standard Dianetics technique and have it replaced with this adjusted Dianetics technique called New Era Dianetics! Although it most probable must have been in development at the time of issuance of that HCOB, but fails to make any mention of anything in regards to it! This is undoubtedly all most peculiar!
Anyway it even carries much further than that. The release of New Era Dianetics and the accordingly banning of Standard Dianetics was accompanied/followed by an array of technical changes. In fact we are faced with a rather significant turnaround during the 1978-82 time frame. A complete overview of these can be consulted at below link (separate window).
The original HSDC restored? vs The St Dn routine invalidated already 1½ year later in Jun 78
Then in §C:5 it tells “The original HSDC is being gathered together at this time with all instructions, C/Ses and drills in the pattern and format which was originally developed and which DID make GREAT auditors.”. In fact it would have sufficed to just re-issue that original format (already existing) that “DID make GREAT auditors”. It serves no purpose to extend to the original format if it already “DID make GREAT auditors”.
In §C:6 it then announces the making of an additional “new course, which makes a senior Dianetic auditor”. This was intended to function as “a post-graduate step after a person has become an HSDC”. Not sure why one should need some senior course. The materials of the original course are pretty clear-cut and complete. When it was first released (1969) and as per what the checksheet indicated it was done three times through. So around 1973-74 this got to two times through. During 1976 or so it was only done one time through. Instead of creating this senior course, would a solution not have been to revert the original course back to three times through? After all it was that course, per HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”, that “DID make GREAT auditors”. Now, what else do we actually need here? True is that during the 1st half of the ’70s that there existed something called “The Hubbard Dianetic Graduate Course” (HDG). This however turned you just into a Course Supervisor for the HSDC.
Anyhow the new announced HSDC courses were accordingly a few months later issued as:
BPL 31 Mar 77 I
“Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course Checksheet”
BPL 31 Mar 77 II
“Senior Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course Checksheet”
BPL 31 Mar 77 III
“Basic Dianetics Books Checksheet”
Compiled by Richard Sheehy.
But there was already such a checksheet issued in December 1976, just some 4 months earlier? Let's have a look at these checksheets and compare them with the original ones. We see the following releases:
BPL 10 Oct 74RA (Revised 2 Dec 76) “Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course Checksheet”
Some 4 months later replaced by:
BPL 31 Mar 77 I “Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course Checksheet”
Compared with the original December 1969 checksheets they appear overly zealous and detailed. The original checksheet for example basically only had the necessary references included within it, books needed for the course were only indicated as “They are to be read once before completion of course.”. This original course was also done “three times through”.
Since the 1976-77 course version they went into very great detail even about what is in the books you had to read, you had to do clay demos, essays, and really lots of demos. You were thus guided step by step, page by page almost. The December 1976 checksheet had this included within this one checksheet, then the March 1977 checksheet split it up in BPL 31 Mar 77 III “Basic Dianetics Books Checksheet” which was a prerequisite before you could start on the BPL 31 Mar 77 I “Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course Checksheet”. These courses were only done one time through. Both the 1976 and 1977 course were compiled by Richard Sheehy.
The BPL 31 Mar 77 I “Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course Checksheet” even stated that “This checksheet restores the original HSDC developed by LRH.”. Well, I am very sorry to say so, but that is just not true! Personally I can appreciate the original checksheet, clear-cut and right on target, these from 1976-77 are a bit of a hassle. For me they are far too stringent. Some will like them though.
Now, there is actually more. All this effort here to restore some original Standard Dianetics course, but the oddest thing is that already 1½ years later this original St Dn auditing routine got invalidated by HCOB 26 Jun 78 II “Routine 3RA, Engram Running by Chains” which reference says: “No auditor who knew earlier than June 1978 engram running should consider he or she knows how to run engrams.”. May be this is a way to say that it was incorrect to state that the original course “DID make GREAT auditors”? After all what have people been doing these first 28 years since 1950 when it all started?
This HCOB undoubtedly refers also back to HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” as it further states:
“The search to unravel the mystery of the human mind was so long and so complex that it had many turnings. Methods were changed so as to be perfected as understanding increased in the research line. Unfortunately this was taken advantage of by some of questionable intent. Because there had been changes and perfecting actions they could introduce unworkable changes that would go relatively undetected. ...
Probably the heaviest hat I've worn in recent years is the recovery of lost Dianetic and Scientology tech and eradicating and correcting alterations introduced into the subject by others.”
And how, may I ask, do we know that this HCOB itself did not “introduce unworkable changes that would go relatively undetected”? All this is for you as an individual to find out. Either way we are facing rather odd circumstances. Matters are going forth and back here in a relatively very short period of time. This HCOB 26 Jun 78 II “Routine 3RA, Engram Running by Chains” also fails to provide for a clearly folded out technical explanation for the claims it makes. An explanation that it should have contained!
Further reading about this matter see in link here below: (separate window)
A rock slam (R/S) is defined as “a crazy irregular slashing motion of the needle.”
This particular meter reaction was found to be relatively unknown to auditors on an examination I made of some worksheets. They were calling dirty needles, dirty reads, rocket reads, body motion and even ticks as “R/Ses.” They were also missing real R/Ses.
As the R/S is probably the single most important and dangerous read on the meter, clarifications of this were in order.
Accordingly I wrote HCOB 10 Aug 1976, “R/Ses, WHAT THEY MEAN” and caused to be written from my notes HCOB 1 Nov 1974R, “ROCK SLAMS AND ROCK SLAMMERS.”
For a pc to be branded as an R/Ser is a very serious thing. Also for a real R/Ser to be overlooked by an auditor is a catastrophe both to the pc and to those around that particular person.
Therefore, this is very dangerous ground to have wrong.
These issues will help to clarify that.
At the same time I’m currently at work on a video tape which will be available in Academies some time in the future, which gives all meter reads.
Meanwhile, don’t make any mistakes on R/Ses. Read those bulletins.
Another confusion in this sector was how to define and identify a “List 1 R/Ser.”
All characteristics given in a list issued as HCOB 1 Nov 74 and signed by another with my name were stated to have to be present before a person was a “List 1 R/Ser.” The incorrect HCOB is on page 344 Vol VIII of the HCOB Volumes and will be corrected in later editions.
“List 1” refers to Scientology related terminals as found on page 57 of The Book Of E-Meter Drills.
The additional characteristics on this list only help to look for a List 1 R/S. I issued HCOB 1 Nov 1974R revised 30 Dec 1976 which now corrects this error.
The first it does in §D:1 is defining the term: “A rock slam (R/S) is defined as ‘a crazy irregular slashing motion of the needle.’”. This definition is dating to 1974 and is taken from HCOB 1 Nov 74 “Rock Slams and Rock Slammers”.
It goes on in §D:2 with saying: “This particular meter reaction was found to be relatively unknown to auditors on an examination I made of some worksheets. They were calling dirty needles, dirty reads, rocket reads, body motion and even ticks as “R/Ses.” They were also missing real R/Ses.”. The comment that can be given here on this is that the response from the auditors mentioned here above was simply due to a misunderstanding they had, they just couldn't read a needle reaction! The booklet entitled ‘The Book Introducing the E-Meter’ (issued 1966), lays this out rather clearly in its chapter “Needle Actions” which you find on pages 40-46 with illustrations and all. A Rock Slam needle reaction is unmistakable, but they are also among the rarest. Not many people will actually have seen one.
Nonetheless §D:3 relates: “As the R/S is probably the single most important and dangerous read on the meter, clarifications of this were in order.”. As a result §D:4 informs that this “Accordingly” caused 2 HCOBs to be written up on the matter, issued respectively in November 1974 and August 1976.
Then in §D:5 and §D:6 one is forewarned to not be mistaken about spotting a Rock Slam but also not to miss one when there is one. For which reason, §D:7 explains, the issuance of these 2 aforementioned HCOBs.
Then §D:8 explains that “At the same time I'm currently at work on a video tape which will be available in Academies some time in the future, which gives all meter reads.”. No mention is made here that we already had this booklet entitled ‘The Book Introducing the E-Meter’ (issued 1966). Also if it was because of misunderstanding that some needle reactions had been mistaken then what is an additional video tape release going to? Of course it is not questioned that such a video will help, but one should also address and not overlook the initial cause for the misunderstanding from these auditors mentioned in §D:2. Which in Scientology means looking for the misunderstood word! Nonetheless §D:9 again urges: “Meanwhile, don't make any mistakes on R/Ses. Read those bulletins.”. No mention is made here about clearing your words.
Next in §D:10 “Another confusion in this sector was how to define and identify a ‘List 1 R/Ser.’”. What is here not to understand? Be it noted here that the correct spelling here should be “List One R/Ser”. As a rule this is referred to as ‘List One’, and not as ‘List 1’ simply because that is the correct term, that is how it appears in all the original references! I am actually confounded about why it is repeatedly incorrectly listed here in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”. The reference for this “List One” is HCOB 24 Nov 62 “Routine 2-12, List One - Issue One, The Scientology List”.They are also found (correctly spelled) as entries in ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (first issued June 1975). It is a simple list of words that are to be assessed (run off by the auditor on a person and noting down the needle reaction). If you then get a Rock Slam“R/S” needle reaction, there is where you have your “List One R/Ser”.
‘signed by another with my name’?
Followingly in §D:11 it makes the claim that “All characteristics given in a list issued as HCOB 1 Nov 74 and signed by another with my name were stated to have to be present before a person was a ‘List 1 R/Ser.’”. Let's see what that HCOB 1 Nov 74 “Rock Slams and Rock Slammers” actually says. The line following the checklist in the HCOB says: “Where the answers to this checklist are yes you have an R/Ser.”. Personally I do not necessarily interpret here that this means that all items must have received a yes. It says “Where”, which I interpret as that if you have one or some more that got a “yes”, then essentially this would suffice to have you worry. You would then have indicators. You see, it only references to “Where” it gets a “yes”, it just does not say “all the answers”. Either way §D:11 goes on, based on that interpretation, saying that “The incorrect HCOB is on page 344 Vol VIII of the HCOB Volumes and will be corrected in later editions.”. Accordingly the line was changed into: “Where some of the answers to this checklist are yes you can be certain an R/S will be found in auditing.” (from HCOB 1 Nov 74R (Revised 30 Dec 76) “Rock Slams and Rock Slammers”). Let's agree here about that the rephrasing leaves no doubt about what is meant, where it was less clearly worded in the original text.
Interestingly it did also blame someone else to have caused this error: “signed by another with my name” (§D:11). Then when we go back to §D:4 it states about that HCOB that its R-version was “caused to be written from my notes”. I am not sure how to take this though. The original was written by L. Ron Hubbard, and its revision was “caused to be written from my (LRH) notes”? So, did L. Ron Hubbard corrected a reference that was written by someone else, and that had been previously issued as if written and issued by him? Or may be is meant to say that the original was taken from some “notes” from L. Ron Hubbard from someplace, and that this error crept in because of the person putting it together from those “notes”?
Let's put all the data we have in a comparison table:
HCOB 1 Nov 74 “Rock Slams and Rock Slammers”
“L. RON HUBBARD, Founder” with composer initials: “LRH”.
No mention of it being “caused to be written from my (LRH) notes” (§D:11) or sorts.
This was claimed to have been “signed by another with my name” (§D:4).28
HCOB 1 Nov 74R (Revised 30 Dec 76) “Rock Slams and Rock Slammers”
Signature found (1):
“L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER” with composer initials “LRH”.
Signature found (2):
“Assisted by CS-4/5” with composer initials: “JE” (this is John Eastment).
No mention of it being “caused to be written from my (LRH) notes” (§D:11).
No mention of the person that caused HCOB 1 Nov 74 to be “signed by another with my name” (§D:4).
Revisions are not in “this type style” or otherwise indicated which is a basic rule when you revise!
HCOB 1 Nov 74RA (Revised 5 Sept 78) “Rock Slams and Rock Slammers”
Signature found (1):
“L. RON HUBBARD, Founder” with composer initials: “LRH”.
Signature found (2):
“Assisted by CS-4/5” now with missing composer initials!
Followed by notice: “Revision by L. RON HUBBARD, Founder”.
Revisions are in “this type style”.
Now, does it all add up? I don't think it does really. The whole thing is indeed a very strange affair of happenings!
Witch hunts and ‘List One’
“It has been found on some cases which did not immediately R/S, even though their crimes and past would seem to indicate they should have R/Ses, that when Sec Checking was carried on for several sessions, one each on several consecutive days, R/Ses then began to show up. In two cases, List One R/Ses showed up on persons who had never been noticed as having R/Ses before. ...
This is so much the case that whenever I see shallow wishy-washy ‘overts’ coming off a case day after day, I suspect that sooner or later a good auditor will suddenly find real roaring overts and R/Ses sitting there.”
(from HCOB 7 May 77 “Long Duration Sec Checking”)
All this attention drawn on this “List One R/Ser” and related was about to create a witch hunt. Concerning that we have some remarkable information. As I mentioned before, this needle reaction is actually exceedingly rare, but soon a lot of people where thrown about because of some needle reaction or interpretation that deemed it being a Rock Slam needle reaction.
So, here we are having this HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” taken up these matters like Rock Slam (inducing attention), and then shortly after the events escalated and soon literaly everything would go marvelously off the rails. Well, may be this got something to do with it. HCOB 1 Nov 74R “Rock Slams and Rock Slammers” in its revision of 30 Dec 1976 adds following the 3rd paragraph the lines: “On the other hand, far more serious is the fact that Auditors have many times seen R/Ses, didn't mark them down and didn't report them! This is a High Crime as it injures society, the org and the person himself (see HCOB 10 Aug 76 ‘R/Ses, What They Mean’).”. Well, I guess they really started to “mark them down”!
And when all that is happening we do not see an L. Ron Hubbard anywhere, that we may have expected to see correcting or interfering to put an end to it. His person is simply not to be seen or heard from. It all just... occurred! This is rather interesting, as these new releases about Rock Slams and all that may have stirred up the whole thing.
A minor observation is that these events are also persistently associated with “List 1”, which is the same misspelling that first was set forth by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”.
You'll find the details about these events here: (separate window)
Following down the trail of auditors missing R/Ses, it was found that Sec Checking had become a nearly lost art.
Sec Checking means, unfortunately, “Security Checking.” That it was so misnamed in its origins obscures the fact that Confessionals have been part and parcel of religion nearly as long as religion has existed.
In actual fact the meter simply gets a pastor or minister over the very dangerous situation of missing a withhold on his parishioner. A person with a missed withhold can become very upset with the person who misses it; the meter, properly operated, makes sure that none are missed.
In an effort to get around what was thought to be a public relations scene, the name “Security Checking” was changed to “Integrity Processing.” This was also a PR error because the actual truth of the matter is it originated as “Confessional” and should have simply been changed back to “handling of confessions.”
This administrative demand of name alteration threw the original issues on “Sec Checking” into disuse.
Additionally “Integrity Processing” did not include all the tech of Sec Checking. And some even thought they were different subjects!
The loss of Sec Checking, more properly called Confessionals, and the failure to use a meter to verify withholds resulted in many student blows (dropouts) and has permitted the continuance of a great deal of natter and upset which are simply the result of missing withholds on people.
When you realize that a lot of the trouble of the Roman Catholic Church probably arose through not having a meter to verify the completeness of Confessionals, you can see what the loss of Sec Checking would do to our own churches and organizations. In other words, we were about to repeat history!
All this original “Sec Checking,” properly Confessional, tech is being rounded up again and will be issued in checksheet form and there will be courses in “The Handling of Confessionals.” But even before you receive these, you should resume the use of this metered tech as it will save you having people “mad at you” simply because you have missed withholds on them.
It is highly self-protective both from the viewpoint of the auditor and the organization to have the proper metered handling of Confessionals fully in.
BTB 31 Aug 1972RA “HCO CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE” clarified the matter but this bulletin was on a very limited distribution and is not known. It contains the tech I developed on Sec Checking in the autumn of ‘72.
There should be no further confusion in this matter. “Sec Checking,” “Integrity Processing” and “Confessionals” are all the exact same procedure and any materials on these subjects is interchangeable under these titles.
The materials when all recollected and consolidated and reissued will be under the title of “Confessionals.” But even before that reaches you, you had better determine to become an expert in it, since an auditor’s inability to handle this is a fast route to “how to win enemies and wrongly influence people.”
Here in §E:1 it takes off with placing a relation of the in the previous section D discussed Rock Slams and this section. It says: “Following down the trail of auditors missing R/Ses, it was found that Sec Checking had become a nearly lost art.”. Considering what an induced attention on Rock Slams had caused it would be interesting to see what this may incite.
In §E:2 its use is justified by bringing up an historical argument: “Confessionals have been part and parcel of religion nearly as long as religion has existed.”.
In §E:4 it makes the claim that “In an effort to get around what was thought to be a public relations scene, the name ‘Security Checking’ was changed to ‘Integrity Processing.’”. And then deeming that having been a “PR error”. The accompanying issues series for the Integrity Processing were issued starting 2 December 1972 as follows:
Integrity Processing Series 1-21 and related (2-24 Dec 72, 22 Jan 73, 8 & 16 May 74)
Integrity Processing Form 1-12 (24 Dec 72 / 11 Jun 76)
The majority of them were newly compiled lists although a variety of them had been reissues or had taken its data from other issues or sources, primarily dating back to the early ’60s.
Now, we are facing some very serious problems here. Although it is true that there was a “public relations scene” factor addressed by HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished” as “5. There is public criticism of security checking as a practice.”, but that it in §E:4 then relates about “an effort to get around” that by calling actual “‘Security Checking’” for something else (by changing its name) goes diametrically against in particular #1-4 as found in HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”:
We have no interest in the secrets and crimes of people and no
use for them.
Security checking is often done without regard to the point where the person feels better and so became overrun.
Security checking is often done in disregard of the state of a person's case.
Low level cases do not react on actual crimes and so the
‘security’ furnished is often a false security.” LRH
This §E:4 thus admits these being an actual lie! See, the intent of §E:4 is very clearly to point out that Sec Checking was totally all right and always has been. Here it is admitted that a trick had been played back in 1968! The focus is put here on this “PR error”.
Remember also that §E:1 stated “Following down the trail of auditors missing R/Ses, it was found that Sec Checking had become a nearly lost art.”. In regards to Rock Slams (“R/Ses”) then reflect on #4. It says “do not react on actual crimes”. HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished” says Sec Checking is basically useless and fills no purpose. This section in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” says that this is not true.
In §E:5 notes that “This administrative demand of name alteration threw the original issues on ‘Sec Checking’ into disuse.”. This is rather odd as it would have been rather easy to reissue any of them as part of these newly created Integrity Processing Series issues. And factually we do find various of these references that had received such a treatment. So which issues had fallen into “disuse”? This section in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” fails to explain!
Then §E:6 claims that “‘Integrity Processing’ did not include all the tech of Sec Checking.”. Another obscure claim! Then what was missing or different? None of that is clarified or explained. We can further read in this paragraph: “And some even thought they were different subjects!”. Now, why would anyone think that? These Integrity Processing Series carried actual Sec Check type of questioning throughout these series of issues!
In §E:7 it is blaming the “loss of Sec Checking, more properly called Confessionals” and thus an inability “to verify withholds” which would have “resulted in many students blows (dropouts) and has permitted the continuance of a great deal of natter and upset”. The matter is however that there actually exists an Integrity Processing Form 5 which is the Student Integrity List. Now would this form not have prevented these “many students (dropouts)”? And there is more as there were also these Study Correction List Series which consisted of 5 such lists all issued in March 1972 (consult list here, pop-up window). The particular one for the student is titled HCOB 27 Mar 72 I -Study Correction List 1- “Student Correction List”. Now, these arguments in all would in principle make the claim made in §E:7 look as rather nonsensical!
I also did speak to a variety of Scientology old-timers and they do confide to me that this Integrity Processing was well in use at the time. This also then in spite of that the revision of HCOB 4 Dec 72 “Historical” released as BTB 4 Dec 72R (Revised 13 May 75) “Definitions” (and thus changing its title) added 4 paragraphs at its beginning. That first paragraph reads: “INTEGRITY PROCESSING is that processing which increases a person's personal integrity and trust in himself and others by freeing him of past overts, withholds and missed withholds.”. The 3 following paragraphs then detailedly define these 3 terms. It seems to me that we have here rather clearly the setout of actual Sec(urity) Checking!
In §E:11 it makes mention of a BTB 31 Aug 72RA “HCO Confessional Procedure” that “this bulletin was on a very limited distribution and is not known.”. Further noting that “It contains the tech I developed on Sec Checking in the autumn of ’72.”. This is indeed sort of hard to get a hold of. I traced its publication track and found the following:
HCOB 31 Aug 72
“HCO Confessional Procedure”
HCOB 31 Aug 72R
(Revised 14 Oct 72)
“Confidential Modern Sec Checking (Confessional) Procedure - R”
BTB 31 Aug 72RA
(Revised & Reissued as BTB on 13 Oct 75)
“Confidential Modern Sec Checking (Confessional) Procedure - R”
BTB 31 Aug 72RB
(Revised & Reissued
1 Mar 77)
HCOB 30 Nov 78
[cancelling/replacing BTB 31 Aug 72RB]
HCOB 30 Nov 78R
(Revised 10 Nov 87)
HCOB 30 Nov 78RA
(Revised 13 Oct 2000)
It may say in §E:11 “the tech I developed on Sec Checking in the autumn of ’72”, but it was nonetheless reissued as a BTB, indicating that at least the format was not written up by L. Ron Hubbard. Then in 1978 it was reissued under a new issue date and fully attributed to L. Ron Hubbard (and dropping its limited distribution label), although in essence it appears to be the very same writing. We see though various additions in regards to Rock Slam, and the steps of the procedure increased from 17 to a total of 28 (compared with the previous March 1977 RB-version). This RB-version was revised by Julie Gillespie (as Training & Services Aide). It does not note however the original compiler(s). If anyone has earlier versions of these HCOB/BTB 31 Aug 72 releases, then please contact me. I would like to know their actual authorship.
Its last paragraph (§E:13) then announces “The materials when all recollected and consolidated and reissued will be under the title of ‘Confessionals.’”. This was all done during 6-10 March 1977. The Integrity Processing Series were renamed Confessional Series, and the Integrity Processing Form was renamed Confessional Form.
I maintain having this particular bother about that this all does set forth the line that was rekindled with the reinstatement of Sec Checking and this on such a vast scale this back in December 1972. Besides that the practice had actually been abolished. It is as if the rephrasing of Sec Checking into Integrity Processing would be able to pass it by? And it actually did.
Further pertinent data on this can be consulted in link here below: (separate window)
Expanded Dianetics began in development in 1970. It is a very fully developed subject. However, for some reason or another, the total materials of Expanded Dianetics were never packaged and exported even when it was reported that they had been. Thus auditors who have been trained as Expanded Dianetics auditors had been denied considerable key materials and have even lost the reason for Expanded Dianetics.
Contributing to this was the removal of “Sec Checking” (Confessionals) materials from the Expanded Dianetics Course to make up the “Integrity Processing Rundown.” Thus the course was stripped even further, for an Expanded Dianetics auditor has to be very expert in the handling of Confessionals.
The actual extent of Expanded Dianetics can be described as follows: “Ex Dn consists of all the work I did on psychos and very difficult cases from 1970 forward, my C/Ses, case histories, any tape lectures or notes, which includes as well all data known to date on Confessionals, and all data on PTSes. The product of the course is an auditor who can handle psychos, R/Sers and any person’s evil intentions as well as any PTSes.”
That would be the full extent and skill of an Expanded Dianetics auditor. There is considerable data connected with the subject and it is the only data, proven, workable data, Man has on the subject of neurosis and psychosis, and is the first breakthrough made in this field as to its actual cause. This also embraces criminality.
While we are very far from being in the business of handling psychos, not all psychos are in institutions or classified as psychos in this society. Furthermore PTS persons become PTS to people who are usually psycho.
Thus this whole scope and breadth of Expanded Dianetics has to be and is being recompiled and issued.
Furthermore the position of Expanded Dianetics on the Grade and Class Chart was muddied up. Actually Expanded Dianetics can be given after a Drug Rundown, after Standard Dianetics, after Scientology grades, after Power, after OT III and at any point upwards after completion of Grade OT III.
A PTS Rundown can be given without regard to whether the person had had Expanded Dianetics or not. A PTS Rundown can be given anywhere and better had be.
An auditor is trained on Expanded Dianetics after he has become an HSDC, a Class IV auditor.
An auditor does not have to be an Expanded Dianetics auditor in order to deliver a PTS Rundown. All he has to do is complete the PTS Checksheet and should be a Class IV in order to audit it. There are even some portions of the PTS Checksheet, particularly as it would be revised, which can be delivered by a person who is not trained as an auditor at all, but this would be non-audited handling which consists mainly of coaching the person as to how to handle his scene.
The complete Expanded Dianetics tech is, as I have said, being recompiled, issued and gotten back in.
What is Expanded Dianetics? The publication ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition) says the following about it on page 10: “its results are freedom from cruel impulses and chronic unwanted conditions and ability to act in an optimum manner without restraint.”, and on page 12 it says about the course that it: “Trains a person to understand and handle irrational behavior in others and chronic unwanted conditions.”. HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” adds to this (§F:4): “‘The product of the course is an auditor who can handle psychos, R/Sers and any person's evil intentions as well as any PTSes.’”. In §F:2 it adds the comment that “an Expanded Dianetics auditor has to be very expert in the handling of Confessionals.”. It puts here thus a relation with the subject addressed in the previous section E.
In §F:1 it relates about a bad scenario for this technology. It says that “the total materials of Expanded Dianetics were never packaged and exported even when it was reported that they had been.”. Which was resulting in, so it says, that “auditors who have been trained as Expanded Dianetics auditors had been denied considerable key materials and have even lost the reason for Expanded Dianetics.”.
For that reason §F:6 makes notice that “this whole scope and breadth of Expanded Dianetics has to be and is being recompiled and issued.” (see also §F:11). A total of 17 issues were added to the series, and a new course checksheet going along with it (issued 16 March / 9 May 1977).
Full publication data can be consulted in the link here below: (pop-up window)
Having discovered an executive who had “been word cleared” by a “Word Clearer” but who then required more than 4 1/2 hours to clear the first two pages of the same material when handled by a higher classed auditor, I investigated the extent of Word Clearing training and use being out.
A study of the Word Clearing Series was ordered and it was found that there was little concentration on metering and TRs.
These seem to have been slighted because Word Clearing starts with the phrase “I am not auditing you” and this apparently has been taken to mean that one didn’t have to know his meter and TRs in order to word clear. HCOB 10 January 1977, Word Clearing Series 55, “HOW TO WIN WITH WORD CLEARING” is a result of this investigation and should be given particular importance.
Another factor was spotted and is handled in Board Technical Bulletin 12 January 1977 Revised 16 January 1977, which was issued as a result of my having found that Word Clearers had a wrong stat. The stat of Well Done Auditing Hours would not apply to a Word Clearer. Their stat is now “Number of Misunderstood Words honestly found and fully handled in applicable materials.”
Another action is found in HCO Policy Letter 10 January 1977, “ETHICS AND WORD CLEARING,” wherein “Any Word Clearer who word cleared materials on which misunderstoods have been found at a later date shall be summoned to a Court of Ethics.”
The phrase “I am not auditing you” does not excuse ignorance on the Word Clearer’s part of a meter or a poor command of TRs. Of course this must also include his knowledge of Word Clearing tech. His TRs and metering must be excellent.
The marvelous wins that can be gotten with Word Clearing had been lost and with this should now be recovered.
It spots out 3 references that would handle a given situation described as (§G:7): “The marvelous wins that can be gotten with Word Clearing had been lost and with this should now be recovered.”.
(1) Out-metering and out-TRs: In §G:2 it was forwarded that “it was found that there was little concentration on metering and TRs.” and that (§G:3) “These seem to have been slighted because Word Clearing starts with the phrase ‘I am not auditing you’ and this apparently has been taken to mean that one didn't have to know his meter and TRs in order to word clear”. Solution offered: HCOB 10 Jan 77, Word Clearing Series 55 “How to Win with Word Clearing”. Seems to me that we are dealing here again with a misunderstanding. Even if you are not auditing someone, but you are to operate a E-meter, then of course you are supposed to be able to run that very E-meter! These are simple study basics.
Funny enough §G:6 actually repeats the odd claim about “‘I am not auditing you’” that it “does not excuse ignorance on the Word Clearer’s part of a meter or a poor command of TRs.”. Now, wouldn't that be obvious?!
(2) Changed stat: §G:4 is about “of my having found that Word Clearers had a wrong stat. The stat of Well Done Auditing Hours would not apply to a Word Clearer. Their stat is now ‘Number of Misunderstood Words honestly found and fully handled in applicable materials.’”. Solution issued in BTB 12 Jan 77 (Revised 16 Jan 77) “Word Clearing Series 56R”. This BTB additionally said: “This replaces any other Word Clearing stat now in use.”. This was issued by “MSM John Eastment CS-4/5”, initials “JE”, and “As ordered by L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER”.
I would perceive however that this solution would create another questionable situation. It would lead to that the stat is pending the wordclearer dealing with either a quick or a slow person/student. It will urge the wordclearer having a preference. A wordclearer should not have such a preference. He will just not like slower persons/students. It is a simple state of reality that some people are just faster or slower than others. Then the consideration that slower persons/students are probably most in need of wordclearing. From which follows that the person that really is in need of wordclearing will not be appreciated by the wordclearer in regards to his new stat. Now, why did we have this installation of a wordclearer in the first place?
Anyone have a copy of BTB 12 Jan 77 “Word Clearing Series 56R” for me, contact me! This was later cancelled by BTB 12 Jan 77 “Word Clearing Series 56R Cancelled” (I don't know when this was issued though), anyone have a copy of me of this, contact me! In 1989 we see the release of HCOB 27 Feb 89 “Cancellation of Word Clearing Series BTBs” followed (4 days later) with the release of HCO PL 23 Oct 75 (Reissued 3 Mar 89) “Technical Queries” that was reissued to take the place of the cancelled BTB as being Word Clearing Series 56.
I am not sure what reference replaced the BTB in regards to the stats of the wordclearer. Probably some Flag Divisional Directive (FDD) that usually takes care of such matters.
(3) Ethics measure taken: §G:5 adds: “‘Any Word Clearer who word cleared materials on which misunderstoods have been found at a later date shall be summoned to a Court of Ethics.’”. Issued as HCO PL 10 Jan 77 “Ethics and Word Clearing”. Seems like a harsh measure. So what justified it? This rule wasn't there before, therefore one will have to give an explanation that. The HCO PL does note: “While it has been made a Court of Ethics offense to fail to clarify words not understood no provision has been made for this failure stemming from faulty Word Clearing which does not locate the MUs.”. It is reverting back here to HCO PL 4 Apr 72R III “Ethics and Study Tech” that actually says something more than just “to fail to clarify words not understood”. It adds: “... WHICH RESULTED IN A FAILURE TO DO DUTIES OF HIS POST WITHOUT HIS AT ONCE MAKING AN EFFECTIVE EFFORT TO CLEAR THE WORDS ON HIMSELF. WHETHER HE KNEW HE WAS MISSING THEM OR NOT AS THE SOURCE OF HIS INACTION OR DAMAGING ACTIONS.”. After which I again will ask what justified actually the issuance of HCO PL 10 Jan 77 “Ethics and Word Clearing” as no consequence because of some misunderstood has been taken into account as HCO PL 4 Apr 72R III “Ethics and Study Tech” clearly does!
The signature area of HCO PL 10 Jan 77 “Ethics and Word Clearing” indicates “Assisted by CS-4/5” with composer initials “JE”, and this denotes John Eastment who then would have compiled it. As a sidenote this HCO PL was reissued 3 Mar 1989 to become Word Clearing Series 50.
The subject of missing F/Ns (floating needles) on pcs is very important as a pc who has had an F/N missed becomes overrun and can be very upset and his case can even be stalled.
The first instance I ran into of this (some years ago) had to do with the sensitivity setting on the meter. Most auditors apparently simply would set a sensitivity knob on 5 and leave it there, regardless of how the pc advanced and regardless of who they were auditing. This would give them extremely wide F/Ns which would hit the pin, on one or both sides, and hang up as they were unable to keep the needle on “set.” The correct way to go about this is to always set the sensitivity knob by pc can squeeze. When the pc squeezes the cans, the sensitivity knob should give about a third of a dial drop, no more, no less. Only in that way can you keep a needle on the “set” mark on the dial. Otherwise, F/Ns get missed. Some pcs have to go up to 128 (32) which is a front face meter setting to get such a fall on a can squeeze and I have just noted a pc who had such a wide F/N swing that the sensitivity had to be set at 1 (32), which is about as low as the meter can go without turning off, and even then this pc got a half a dial can squeeze fall and so had to be watched very carefully so that F/Ns were not missed. I mention this in case it has dropped out again.
The current discovery which just dropped with a clang was that in one interneship, an interne supervisor was using verbal tech which had then spread all over the world to the effect that you MUST NOT call an F/N an F/N unless it were between 2 and 3 on the tone arm dial, and that any F/N type motion which occurred with the TA above 3 or below 2 could not possibly be called an F/N. This was his own craziness and he wished it off with a bunch of verbal tech on an awful lot of auditors and caused an enormous amount of pcs subsequently to be very unhappy.
The result and remedy of this is contained in HCOB 10 December 1976, which is marked Urgent and Important. It is marked that way because apparently there are very few pcs around right now who haven’t had F/Ns missed on them.
This HCOB should be very carefully studied. However, in brief, the correct procedure for out of range (above 3 or below 2) F/Ns is:
Look at the pc’s indicators,
Call the F/N regardless of its range, if the indicators are alright,
Mark down the actual TA position when the F/N is indicated,
Handle the false TA at the earliest opportunity when it will not intrude into the current cycle of auditing,
On any pc you suspect has had his F/Ns disregarded because of false TA, you C/S for and get run a repair and rehab of points in his auditing when F/Ns were missed on him.
In other words, have your sensitivity correct and when an F/N occurs outside of the range between 2 and 3, know that it is an F/N by the needle motion and by the pc s indicators and call it, indicate it and put it down on the worksheet. Note the actual TA position. Then, before the next session or after you have finished a crucial cycle of auditing on the pc, in the next several sessions, go into the whole subject of his false TA and handle it.
Missing an F/N is very cruel on a pc because it invalidates his having released the charge on the subject on which he is being audited and tends to tell him that he is not better even though he feels better. There is one historic case of an auditor having gotten an F/N in the first ten minutes of auditing and then, because it occurred slightly above 3, auditing the pc for an additional three hours with the TA climbing, the pc unhappy and no results being obtained from the processing. This sort of thing is pretty gruesome.
Verbal tech is no substitute for HCOBs.
“A floating needle is valid only between 2.0 and 3.0 Tone Arm position on a meter.
Above or below that Tone Arm reading, the F/N is called an ‘ARC Break’ needle. A real F/N also carries with it GOOD INDICATORS. A cheerful happy pc.
When the Tone Arm is below 2.0, the incident has not been erased.
When the Tone Arm is above 3.0, erasure has not occurred. ...
When the basic erases, the TA will fall or rise to the area between 2.0 and 3.0 and the needle will F/N.” LRH (from HCOB 14 May 69 II / HCOB 1 Aug 70 “F/N and Erasure”)
The situation proposed is the following (§H:1): “The subject of missing F/Ns (floating needles) on pcs is very important as a pc who has had an F/N missed becomes overrun and can be very upset and his case can even be stalled.”.
In §H:3 we receive this tale: “The current discovery which just dropped with a clang was that in one interneship, an interne supervisor was using verbal tech which had then spread all over the world to the effect that you MUST NOT call an F/N an F/N unless it were between 2 and 3 on the tone arm dial, and that any F/N type motion which occurred with the TA above 3 or below 2 could not possibly be called an F/N. This was his own craziness and he wished it off with a bunch of verbal tech on an awful lot of auditors and caused an enormous amount of pcs subsequently to be very unhappy.”.
The respective entry found in ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (1975 edition) says contradictorily: (underlining is mine)
“FLOATING NEEDLE,1. the idle uninfluenced movement of the needle on the dial 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 between 2.0 and 3.0 with GIs in on the pc. It can occur after a cognition, blowdown of the TA or just moves into floating. The pc may or may not voice the cognition. (HCOB 7 May 69 V) 2.floating needles, free needles are the same thing. Once you've seen one you'll never make a mistake on one again. For it floats. It ceases to register on the pc's bank. It just idly floats about or won't stand up even at low sensitivity. The TA goes to any place between 2 and 3 and the needle floats. (HCOB 2 Aug 65) Abbr. F/N.”
These definitions are taken from:
1. HCOB 7 May 69 V “Floating Needle” that gives the additional relevant data:
“One does not sit and study and be sure of an ‘F/N’. It swings or pops, he lets the pc cognite and then indicates the F/N to the pc preventing overrun.”
2. HCOB 2 Aug 65 “Release Goofs”:
This reference that was “Star Rated on all Check-Outs” even adds: “Differences in cans used as electrodes and not keeping the meter calibrated with 5,000 ohm and 12,500 ohm resistors clipped between the two cans and setting the TA to (F) and (M) can lead an auditor to ‘find’ a floating needle at TA 3.8 but ignore it because the meter is out.”.
Per these references it does not appear that this “interne supervisor was using verbal tech”, or that he was spreading about “his own craziness”, or that “he wished it off with a bunch of verbal tech on an awful lot of auditors” and this thus would accordingly not have been able to have “caused an enormous amount of pcs subsequently to be very unhappy”. He was simply ruthlessly applying these aforementioned and quoted HCOBs as found in ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (1975 edition) that are fully valid references unto this very day! It does here appear that these entries found in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” are a COMPLETE AND UTTER ABSURDITY! And then some people try to state that L. Ron Hubbard would have written that? It simply does not add up to anything!!!
In spite of all that §H:4 offered its “result and remedy” through the release of HCOB 10 Dec 76 “Scientology F/N and TA Position”. Which appears to be the first reference in where a change in the characteristics of a floating needle is worded. It says: “Through verbal tech just located, it has been found that some auditors have been ordered to disregard all F/Ns that were above 3.0 or below 2.0 on the meter.”. We can see however clearly that this statement is actually clashing with the previously established definition of the characteristics of a floating needle.
This HCOB justified it with: “A. not considering pc indicators as senior and B. not noting pc indicators when calling an F/N and C. ignoring and giving junior importance to the technology covered in false TAs.”. The problem of this is however that you first should have your Tone Arm (TA) at the correct position. Here it is proposed that your TA might be wrong and thus an F/N can occur outside of “above 3.0 or below 2.0” on the meter. In reality this would not be its correct position (false TA).
Another consequence of this new datum affected a new edition of this ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (1978 edition) that got this entry significantly changed. The 2 HCOBs are not found at this entry anymore, instead we only find the following:
“FLOATING NEEDLE, 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. (HCOB 21 July 1978) Abbr. F/N.”
This gives us also the full text of HCOB 21 Jul 78 “What is a Floating Needle?”.
There is a peculiar observation that I made relating to this in regards to the signature section on this particular HCOB. We see:
L. Ron Hubbard
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
That it makes mention of ‘for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS’ & ‘BDCS’ is actually odd. The matter here is that this generally is not found (=very seldom) in HCOBs in this or any other time period like this, we see it much more frequent in HCO PLs from that time. Does it indicate involvement of these ‘BOARDS OF DIRECTORS’, it might indicate that. It may even be as much as having been written at their(?) request or something like that, but this Board interfering with technical matters? It may also mean nothing, but these signature notices are unusual in HCOBs and thus this observation is noted here.
It may be so that these HCOBs that denote that a floating needle occurs between a TA at 2.0 and 3.0 on the meter are still found in present day publications, but who is going to see these references? They have been removed since the new 1978 edition of the ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’, and if you don't make them appear in newly updated checksheets you are then not going to know about them! One chance left here, as we have the indexes that follow with ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. In both these indexes we do find a same entry at “floating needle(s) (F/N)”: “TA must be between 2 and 3 for a correct F/N”. The 1976 edition of these volumes gives 3 entries, whereas the 1991 edition gives just 2 entries. They both list:
(1) HCOB 8 Jun 70 “Low TA Handling”:
“An F/N is NEVER an F/N when above 3.0 or below 2.0.” LRH
(2) HCOB 24 Oct 71 “False TA”:
“The TA must be between 2 and 3 for a correct F/N.” LRH
But only the 1976 edition of the volumes lists:
(3) HCOB 1 Aug 70RA “F/N and Erasure”:
“A floating needle is valid only between 2.0 and 3.0 Tone Arm position on a meter. (Note: False TA can be caused by dry or calloused hands or improper grip–makes it read high. And by overly wet or greasy hands–makes it read low.)” LRH
This appears cancelled in 1978 by HCOB 2 Aug 1978 “Cancellation of Issues” for which reason it thus does not appear in the 1991 edition of the volumes. Rather a shame basically because this is without a doubt the most significant reference we had about it!
We actually do have a problem here as all of these clash with the new take of what a floating needle is! Nonetheless these are all found in the 1991 edition of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes.
These volumes also would list HCOB 2 Dec 80 “Floating Needle and TA Position modified” that pounds on it a final time and that (apparently) also had been issued to explain and account for those references that still note the previous status quo regarding the specifics of a floating needle. A bit odd though that 4 of them had been revised in Jan and July 1977 (meaning after the release of HCOB 10 Dec 76 “Scientology F/N and TA Position” that first had introduced the new definition), but these 4 HCOBs failed to have the new definition implemented! Another observation is that it had missed to mention 2 HCOBs (a 3rd one had earlier been cancelled already). Also it lists 2 HCOBs that did not state that a valid F/N had to be between 2.0 and 3.0, so why were these listed? It appears it was all worked on with a rather sloppy hand. (See details on reference history list, click here (pop-up window).
Think for a moment here about that obviously it was chosen here not to correct these references that still had listed that a valid F/N had to be between 2.0 and 3.0. The question is why it was permitted to purposely to have clashing information left in these references? Now why is this so? Why were they not even revised?
So, the ball started rolling as early as late 1976 with the release HCOB 10 Dec 76 “Scientology F/N and TA Position”. Then we have HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” promoting it. Although it should be pretty clear by now that the accusations directed at this “interne supervisor” (see at §H:3) were, to say it nicely, improper. A whole 1½ years later releases HCOB 21 Jul 78 “What is a Floating Needle?”. Finally in late 1980 we get HCOB 2 Dec 80 “Floating Needle and TA Position modified” pounding on it once more and even referring to the previous status quo as “an earlier belief”, I wouldn't think it would be a belief. It was a result of years of observations. Well, what is actually happening here?
Ironically that last paragraph (§H:8) states: “Verbal tech is no substitute for HCOBs.”. Well, indeed it is not! Glad we agree on something here!
So, if we run an evaluation on this here, what can be found to be the cause for this altered definition? May be the answer is given in §H:2. It talks about an faulty “sensitivity setting on the meter.”. Causing that one was “unable to keep the needle on ‘set’” and “F/Ns get missed.”. The paragraph does note about “The correct way” to “set the sensitivity knob”, but then resorts to in later paragraphs to offer an unusual solution instead of urging auditors to find their misunderstandings or them to be send to cramming.
We may also reflect over the option as found in HCOB 23 Nov 73 “Dry and Wet Hands Make False TA” that says that “Hi TAs and Lo TAs do not widely F/N. If you are getting wide persistent F/N with the TA too high (above 3) or too low (below 2 ) you have a pc whose hands are too dry or too wet.” LRH.
This of course also clashes with the new introduced datum about that a F/N could occur outside the range of lower than 2.0 and higher than 3.0. Because if you approve to that new datum then how are you going to determine when you would “have a pc whose hands are too dry or too wet.”? Ah well, I guess this is then taken care of by the later release of HCOB 2 Dec 80 “Floating Needle and TA Position Modified” that says “Palm moisture, pc grip and other factors alter the TA position but not the F/N.”, considering that (following sentence) “The auditor must also be prepared to handle and handle false TA and nothing in this finding changes handling.”.
Some people apparently made some big effort to confuse matters here. That which should be seriously called into question is the presentation of this new datum in §H:3 in where this “interne supervisor” suffered from his “craziness” and his “verbal tech” and all that. Adding to this undoubtedly would be the peculiar realization that this new datum was never uncovered at an earlier date. Finally then the simple observation that till this day they are 8 other valid HCOBs that say against it, and have not been revised. See, you just can't have conflicting datums in these bulletins. If you want to confuse, then unquestionably this is the way to go about it.
Either way I don't think that when L. Ron Hubbard writes that “An F/N is NEVER an F/N when above 3.0 or below 2.0.” that it leaves any doubt about it! So, if you get at some point in time this needle that floats outside of the 2.0 to 3.0 range, then of course this can be a real F/N, but you better see to it that you get the thing about the false TA also cleared up at the same time! This is as simple as it gets.
Having written the HCOB just above telling auditors that they call the F/N regardless of where it was, providing the pc’s indicators were OK and then handle the TA on the pc, I found that issues on correcting false TA had been messed up.
In both HCOB 29 Feb 1972R Revised 23 Nov 1973 and its successor HCOB 29 Feb 1972RA Revised 23 Apr 1975, careless reading could imply that the False TA Checklist was audited on the pc like any other prepared list. In other words this idiocy set in that the meter reads were going to be used to divine whether or not the meter knew whether or not the pc was responding properly. The list actually, is a list of things the auditor manually, mechanically checks on the pc. He does not consult reads and he does not assess anything on the pc; he simply personally does a checklist and this was the checklist. It was not assessed to find a reading item. Therefore an auditor trying to correct false TA and get the TA to read between 2 and 3 by using a meter to assess the list would never find out what was going on and would be unable to get the meter into that position.
Accordingly, HCOB 13 Jan 1977 was directed to be written, and the full and entire checklist to be done by the auditor on the pc recompiled and updated. It is being issued as HCOB 21 Jan 1977.
Therefore it will now be very easy for an auditor to correct the false TA on a pc and he will be able to get the meter tone arm properly between 2 and 3.
You know, don’t you, that a TA goes up more than a division when you start using a one-hand electrode? This is not a “false TA” that you can correct. Solo auditors using just one hand have their TAs riding around 3.7 and 4.5 on the tone arm. This is not a case of false TA, it is always checked by using both hands on the cans at the start and end of session. But here again false TA can occur if the hands are too dry or too wet or the can size is wrong.
You shouldn’t have very much trouble with this. Actually it’s a very simple matter, but the outnesses in this sector have caused an awful lot of trouble and I was very happy to be able to find the erroneous issues and get it straight for you.
A video which will eventually become available in Academies will also cover false TA handling.
Proposed in §I:1 is the following: “I found that issues on correcting false TA had been messed up.”.
Then §I:2 lays it out: “In both HCOB 29 Feb 1972R Revised 23 Nov 1973 and its successor HCOB 29 Feb 1972RA Revised 23 Apr 1975, careless reading could imply that the False TA Checklist was audited on the pc like any other prepared list.”.
A simple solution would have been to get people to define this word “Checklist”, after all the title of that HCOB is “False TA Checklist”. You just don't audit or assess a checklist! It is found in the ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’. This does not require any unusual solution! The solution chosen for however was (§I:3) “Accordingly, HCOB 13 Jan 1977 was directed to be written, and the full and entire checklist to be done by the auditor on the pc recompiled and updated. It is being issued as HCOB 21 Jan 1977.”. The latter noted HCOB was factually cancelling HCOB 29 Feb 72RA (Revised 23 Apr 75) “False TA Checklist”, reason given in the cancelling HCOB was: “as it is misleading and has caused some auditors to assess the pc on the meter to find the cause of false TA instead of checking directly with the pc.”. So, misleading it is then! Now, if this was being the case, would it not have been much easier to just take that original HCOB (now cancelled), and just note very clearly on the top somewhere, “This is a checklist and NOT an assessment list!”?
May be the reason for a new issue date was the fact that the original was not actually written by L. Ron Hubbard. HCOB 29 Feb 72R (Revised 23 Nov 73) “False TA Checklist” states that it was “Compiled by Flag XIIs”, initials given “JF”, which stands for Jeff Walker. An additional notice says “Revised by L. RON HUBBARD”. It being noted that the contribution of Jeff Walker here was not transferred into the new HCOB release.
The publication record of the new HCOB is also interesting and who was “directed” it “to be written”. Do note here that this HCOB is attributed as if written by L. Ron Hubbard. And the actual writer was denoted being an assistant.
HCOB 13 Jan 77
“Handling a False TA”
“As Assisted by Paulette Ausley”, composer initials “PA”
HCOB 13 Jan 77R
(Revised 13 Feb 77)
“Handling a False TA”
“Revised to show quotation marks by Paulette Ausley”, composer initials “PA”
“This revision removes the data not written by myself ...”; this time fully attributed to L. Ron Hubbard, every mention of Paulette Ausley had been removed
And here the publication record of the replacement HCOB:
HCOB 21 Jan 77
“False TA Checklist”
“Assisted by Paulette Ausley”, composer initials “PA”
HCOB 21 Jan 77R
“False TA Checklist”
“Revision assisted by Paulette Ausley and Rick Sheehy”, composer initials “PA” and “RS”
HCOB 21 Jan 77RA
(Revised 5 Mar 77)
“False TA Checklist”
“Revision assisted by Paulette Ausley and Rick Sheehy”, composer initials “PA” and “RS”
HCOB 21 Jan 77RB
(Re-Revised 25 May 80)
“False TA Checklist”
this time fully attributed to L. Ron Hubbard, every mention of Paulette Ausley and Rick Sheehy have been removed
Mind that Paulette Ausley (Cohen) was the very same person that was deemed responsible for the infamous ‘List 1 Project’ disaster that was ongoing during so about Apr 77-Feb 78. Which was about a misinterpretation of an E-meter read. See at “Section: ‘D: ROCK SLAMS’” at “Witch hunts and ‘List One’” in this study and “Witch hunts during the late ’70s: ‘List 1 Project’ & ‘Rock Slams’” (separate window).
And here she is writing about TA in these HCOBs here...
..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA’, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published.
If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on. assess, assessment: 1. This is running of a prepared list on a person connected to an E-meter and noting down those items that are giving a read on the E-meter. 2. Assessment isn't auditing, it is simply trying to locate something to audit. You say the word right to the pc's bank. (Class VIII No. 11) 3. Assessment is done by the auditor between the pc's bank and the meter. There is no need in assessing to look at the pc. Just note which item has the longest fall or Blowdown. The auditor looks at the meter while doing an assessment. (HCOB 21 May 69) 4. The whole action of obtaining a significant item from a pc. (HCOB 5 Dec 62) audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code. BPL:
‘Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPLs. By 1980 all BPLs had been revoked. BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCOBs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTBs. By 1980 all BTBs had been revoked. cramming:
A section in the Qualifications Division where a student is given high pressure instruction at his own cost after being found slow in study or when failing his exams. The cramming section teaches students what they have missed. This includes trained auditors who wish to be brought up-to-date on current technical developments. C/S:
‘Case/Supervisor’. 1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R) 2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545) CS-4:
‘Commodore Staff-Division 4’. Mainly concerned with external Sea Org actions like handling Scientology Orgs, missions to be send for correction and Sea Org matters. Division 4 is the Technical division of a Scientology organization. CS-4 is also referred to as ‘Training and Services Aide’. CS-5:
‘Commodore Staff-Division 5’. Mainly concerned with external Sea Org actions like handling Scientology Orgs, missions to be send for correction and Sea Org matters. Division 5 is the Qualifications division of a Scientology organization. CS-5 is also referred to as ‘Qual Aide’. D of P: The ‘Director of Processing’ will interview you on matters concerning your auditing progress and the scheduling of your auditing. D of TS (or DTS): The ‘Director of Tech(nical) Services’. E-meter:
‘Electro-meter’ or ‘Electropsycho-meter’. 1. It is an aid to the auditor (minister, student, pastoral counselor) in two-way communication locating areas of spiritual travail and indicating spiritual well-being in an area. (HCO PL 24 Sept 73 VII) 2. An electronic instrument for measuring mental state and change of state in individuals, as an aid to precision and speed in auditing. The E-meter is not intended or effective
for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary) 3. Used to verify the preclear's gain and register when each separate auditing action is ended. (HCOB 5 Apr 69R) 4.Electropsychometer. (HCOB 23 Aug 65) 5. The meter tells you what the preclear's mind is doing when the preclear is made to
think of something. The meter registers before the preclear becomes conscious of the datum. It is therefore a pre-conscious meter. It passes a tiny current through the preclear's body. This current is influenced by the mental masses, pictures, circuits and machinery. When the unclear pc thinks of something, these mental items shift and this registers on the meter. (E Meter Essentials, p. 8) Ethics Officer (EO, E/O):
The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing ethics codes. The purpose of the Ethics Officer is to help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done. (HCO PL 11 May 65, Ethics Officer Hat) Ex Dn or XDN:
Short for ‘Expanded Dianetics’. See at that entry in vocabulary. Expanded Dianetics (Ex Dn, XDN):
(1) “its results are freedom from cruel impulses and chronic unwanted conditions and ability to act in an optimum manner without restraint.”; (2) about the course: “Trains a person to understand and handle irrational behavior in others and chronic unwanted conditions.” (What Is Scientology? (1978), p 10 & 12) FDD:
‘Flag Divisional Directive’. The Flag Divisional Directive has been introduced with the purpose of communicating and pushing command policies, projects and programs. Its distribution is to SO and Scn orgs alike or as designated. 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. Grade Chart or Gradation Chart:
Classification, 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) 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) mission: 1. A mission could be defined for our use as a formally authorized individual or group sent to perform a specific task or duty sent by Operations. That would require, then, personnel selection, training, briefing, Mission Orders, dispatch and full admin. The difference between an errand and a mission is that missions are sent by an Operations Officer, errands are sent by anyone else. When an “errand” involves more than one day it should be handled by Operations, not by some other division. It then becomes a mission. (FO 2530R) 2. To handle downstat orgs and areas the Sea Org simply gets in ethics. This is done in such a way as to enable that org or area to get in tech, which makes it possible then for them to get in admin. In order to do this we send out missions. These have unlimited ethics powers and enough force to accomplish their purpose of getting in ethics. (FO 228) 3. A mission consists of a missionaire trained officer and missionaire trained personnel. (FO 1802) misunderstood(s) - Mis-U(s) - MU(s):
Refers to a word or words that have not been properly understood, and therefore one is unable to duplicate, understand or apply. MU(s), Mis-U(s):
‘Miss Understood(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary. original mimeo print-off: Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (separate window). pc(s):
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary. Pol Ltr:
‘HCO Policy Letter’. See at entry ‘HCO PL’ in vocabulary. PR:
‘Public Relations’. 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) PTS, PTSness:
‘potential trouble source’. 1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08) 2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I) 3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68) Rd:
Short for ‘Rundown’. See at that entry in vocabulary. Rock Slam (R/S): 1. A crazy, irregular, unequal, jerky motion of the needle narrow as one inch or as wide as three inches, happening several times a second. (E-Meter Essentials, p. 17). 2. As a meter representation, is the result of innumerable committed overts in a certain direction, and when you've got that certain direction isolated, that is to say the items against which the overts were committed isolated you then have of course a rock slam. (SH Spec 203, 6210C11)
Rock Slammer: It means it's somebody who gets a rock slam when you ask them: “Consider overts against Scn” and that broadens out of course against Ron, against the organization or against an auditor. (SH Spec 198, 6210C04) R/S:
An abbreviation for ‘Rock Slam’. See at that entry in vocabulary. Rundown:
A series of steps which are auditing actions and processes designed to handle a specific aspect of a case and which have a known end phenomena. Example: Introspection Rundown. (LRH Def. Notes) As a rule this mostly works as a corrective action and not as a mandatory part of the Bridge. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC):
This was a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprises of 447 lectures. Its result is a very adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. The materials are studied in chronological sequence so as to fully understand the development of the technology. This will make you a Class VI Auditor. Sec Check(ing):
Short for ‘security check(ing)’. Sec ED:
‘Secretarial Executive Directive’. A Sec ED is an early LRH ED.An Executive Directive that is written and issued by L. Ron Hubbard. stat(s):
Short for statistic(s). TA:
‘tone arm (action)’. See at that entry in vocabulary. ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOBs, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOBs are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window). Technical Volumes:
This refers to ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. See further at that entry in vocabulary. 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) TR:
‘training regimen or routine’. See at ‘training routine’ in vocabulary. training routine (TR): Training regimen or routine. Often referred to as a training drill. TRs are a precise training action putting a student through laid out practical steps gradient by gradient, to teach a student to apply with certainty what he has learned. In particular these are for training of an auditor in regards to communication. The ones presently in use are OT TR 0, TR 0 confronting, TR 0 bullbait, TR 1, 2, 2½, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 100, 100-A, 101, 102, 103 & 104. (for more data see ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ & HCOB 17 Jul 69RB) ‘W/O’: