ScientologyMyths.info updated with White Snow and Freaks…

I spent some hours on yesterday and today compiling, reading, understanding and summarizing documents and websites on three issues that are pretty hot right now: “Operation” Snow White, Operation Freakout and the IRS Tax Exemption of Scientology in the United States. And I added some more stuff…. check it out.

If you got feedback, no matter what it is: send me a mail!

– Louanne

108 Comments

  1. ScientologyMyths.info updated with White Snow and Freaks… | Scientology Myths Forum

  2. @Comment by Truth on January 21, 2009 10:32 pm

    Do you have a question?

    For some reason, I just can’t seem to find one here.

    Pat

  3. All these questions show anti-scios tactics.
    Post like crazy the prosecution, ignore the defence, make up a conspiracy and get as many people on the net to believe it.
    The cult of anti-scios are people who constantly use spamming and force to communicate thier beliefs. They mass post one side of a court case and completely ignore posting the defence, and romour “they won the case by buying out the courts”. They take out of context a huge volume of data and insist that the church clear it up for them. A church member breathes on them wrong they scream to high heaven that they committed a crime. They threaten to kill scios, graffitti churches, spam lies, threat to use bombs, assault scios and take to scientology to court with arguements based on lies, and stand there saying “we have done nothing wrong, its wrong of that scio to be mad at us”. They say “scios will take over the world stop them”, then they say “scientology is shrinking” when THEY feel like to create the maximum antagonism they can. The law is catching up with them. Time is healing the wounds they have so unnecessarily created.

  4. See? That’s what L. Ron Hubbard did with some phenomena and ended up with Scientology, except that there were no prayers or gods involved.

    Sure, except we have no evidence that Lafayette(TM) actually did that. As Louanne herself admits, the research data have never been published. And as far as I know, no Scientologist(TM) has ever bothered to establish, to the satisfaction of a neutral observer, that these results are real and are consistent, that Lafayette(TM)’s words are anything but the lies of a madman.

    Incidentally, Cthulhu isn’t a god. He’s a Great Old One. There’s a difference.

    Why is that, what drives you?

    The concern that you are pushing pseudoscience as opposed to real science or real religion, doing real and positive harm to both rationality and spirituality. (That Scientology(TM) has supernatural aspects is irrelevant: young-earth creationists and parapsychologists also speak on matters beyond this world, yet they are not called religion except by those who wish to denigrate religion.)

  5. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on July 12, 2008 2:47 am

    When you pray to Cthulhu and your enemies get devoured by giant tentacles that rise up from the sea without explanation, and when that happens consistently, the theories that explain how that’s not possible and the poorly observed or statistical “evidence” that prove those theories will fly out the window faster than you can say “bye”.

    That’s correct. That’s when you should start finding an explanation for the puzzling phenomenon that defies the theories that just flew out the window and perhaps see what else praying to Cthulhu could help you with.

    If you then find an explanation that predicts other effects that praying to Cthulhu could bring about and then you try it and it actually brings about the predicted effects, then you are probably onto something. If you keep doing that and refine your explanation and the technique of prayer in the process, you may achieve quite a level of understanding of the nature of prayer and Cthulhu and a level control over your environment that you may seem a wizard to those who have no clue what you’re doing.

    See? That’s what L. Ron Hubbard did with some phenomena and ended up with Scientology, except that there were no prayers or gods involved.

    You see there are people that dwell on abstractions and intellectual debate and there are those who seek results and ignore everything that fails to produce results.

    The latter are called “scientists.” The former are called “string theorists.”

    Yes, that’s a good example. On the same note, Scientology is about results, not about debating theories. Results require application and application requires understanding, which in turn requires answers, study and observation. That’s what we’re after and yet you’re trying to engage us in pointless debate.

    Why is that, what drives you?

  6. There are lectures available in any Church or Mission that you can listen to that give actual demonstrations.

    And there are videos that show Benny Hinn healing actual people miraculously. So?

    Seriously, you are right, the research data of Dianetics has never been released.

    And one has to wonder why. Did Lafayette(TM) choose to hide those data as a test of your faith? Or did he just forget to write them down?

    Amazing what these guys will admit to without the faintest idea they are committing crimes.

    Excuse me? I admitted to checking a book out of a library. That’s not a crime where I come from. Tell me, Gary: do you frequently misinterpret communications in such a negative fashion? ‘Cause I hear that’s a pretty anti-social(TM) trait.

    Statistical evidence is a very poor substitute for direct observation just as thinking is a very poor substitute for looking.

    Pardon me, Stan, but where do you think statistical and scientific evidence comes from, if not direct observation?

    When you audit someone and their “purely physical” illness disappears shortly afterwards without anyone treating that illness, and when that happens consistently, the theories that explain how that’s not possible and the poorly observed or statistical “evidence” that prove those theories will fly out the window faster than you can say “bye”.

    When you pray to Cthulhu and your enemies get devoured by giant tentacles that rise up from the sea without explanation, and when that happens consistently, the theories that explain how that’s not possible and the poorly observed or statistical “evidence” that prove those theories will fly out the window faster than you can say “bye”.

    You see there are people that dwell on abstractions and intellectual debate and there are those who seek results and ignore everything that fails to produce results.

    The latter are called “scientists.” The former are called “string theorists.” (Zing.)

  7. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on July 10, 2008 5:39 pm

    I don’t have to. The burden of proof is on the person claiming the connection. Go word-clear “null hypothesis.”

    Statistical evidence is a very poor substitute for direct observation just as thinking is a very poor substitute for looking.

    When you audit someone and their “purely physical” illness disappears shortly afterwards without anyone treating that illness, and when that happens consistently, the theories that explain how that’s not possible and the poorly observed or statistical “evidence” that prove those theories will fly out the window faster than you can say “bye”.

    You see there are people that dwell on abstractions and intellectual debate and there are those who seek results and ignore everything that fails to produce results.

    The latter usually gets somewhere while the former is busy improving their debating technique.

  8. Thanks for pointing that out, Louanne. (about the “virtual” library)

    Amazing what these guys will admit to without the faintest idea they are committing crimes.

    Pat

  9. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on July 11, 2008 12:16 am

    >All right. So I crack open my copy of Dianetics(TM), courtesy of the Streisand-Adelman Virtual Library, and here’s the closest I find to actual empiricism in the context of my quote:

    “Streisand-Adelman Virtual Library”, that’s a good one (waving index finger in anti-piracy fashion)…

    Seriously, you are right, the research data of Dianetics has never been released. That doesn’t change the fact that two people can get together with the book and start auditing as described. Requires some courage though.

    – Louanne

  10. Thanks for opening the book. I can see that you did.

    I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m not asking you to trust me. That’s not the way Scientology works. What’s true for you is true because you tried it and it worked. It doesn’t work on faith, just “did it work?”. If this isn’t true for you, I’m totally ok with that. I’m also not going to discuss the tech with you for this exact reason. It either works for you or it doesn’t. You want to be scientific about this? Sit down and audit someone on Dianetics without evaluating for them (telling them what to think) or invalidating their data and see what happens. That’s empirical. There are lectures available in any Church or Mission that you can listen to that give actual demonstrations. Just ask to hear the Dianetic Demonstrations (part of the Lecture set called Dianetics Lectures and Demonstrations) as a Tape Play service (I think they charge $2.50 per lecture for this). Go ahead. Test it. Be my guest.

    Pat

  11. Even the quote you give has empirical data, if you were to read it in context. I don’t think you have a problem reading, so why not do that?

    All right. So I crack open my copy of Dianetics(TM), courtesy of the Streisand-Adelman Virtual Library, and here’s the closest I find to actual empiricism in the context of my quote:

    “Two hundred and seventy-three individuals have been examined and treated, representing all the various types of inorganic mental illness and the many varieties of psycho-somatic ills. In each one this reactive mind was found operating, its principles unvaried.”

    That’s… it. That’s all. No footnotes, no references, no documentation to establish that this study occurred, let alone that it obeyed any standards of rigor or produced the claimed results. For comparison, let us examine a real scientific study:

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/15/1657

    Note the extensive documentation of the circumstances, methods, and results of the study. This allows other scientists to, well, study the study — and, if desired, to replicate it. This process is called “peer review,” and while it is not perfect, it is far more reliable than simply taking every man at his word who says “Dude, this totally works; trust me.”

  12. Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on July 10, 2008 5:39 pm

    Hey, this is what happens when you don’t read the books.

    The cases where these were proven empirically have been documented.

    Original Theses
    Evolution of a Science
    Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health
    Science of Survival

    Even the quote you give has empirical data, if you were to read it in context. I don’t think you have a problem reading, so why not do that?

    Pat

  13. Man, that’s truly amazing!

    I know, right? Science is fucking awesome.

    But tell me one thing. How do you prove that negative?

    I don’t have to. The burden of proof is on the person claiming the connection. Go word-clear “null hypothesis.”

    I mean, it’s not like it would be particularly difficult to demonstrate that Lafayette(TM)’s claims are true, if they are. Take two groups, a control group and an experimental group. Audit(TM) the experimental group, Scientology(TM) style, and let the control group simmer in its entheta(TM). Then see if there’s any difference in the average physical health of the two groups. Or, if you’re worried about the morality of exposing people to Scientology(TM), just run an observational study. Compare the health of wogs with that of Scientologists(TM). You can’t infer causation, but you can at least infer correlation.

    Unfortunately, my understanding is that Scientologists(TM) get sick and die just like everyone else. Even Lafayette(TM) himself suffered from allergies, as you admit. (Or was there an unresolved spiritual “thing” that was involved with that? And if so, how the heck did Lafayette(TM) still have an unresolved spiritual “thing”?)

  14. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on July 10, 2008 2:36 pm

    However, arthritis, bursitis, and myopia are purely physical conditions that have purely physical causes and purely physical effects. There’s no “psycho,” only “somatic.”

    No? You mean, like, you can actually see behind those “purely” physical conditions and determine whether spiritual factors have been involved in their development?

    Man, that’s truly amazing!

    But tell me one thing. How do you prove that negative?

  15. I see. You have an incorrect definition of psychosomatic.

    Actually, it’s because of the definition of “psychosomatic” that I was willing to spot you the other conditions on Lafayette(TM)’s list. Heck, I’ll even take back the common cold. Stress causes fatigue, fatigue weakens the immune system, and a weak immune system can’t fight off infection. It’s a bit contrived, but it’s still within the definition. However, arthritis, bursitis, and myopia are purely physical conditions that have purely physical causes and purely physical effects. There’s no “psycho,” only “somatic.”

    Nonetheless, even for those disorders that do have a mental component, it is utter charlatanism to claim that they can be cured, and that one can become immune to them, simply by treating that mental component, as Lafayette(TM) does:

    “Discharge the content of [the reactive] mind’s bank and the arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly and the whole catalog of ills goes away and stays away.”

    If there is any concrete evidence that the above statement is true, it is not to be found in Lafayette(TM)’s writings or even in his own life. (Physician, heal thyself!)

  16. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on July 9, 2008 3:23 pm

    >Possibly because several of the conditions he lists are not psychosomatic. Period. Arthritis, bursitis, myopia, the common cold: these are all physical conditions that have physical causes and physical effects. If they can be called “psychosomatic” at all in Scientology(TM), it is only in the trivial sense of a thetan(TM) “pulling in” its body’s physical circumstances, which I assume is not the intent here, since Lafayette(TM) had not even invented the thetan(TM) concept as of Dianetics(TM).

    I see. You have an incorrect definition of psychosomatic.

    Where did this idea come from that the illness isn’t real and doesn’t actually affect the body? How that happens is covered very thoroughly in the books.

    Try this:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychosomatic

    Pat

  17. You even wrote it in the above. Psychosomatic. Why is that so hard to grasp?

    Possibly because several of the conditions he lists are not psychosomatic. Period. Arthritis, bursitis, myopia, the common cold: these are all physical conditions that have physical causes and physical effects. If they can be called “psychosomatic” at all in Scientology(TM), it is only in the trivial sense of a thetan(TM) “pulling in” its body’s physical circumstances, which I assume is not the intent here, since Lafayette(TM) had not even invented the thetan(TM) concept as of Dianetics(TM).

    Maybe you should read the whole book instead of taking that one little section out of context to create enturbulation.

    Godwin forgive me, but I don’t have to read all of Mein Kampf to know that Hitler was a nutjob. Listen, John: the quoted passage makes it appear that Lafayette(TM) is a crackpot peddling pseudo-scientific miracles, and I have to wonder what possible context could contradict that interpretation.

    Further data on the State of Clear is available in the series of lectures and DVDs known as the Clearing Congress.

    Correction: further data on Lafayette(TM)’s opinions about the State of Clear(TM) is available in the Clearing Congress(TM). Now that may satisfy you, because of your faith in Lafayette(TM) as an inspired, infallible, inerrant authority, but it’s no good to the rest of us who are not similarly predisposed.

  18. We still come back to the same thing that’s been brought to your’s and other’s attention time and time again.

    You even wrote it in the above. Psychosomatic. Why is that so hard to grasp? Maybe you should read the whole book instead of taking that one little section out of context to create enturbulation. Further data on the State of Clear is available in the series of lectures and DVDs known as the Clearing Congress. Hopefully, you will start getting the idea that you need to read the whole thing in order to get understanding. Everytime you do this, you’re just telling us that you’re too lazy to read the book.

    Pat

  19. I guess that’s too simple an answer for you. No acronyms, no mysterious entities or phenomena… it’s just boring, isn’t it?

    It’s only boring to someone who has no interest in biology, and it has the distinct advantage of being true. But then, when LRH says this about the so-called “reactive mind”:

    What can it do? It can give a man arthritis, bursitis, asthma, allergies, sinusitis, coronary trouble, high blood pressure and so on, down the whole catalog of psychosomatic ills, adding a few more which were never specifically classifies as psychosomatic, such as the common cold.

    And it is the only thing in the human being which can produce these effects. It is the thing which uniformly brings them about.

    Discharge the content of this mind’s bank and the arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly and the whole catalog of ills goes away and stays away.

    Was he just wrong? If so, did he ever acknowledge that fact? If not, how do you reconcile this statement with the apparent fact that one’s MEST environment can cause allergies even in a so-called “Clear”?

  20. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 27, 2008 3:38 am

    Thus, if LRH no longer had his own reactive mind, one must ask: “Whose reactive mind was causing his allergies?” A PTS? An SP? A body thetan? Or can any old preclear induce reactive-mind effects in others?

    Whoa, are you really so confused? From your own sources:

    “Mr. Hubbard lived on a ranch with horses, cattle and other livestock—hence, the allergic reactions.”

    I guess that’s too simple an answer for you. No acronyms, no mysterious entities or phenomena… it’s just boring, isn’t it?

  21. Guess you’ll need to read the basic 17 basic books that come after Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health to find that out. If, after reading the 18 basic books, you still have these questions, feel free to ask. :)

    Y… you’re kidding, right? That’s your response? You expect me to slog through all 6542 pages of The Basics(TM) just to find the answer to one question?

    Look. I know you’re not allowed to tell me the answer yourself; “verbal tech” and all that. But you could at least point me to the chapter and verse that answers my question. Or would that violate the dogmas of “study tech” by allowing me to skip gradients?

  22. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 27, 2008 3:38 am
    >Clear is defined as one who no longer has his own reactive mind. Chew on that for awhile.

    >Right. And after LRH dropped his body, it was found to have traces of hydroxyzine (Vistaril(TM)), which, according to an official “Church” statement (see here), was being used to treat his allergies. Yet, in Dianetics, LRH asserts that allergies are caused exclusively by the reactive mind, and as far as I know this doctrine has never been repudiated.

    >Thus, if LRH no longer had his own reactive mind, one must ask: “Whose reactive mind was causing his allergies?” A PTS? An SP? A body thetan? Or can any old preclear induce reactive-mind effects in others?

    Guess you’ll need to read the basic 17 basic books that come after Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health to find that out. If, after reading the 18 basic books, you still have these questions, feel free to ask. :)

    Pat

  23. Clear is defined as one who no longer has his own reactive mind. Chew on that for awhile.

    Right. And after LRH dropped his body, it was found to have traces of hydroxyzine (Vistaril(TM)), which, according to an official “Church” statement (see here), was being used to treat his allergies. Yet, in Dianetics, LRH asserts that allergies are caused exclusively by the reactive mind, and as far as I know this doctrine has never been repudiated.

    Thus, if LRH no longer had his own reactive mind, one must ask: “Whose reactive mind was causing his allergies?” A PTS? An SP? A body thetan? Or can any old preclear induce reactive-mind effects in others?

  24. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 7, 2008 11:39 pm

    >And if so, why do so many people take advice on the OT levels from a man who never even hit Clear?

    Clear is defined as one who no longer has his own reactive mind. Chew on that for awhile.

    Pat

  25. That being said, let’s look at some statistics:

    # of Scientologists convicted of serious crimes: 100+

    More generalities?

    Who?

    # of Anonymous: unknown since they are anonymous. Once we know who they all are we’ll be able to track the criminal records.

    Pat

  26. Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation :) Anyway … nice blog to visit.

    cheers, Expounder.

  27. Also, can’t help but notice you dodged the hypocrisy question. Please tell me why it is okay to picket psychiatrists but not Scientology? That should be an easy enough answer…

  28. You’re deluded if you think that. You and i both knows what would happen if you did your own ‘investigation’ into the ‘tech.’ you folks are careful not to deify Elron, yet not even OTs are allowed to improve or advocate anything new. there’s zero room for independance there. (Hint: it’s not ‘independant’ to exchange one form of group-think for another)

    As for this crap about the ‘old guard,’ I’ve never met one. I won’t argue because you can’t argue, you can only spew talking point nonsense- there are no videos of meetings or events led by OG because it hasn’t happened. I’ve been to numerous events and I’ve never been told what to do by anyone, and never taken any direction from anyone. Afaik, they’ve had horrible experiences and have been treated terribly, i have compassion for them as victims and value their inside knowledge and insight. At the same time, I keep in mind these are people who at least at one time were impressionable enough to belong to a cult, so the idea that i would be LED by them is preposterous. if you wanted out, I’d do whatever it took to help, but i sure wouldn’t take dictation from you. No offense.

    “You break it and you get your ass kicked”

    Unless you’re a cult with more money than common sense. Then you sue, harass, blackmail and libel your small enemies and your bigger ones…well, let’s just say: I know what you did and you won’t get away with it forever.

    Then, you piss off the internet, and REALLY get your ass kicked,money or no money. Looking at your profit losses and damage control expenditures of late, it would seem obvious which ass is meeting the foot.

    That being said, let’s look at some statistics:

    # of Scientologists convicted of serious crimes: 100+
    # of Anonymous: 0

    Ironic, isn’t it?

  29. @Comment by anonymous on June 9, 2008 9:14 pm

    “@Louanne: you gotta lotta nerve calling anyone a “lemming” when you belong to a “faith” that won’t allow independant thought.”

    Where did you get this nonsense from? The most invidualistic people I ever met are Scientologists. If you like it or not, Scientology is mainly about helping people which is the motivation the of most people who become Scientologists.

    “As fior the “old guard,” they are not in charge.”

    Maybe not. But you guys are following their command anyway, go to meetings they plan and set up and do harassment parties – pardon, “raids” – which they lead. Don’t argue with me about that. It’s on video and all over Youtube. If you like it or not: they could not find a better personal army than you guys.

    “you might have surmised if you were the thinking type that anonymous doesn’t like being ordered about, and that’s what got you folks noticed in the fiorst place with all those ham-fisted lawsuits.”

    Yawn. The basic agreement in any society is the law. You follow and support it and you are ok. You break it and you get your ass kicked. If you disagree with that, you got a problem.

    – Louanne

  30. @assorted Scientologists: Do you realize the hypocrisy of insisting i be responsible for the (alleged) actions of people with whom i am loosely associated against a common threat, while at the same time denying any guilt-by-associated with criminals in your own tightly controlled organization? it’s a laughable and completely indefensible contradiction.

    @Hypocrites again: picketing following, and keeping track of a group you disapprove of, okay for Scientology but not for anyone else? if one of these Psychiatrists you picket were to follow you home, surreptitiously photograph you, publicly refer to you as a terrorist/porn hound/hacker/bomber you would accept that as due?

    @Pat: You’re being silly. A husband would certainly be expected to know his wife’s day-to-day activities especially if they are in service to a joint ’cause.’ given that Elron went postal on a cartoonist and ordered him ruined based on a mere joke, it’s hardly inconceivable he might be slightly more discomfited by a real critic.

    @Louanne: you gotta lotta nerve calling anyone a “lemming” when you belong to a “faith” that won’t allow independant thought. As fior the “old guard,” they are not in charge. you might have surmised if you were the thinking type that anonymous doesn’t like being ordered about, and that’s what got you folks noticed in the fiorst place with all those ham-fisted lawsuits.

    @veritas: I dunno what the argument is but life expectancy is a game of averages. A LE of fifty doesn’t mean everyone died at fifty, it means lots of people died in infancy or childhood. It’s not remarkable in the least for LRH to have been seventy-something when he died. Once he reached adulthood, his survival chances skyrocketed like everyone elses. Many many more people lived into their nineties or past from LRH’s age group without the “benefit” of dianetics. jack LaLanne, for example, was born 3 yrs after Elron but has 22 years on him. he looks a lot better, too.

  31. George Burns was born in 1896, died in 1996. He smoked, he drank. What’s the life expectancy convo about here??????

  32. Point goes to Veritas. Life expectancies are listed from time of birth, not time of death.

    As for the allergies, I think LRH mentioned something about that. From Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health, describing the reactive mind:

    “What can it do? It can give a man arthritis, bursitis, asthma, allergies,…

    And it is the only thing in the human being which can produce these effects. It is the thing which uniformly brings them about.”

    Emphasis mine. Does that mean that LRH was never able to fully overcome his reactive mind? And if so, why do so many people take advice on the OT levels from a man who never even hit Clear?

  33. Guy- the report I read said ‘trace amount’ quote. Also they said it was for allergies and I looked it up and it was so.

    I know he died in ’86 your the one who has the dates mixed, I clearly said born 1911 and died 1986.
    I have proof that he lived longer than average life expectancy for his time- do you care to dispute that?

  34. @ Comment by Guy on June 7, 2008 4:27 am

    “he died with copious amounts of psychotropic drugs in his system.”

    Nonsense. What advantage do you have from spreading lies about Hubbard?

    – Louanne

  35. Veritas, you read it wrong. Hubbard died in 1986, not 1911, at about the average life expectancy. he died with copious amounts of psychotropic drugs in his system.

  36. Hey Lu, way to delete my post. Putting it back up:

    “@Comment by T on June 2, 2008 9:30 am

    Do you want to tone down that not-answering-my-questions a little bit?

    I’m not forcing my views on anyone. Rather, I’m forcing your views to face some much-needed scrutiny. If you don’t like it, you’re free to leave.”

    Anyway, BACK ON TOPIC!

    “He also did not prevent jerks from being born,”

    Well, except for the forced abortions in the Sea Org.

    “He was not around and you weren’t either.”

    True. On the other hand, the Guardian’s Office wasn’t undermining the United States government in my name or under my orders, so I didn’t have quite as much incentive to keep an eye on it.

    “several sections of the GO network went off the rails and criminal acts were done”

    And the failure to prevent this subversion of the Guardian’s Office, by Lafayette and/or Mary Sue Hubbard, speaks directly to the ineffectiveness of PTS/SP Tech. If Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard couldn’t discover the SPs right in their midst, then there is no hope for the rest of us to shatter suppression by their methods. That is my point, and that is its relevance to this site.

    Scientology(TM) Myth: PTS/SP Tech works.
    Scientology(TM) Fact: Yeah, not so much.

    “it was taken as a lesson learned for the current Church structure and operation.”

    Oh? And what lesson is that, pray tell? Don’t get caught?

  37. @ Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 31, 2008 10:45 pm

    “The point is what didn’t happen. LRH did not use the tech to discover and handle the suppressive persons you and Louanne claim were in the Guardian’s Office.”

    He also did not prevent jerks from being born, so shame on him? No. He was not around and you weren’t either. What else is there to say? That several sections of the GO network went off the rails and criminal acts were done? That has been said times and times again and yes, it was taken as a lesson learned for the current Church structure and operation. I am not going to waste more time on this issue. This is not a historian club.

    – L

  38. @ Comment by T on June 3, 2008 6:29 am

    “What syntax do you use for text decoration like bold face or italics in the comments? HTML? BBCode? Something else?”

    HTML works pretty ok

    – L

  39. What syntax do you use for text decoration like bold face or italics in the comments? HTML? BBCode? Something else?

  40. Hey Pat could I have your opinion on this-

    In a more general context I agree that undisputably the christ figure long predates christianity but my point is what could explain lrh’s change in view on the matter do you think?

  41. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 2, 2008 4:13 am

    Do you want to tone down that hostility a little bit?

    You don’t sound like someone seeking to understand but rather like someone trying to force their views on others.

  42. The specifics are in Lu’s post about the GO on scientologymyths.info
    The specifics are in Lu’s post about the GO on scientologymyths.info
    The specifics are in Lu’s post about the GO on scientologymyths.info
    The specifics are in Lu’s post about the GO on scientologymyths.info

    You’re lying, you’re lying, you’re lying, and you’re lying. Respectively. The only persons named in Lu’s post are L. Ron Hubbard (5 times) and David Miscavige (2 times).

    His job was never to run the Church. This is why the HASI was established.
    He considered himself the “Finder of Lost Tech”.

    Ah. So he never assumed any earthly responsibility for the church. I guess it would be hard to give up something you never had. Again, seems like a really stupid idea, but I won’t judge.

    Also, lost by whom? Did someone else figure out the secret to clearing body thetans before LRH did?

    That is crazy. I agree. He was neither her Ethics Officer or her auditor. You can’t seem to accept that these “hats” weren’t his.

    So a man isn’t allowed to help his wife, and a woman isn’t allowed to help her husband, unless he/she is her/his designated auditor or Ethics Officer? Good Lord, not even the Catholic Church has such a strict chain of command. On the other hand, businesses, governments, and militaries do maintain a rigid hierarchy, complete with official channels.

    Ohhh.

    Do you think that she was telling him what was going on while he was off doing his research?

    I don’t see why not. “How was your day?” “How are things?” “How are you?” These are common questions in the real world. Do they not exist on Planet Scilon?

    Described above where?

    In my quotes from Lu’s article, which in turn were quoted from the Scientology(TM) website.

    You’re a trained ethics specialist who knows the PTS/SP tech? You can evaluate that one is PTS or SP?

    Pardon the cliché, but it doesn’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. She went from head of the GO to convicted felon. Seems like a classic roller-coaster to me.

    Who was the SP she was PTS to? And what was happening with her that made her PTS?

    Excellent question. I’ll have to defer to your wisdom on this one, since apparently you know.

    “Well, that’s not true since it was because of the tech that we found out WHO were doing the suppressive acts and set up things to prevent them ever happening again.”

    You admit that there were SPs in the Guardian’s Office. So who were they?

    Nyoro~n.

    Amusing. You can’t even say it.

    Actually, I can say “time, place, form, and event” just fine. I just choose not to say “time, place, form, and event” because “time, place, form, and event” is a rather cumbersome phrase and, unlike you, I find no pleasure in repeating rote formulae like “time, place, form, and event.” Frankly, my misspelling of “time, place, form, and event” was intentional, signifying the fact that after reading “time, place, form, and event” so many times, the words start to run together and lose all meaning. Nonetheless, if you insist that I show respect to your ritual chant of “time, place, form, and event,” I suppose I could oblige.

    Also, time, place, form, and event.

  43. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 1, 2008 4:11 am
    >>Gee, aren’t you the clever dude. How did you get that from what I said?

    >>“He had his own hat. He turned over his Executive Director post in 1965 so he could continue his research, 14 years before this incident. … He didn’t run the Church.”

    If his job was to run the “Church,” and he quit that job, it follows that he no longer had a job with the “Church.”

    His job was never to run the Church. This is why the HASI was established.
    He considered himself the “Finder of Lost Tech”.

    He was the Founder til the day he died. He continued his research.

    You should read this site before making anymore such statements, OKIAN.
    http://www.lronhubbard.org.

    >>Do you have some misogynistic idea that women are owned by their husbands and have to account to them even in their jobs outside the home?

    >No, I just have this crazy idea that one’s spouse, as the most intimate partner a person can have, has both the privilege and the responsiblity to help one with his or her problems, even if those problems happen to have their source outside the home. I assume that this would apply to handling a PTS condition, though I suppose LRH might have been hesitant to offer such a service pro bono, even for his wife. After all, we don’t want any nasty precedents being set, do we?

    That is crazy. I agree. He was neither her Ethics Officer or her auditor. You can’t seem to accept that these “hats” weren’t his. Do you think that she was telling him what was going on while he was off doing his research?

    >>Was she PTS? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Who was she PTS to at the time?

    >The persons described above are evidently suppressive, judging by their anti-social behaviors, and by virtue of her connection to them (as their supervisor), Mary Sue was a PTS Type One.

    Described above where?

    You’re a trained ethics specialist who knows the PTS/SP tech? You can evaluate that one is PTS or SP? Who was the SP she was PTS to? And what was happening with her that made her PTS?

    >Q.E.D. Unfortunately, as noted above, your official sources are less than forthcoming with details re: vime, flace, porm, and etent.

    Amusing. You can’t even say it.

    >>Your first falsehood is that LRH should have known that the GO under his wife’s supervision (and autonomous, at that).

    >If the GO was suppressing Mary Sue, then yes, he should have known that fact, by virtue of his connection to her.

    Who said the GO was suppressing her? Where did that idea come from?

    Pat

  44. Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 1, 2008 3:56 am
    >I really think that it comes back to the fact that you are incapable of being specific.

    >It is difficult to be specific when your own sources fail to provide such specifics.

    >>“The GO had been infiltrated and set up to fail in its mission to protect the Church.”

    >By whom?

    The specifics are in Lu’s post about the GO on scientologymyths.info

    >>“It was influenced to abandon its original mandate and established itself as an independent, autonomous unit, answerable to nobody.”

    >By whom?

    The specifics are in Lu’s post about the GO on scientologymyths.info

    >“It was isolated not only from the mainstream activity and management of the Church, but even from the Founder of the religion.”

    By whom?

    The specifics are in Lu’s post about the GO on scientologymyths.info

    >>“Some GO executives actually tried to gain exclusive control over Church corporate and financial affairs.”

    >Who?

    The specifics are in Lu’s post about the GO on scientologymyths.info

    Pat

  45. Gee, aren’t you the clever dude. How did you get that from what I said?

    “He had his own hat. He turned over his Executive Director post in 1965 so he could continue his research, 14 years before this incident. … He didn’t run the Church.”

    If his job was to run the “Church,” and he quit that job, it follows that he no longer had a job with the “Church.” So while he was off inventing new ways to blow body thetans, the actual responsibility for the “Church” lay in other hands.

    Do you have some misogynistic idea that women are owned by their husbands and have to account to them even in their jobs outside the home?

    No, I just have this crazy idea that one’s spouse, as the most intimate partner a person can have, has both the privilege and the responsiblity to help one with his or her problems, even if those problems happen to have their source outside the home. I assume that this would apply to handling a PTS condition, though I suppose LRH might have been hesitant to offer such a service pro bono, even for his wife. After all, we don’t want any nasty precedents being set, do we?

    Was she PTS? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Who was she PTS to at the time?

    The persons described above are evidently suppressive, judging by their anti-social behaviors, and by virtue of her connection to them (as their supervisor), Mary Sue was a PTS Type One. Q.E.D. Unfortunately, as noted above, your official sources are less than forthcoming with details re: vime, flace, porm, and etent.

    Your first falsehood is that LRH should have known that the GO under his wife’s supervision (and autonomous, at that).

    If the GO was suppressing Mary Sue, then yes, he should have known that fact, by virtue of his connection to her.

    Your second is that you have MSH PTS before the out-ethics in the GO was discovered.

    Do you mean to say that one is not PTS until one is declared as such? I suppose you’d have me believe that anti-social personalities don’t exist but for SP Declares either.

  46. I really think that it comes back to the fact that you are incapable of being specific.

    It is difficult to be specific when your own sources fail to provide such specifics.

    “The GO had been infiltrated and set up to fail in its mission to protect the Church.”

    By whom?

    “It was influenced to abandon its original mandate and established itself as an independent, autonomous unit, answerable to nobody.”

    By whom?

    “It was isolated not only from the mainstream activity and management of the Church, but even from the Founder of the religion.”

    By whom?

    “Some GO executives actually tried to gain exclusive control over Church corporate and financial affairs.”

    Who?

  47. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 1, 2008 1:06 am
    >>He turned over his Executive Director post in 1965 so he could continue his research, 14 years before this incident.

    So the founder and spiritual head of the “Church” of Scientology(TM) absolved himself of all earthly responsibility for the organization? Seems like a really stupid thing to do, but okay.

    Gee, aren’t you the clever dude. How did you get that from what I said?

    Anti-social characteristic #2:
    Alters, to worsen, communication when relaying …..

    >Oh, and do word-clear “research” one of these days. You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

    It means exactly what it means. Do you have a confusion? Maybe you should look it up in the dictionary. Here’s a link you can use if you don’t have one:

    http://www.dictionary.com

    >It wasn’t his job to supervise his wife’s work.

    >Even if this were true, it doesn’t change the fact that she was his wife and he was her husband. If she was PTS (and for several years, at that), he would have had countless opportunities to discover this condition and to assist her in handling it. Or is helping people overcome suppression not a part of Scientology(TM)?

    Why? Do you have some misogynistic idea that women are owned by their husbands and have to account to them even in their jobs outside the home? Was she PTS? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Who was she PTS to at the time? Exact time, place, form and event. Come on.

    >>Why would he prevent the criminal investigation of MSH and the others?

    >Let me rephrase. LRH did nothing to prevent the criminal and suppressive acts that precipitated the investigations, indictments, and convictions. And after those acts were committed, there is no evidence that he cooperated with the authorities to discover and bring to justice the parties responsible.

    >The key is this: in all cases where the tech could have helped, it failed. That is, assuming you’re telling the truth about the suppression in the GO. If Dynamite, Freakout, and Snow White were official policy, then there is no issue.

    >But those are the only options. Either the “Church” was corrupt or Scientology(TM) is a sham.

    Your logic escapes me. You can’t have your premise based on general false data then come up with a good conclusion. Your first falsehood is that LRH should have known that the GO under his wife’s supervision (and autonomous, at that). Your second is that you have MSH PTS before the out-ethics in the GO was discovered, and then make an illogical corollary.

    I really think that it comes back to the fact that you are incapable of being specific. Then again, I could be wrong. Can you do it?

    Pat

  48. He turned over his Executive Director post in 1965 so he could continue his research, 14 years before this incident.

    So the founder and spiritual head of the “Church” of Scientology(TM) absolved himself of all earthly responsibility for the organization? Seems like a really stupid thing to do, but okay.

    Oh, and do word-clear “research” one of these days. You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

    It wasn’t his job to supervise his wife’s work.

    Even if this were true, it doesn’t change the fact that she was his wife and he was her husband. If she was PTS (and for several years, at that), he would have had countless opportunities to discover this condition and to assist her in handling it. Or is helping people overcome suppression not a part of Scientology(TM)?

    Why would he prevent the criminal investigation of MSH and the others?

    Let me rephrase. LRH did nothing to prevent the criminal and suppressive acts that precipitated the investigations, indictments, and convictions. And after those acts were committed, there is no evidence that he cooperated with the authorities to discover and bring to justice the parties responsible.

    The key is this: in all cases where the tech could have helped, it failed. That is, assuming you’re telling the truth about the suppression in the GO. If Dynamite, Freakout, and Snow White were official policy, then there is no issue. But those are the only options. Either the “Church” was corrupt or Scientology(TM) is a sham.

  49. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 31, 2008 10:45 pm

    There’s one specific. Good job.

    >But that is not the point. The point is what didn’t happen. LRH did not use the tech to discover and handle the suppressive persons you and Louanne claim were in the Guardian’s Office. He did not use it to discover and handle Mary Sue’s PTS Type One condition, which she was under by definition if she were connected to suppressive subordinates. And he did not use it to prevent the criminal investigation, indictment, and conviction of Mary Sue and ten other Guardian’s Office officials

    Why would LRH do that? He had his own hat. He turned over his Executive Director post in 1965 so he could continue his research, 14 years before this incident. It wasn’t his job to supervise his wife’s work. He didn’t run the Church. Louanne has put that data on Myths for you, here:

    http://www.scientologymyths.info/guardians-office/

    Why would he prevent the criminal investigation of MSH and the others?

    One of his first policies was for us to live within the laws of the land. They violated that and have suffered the consequences of their actions.

    Is that it? This is the “abuse”?

    Pat

  50. Oy.

    The time: October 26, 1979.
    The place: The United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
    The event: Mary Sue Hubbard pleading guilty to “conspiracy to obstruct justice and other offenses.”
    The form: signing an uncontested stipulation of evidence set forth by federal prosecutors.

    But that is not the point. The point is what didn’t happen. LRH did not use the tech to discover and handle the suppressive persons you and Louanne claim were in the Guardian’s Office. He did not use it to discover and handle Mary Sue’s PTS Type One condition, which she was under by definition if she were connected to suppressive subordinates. And he did not use it to prevent the criminal investigation, indictment, and conviction of Mary Sue and ten other Guardian’s Office officials.

  51. @Comment by Nobody on May 31, 2008 9:31 pm
    >What generalities? Okay has been pretty specific.

    >LRH, Mary Sue Hubbard, the US Government are all specific. Now if Okay had said “governments” and left it at that, that would be a generality.

    What?! Try this: Truth is the exact time, place, form and event.
    Who (which person) said it? Who (which specific person) did it? When did they (the specific person in my first question) do it? What form did this doing take from this who? What was the exact event? Remember now, you said LRH, MSH and US Government.

    Pat

  52. What generalities? Okay has been pretty specific.

    LRH, Mary Sue Hubbard, the US Government are all specific. Now if Okay had said “governments” and left it at that, that would be a generality.

  53. More generalities? You’re having a tough time being specific, aren’t you?

    Pat

  54. Well, that’s not true since it was because of the tech that we found out WHO were doing the suppressive acts and set up things to prevent them ever happening again.

    Bull honkey. Assuming LRH was using standard tech, he could have (and should have) discovered and handled the suppression in the GO as soon as Mary Sue went PTS. Instead, the suppression wasn’t “discovered” until well after the government of the United States of America started throwing people in the clink. That’s not shattering suppression to reach your optimum pattern; that’s sacrificing scapegoats to cover your MEST asses.

    And how exactly were things set up to prevent another scandal? What, instead of an unaccountable GO, you now have an unaccountable RTC? Yeah, that’s so much better.

  55. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 31, 2008 6:34 am

    It’s a legitimate concern. If Dynamite, Freakout, and Snow White were the result of suppressive infiltration, then the tech is useless for handling SPs and PTSness. On the other hand, if they were the consequence of official policy, then we must admit that the Church(TM)’s leadership, including LRH himself, was corrupt at the time. The latter is nothing to be ashamed of. No religious leader is perfect (with the alleged exception of Jesus). I mean, Moses killed a guy, for crying out loud.

    Well, that’s not true since it was because of the tech that we found out WHO were doing the suppressive acts and set up things to prevent them ever happening again. I notice that despite the fact that you’ve been informed about the truth of these areas that you still like to use them as a “soapbox” item, attempting to continue the propaganda. What exactly is your agenda here? Truth is not part of it, is it?

    Pat

  56. How many Anons died yet? Or were murdered?

    None yet. The masks have done their job so far. Back on topic:

    “[I]f Mary Sue was being suppressed by her underlings at the GO, how is it that L. Ron, as her supervisor and as her husband, failed to notice her PTSness until after the wogs found her guilty? And if the tech was unable to help LRH himself diagnose and handle his wife’s condition, why should we expect it to help any of us?”

    It’s a legitimate concern. If Dynamite, Freakout, and Snow White were the result of suppressive infiltration, then the tech is useless for handling SPs and PTSness. On the other hand, if they were the consequence of official policy, then we must admit that the Church(TM)’s leadership, including LRH himself, was corrupt at the time. The latter is nothing to be ashamed of. No religious leader is perfect (with the alleged exception of Jesus). I mean, Moses killed a guy, for crying out loud.

  57. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 30, 2008 5:28 am

    >>Well, such statements normally start a deadly war.
    >Except that the only killers are on your side. R2-45, “quietly and without sorrow”, “sudden and abrupt deletion”, et cetera.

    Bla, bla, bla, no substance as usual. How many Anons died yet? Or were murdered? They don’t know each other (no name, mask, not identifiable), they might not even tell anybody about their Anon membership. Isn’t that an “ideal” setting for what you say?

    – Louanne

  58. @Comment by Nobody on May 29, 2008 10:12 pm

    “As far as “flash raids,” it really depends on what’s happening at them. Passing out fliers? I’m fine with that. That’s legal. Yelling, shouting, intimidation? No, I would not be happy with that.”

    None of the raids I saw were simple “passing out flyers” events but lots of yelling and intimidation, certainly not an attempt to talk to somebody.

    “As for one on one conversation with Scientologists? Hell yeah! I’m in favor of that. That’s why I’m on this blog!”

    Noted that, thanks.

    “Also, how is the old guard financed by us?”

    Ongoing collections for people to go to UK, they sell DVDs with venom about Scientology, they get their trips financed and invitations for lectures organized.
    They won’t ever make a living of it but if several days of your week are financed by “supporters” and your website makes more money due to clicks, well then
    Anonymous is financing those people. I bet some of the mods of the current “hype” websites are actually living of it.

    – Louanne

  59. Well, such statements normally start a deadly war.

    Except that the only killers are on your side. R2-45, “quietly and without sorrow”, “sudden and abrupt deletion”, et cetera.

    No problem here. You’re right, that is non-sequitor, isn’t it? Husbands being responsible for what their wives do at work.

    But when the husband is also the wife’s boss, as LRH was, then he has the privilege of being in communication with her 24/7, at work and at home. So then, if Mary Sue was being suppressed by her underlings at the GO, how is it that L. Ron, as her supervisor and as her husband, failed to notice her PTSness until after the wogs found her guilty? And if the tech was unable to help LRH himself diagnose and handle his wife’s condition, why should we expect it to help any of us?

  60. Well, I’m not an official rep for Anonymous (there aren’t any) so take what I say as only applying to me as a person who is anonymous (little “a”).

    As far as “flash raids,” it really depends on what’s happening at them. Passing out fliers? I’m fine with that. That’s legal. Yelling, shouting, intimidation? No, I would not be happy with that. I haven’t participated in any flash raids (I don’t live near a large org) so I don’t really have first hand experience with them. I’m in favor of the free flow of information, so if that’s the “flash raid” goal, I’m in favor of it.

    As for one on one conversation with Scientologists? Hell yeah! I’m in favor of that. That’s why I’m on this blog! As long as the group is meeting in a neutral area, I see no problem with that. I wish that’d happen more often, actually.

    Also, how is the old guard financed by us? I haven’t given them a cent. The only money I spent was on a sign, which cost around $3. All that money went to the local art supply store. Unless you count adsense?

    Also, I dont know who or what Ananada is, but that same definition of cult is on many, MANY websites. Here are a few (edited so that this doesn’t get stuck in no mans land of this blog):
    http://www. csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
    http://www. prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/uploads/CultCharacteristics.htm
    http:// surrealist.org/betrayalofthespirit/cult.html

    All of those check lists are almost identical, so if you had an issue with the original source, there are a few others that agree with that one. Also, wikipedia.

  61. @Comment by Nobody on May 29, 2008 12:43 am

    “What the hell is a “Shore Story?””

    I picked it up from another poster here and did some research on it. It means “something told or published with the purpose to maintain a certain image”. It is not a Scientology term – though EA might think that – but turns out to be a PR term. “Image” here is the reputation of an individual or a group. Can be bad, too, like telling a lie to cover up the truth and erect a PR facade instead but that is not part of the definition. What I meant is that what Anon says in public is not what Anon says in private is not what Anon does for real.

    “All I can tell you is that it’s true. I have never met any of these people in real life (excluding the protest). I don’t have their names or phone numbers. I don’t even have their email addresses. All I can do is propose the suggestion of being peaceful and hope that others listen.”

    Are you in agreement that “flash raids” should be done to provoke and irritate? Or is your advise that a dialog would be more fruitful? You see, Anon behavior and Anon PR do not fit. They say they want “to reach out to Scientologists” and what they do is to invalidate, harass and provoke Scientologists. WFT? Can some sociology student talk to these guys, please…?

    “Also, I could leave whenever I want to. Since nobody knows who I am, I can’t get “owned” by anyone. How can they “own” somebody they don’t know? How can I “own” somebody I’ve never met and have no contact with outside of forum boards/ blogs? Why would I want to anyway?”

    Because you don’t like being brainwashed with false propaganda. Maybe. Or the “group feeling” overrides rational thoughts. You decide.

    “Here is a good checklist of the modern definition of a cult: http://www.anandainfo.com/cult_checklist.html

    An anti-Ananda site…. facepalm.jpg

    “2 We don’t make money, though I’ll give you that we love when others join the cause.”

    YOU might not make any money, but the Old Guard does. They are really happy to be financed by you guys (nobody else does).

    “11 Hell no. I’m graduating college in a week. I haven’t given up a thing.”

    Well, your vita is stained now with the persecution of or support of the persecution of a religious minority.

    “Again, I haven’t once called or implied that Scientology is a cult.”

    Thanks, that’s fair and I do appreciate a honest exchange of ideas and opinions.

    “I just wanted to know your feeling on other groups that have been called as such after reading what you said about the term on your own website.”

    I thought I take it up on the site because the word “cult” is used a lot these days with the sole purpose to invalidate (as I said the definition has morphed into that in the past years). No group should be called “cult” in a fair discussion but the groups’ behavior and factual activities should be the sole basis for any “judgment”.

    – Louanne

  62. @Comment by TheOldGaurd on May 28, 2008 9:02 pm

    “The only “old gaurd” that has had a major impact was Mark Bunker and he basically said “don’t do anything illegal”.”

    He didn’t say that. He said “don’t make martyrs out of the Scientologists”.

    – L

  63. @Comment by OMG on May 28, 2008 6:09 pm

    “PEOPLE SUBMIT A PROPOSAL AND/OR AN IDEA AND IF THE WHOLE DOES NOT AGREE WE SCRAP IT”

    Just like any other group. And if the proposal is supported by the “Old Guard” you lemmings run. If not, you wait for some grandma or grandpa meme to say something.
    If no big guy says anything you are confused, mess up your themes and fail. I am not making this up. I had four months to observe it.

    – Louanne

  64. What the hell is a “Shore Story?”

    All I can tell you is that it’s true. I have never met any of these people in real life (excluding the protest). I don’t have their names or phone numbers. I don’t even have their email addresses. All I can do is propose the suggestion of being peaceful and hope that others listen.

    Also, I could leave whenever I want to. Since nobody knows who I am, I can’t get “owned” by anyone. How can they “own” somebody they don’t know? How can I “own” somebody I’ve never met and have no contact with outside of forum boards/ blogs? Why would I want to anyway? My issue here is with the abuse going on within the CoS.

    Here is a good checklist of the modern definition of a cult:
    http://www.anandainfo.com/cult_checklist.html
    1 Has no leaders, it doesn’t apply.
    2 We don’t make money, though I’ll give you that we love when others join the cause.
    3 Questioning, doubt, and dissent is ENCOURAGED. There is a broad diversity of thought.
    4 Also doesn’t apply.
    5 Nope. That’s where the term “the hive mind” comes from.
    6 No leaders…
    7 I don’t know about the other people in Anonymous, but I have a good life out in “the rest of society.”
    8 See 1,5, 6
    9 Not that I’ve experienced.
    10 See, 1, 5, 6. 8
    11 Hell no. I’m graduating college in a week. I haven’t given up a thing.
    12 hahaha, I wouldn’t want to! If the stereotype is true, that would be some horribly disgusting living conditions. Again, I don’t know these people.

    Again, I haven’t once called or implied that Scientology is a cult. I just wanted to know your feeling on other groups that have been called as such after reading what you said about the term on your own website. If by merely discussing the term upsets you, we can drop it, but I only brought it up because of your site. I’m sorry.

  65. The only “old gaurd” that has had a major impact was Mark Bunker and he basically said “don’t do anything illegal”. Anonymous isn’t that secretive persay you can find most things on all the public websites maybe your problem is you are too lazy. As a side note, on enturb ideas from “the old gaurd” get shot down because they aren’t possible or aren’t agreed with. All anonymous has been doing are protests and flash raids so I guess we let them pick the date? I don’t know how they could be “controlling that” and most of their posts/messages say stuff like “good job, they are running around crazy…. etc.” Give me significant proof that there is control and I might, just MIGHT believe because hell Paul Fetch can say he is leader all he wants but he decides nothing for us, and I do mean nothing.

    And at least the “Cult of Anonymous” doesn’t charge you money or force you to disconnect *cough cough*

  66. a small aside, if you insist on calling me a member of a cult it is whithin your right to do so however that only proves to the academia that you do not understand the definition
    btw im an athiest

  67. OMG HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU!

    WE ARE A COLLECTIVE!
    WE HAVE NO LEADERS
    WE ARE LIKE THE BORG
    ONE MIND MANY VOICES

    FUCKING CHRIST GET THE HINT

    PEOPLE SUBMIT A PROPOSAL AND/OR AN IDEA AND IF THE WHOLE DOES NOT AGREE WE SCRAP IT

  68. @Comment by Louanne on May 28, 2008 4:12 pm

    >Pat, OKIAN, may I propose to end this fruitless discussion about whether a husband is responsible for the job activities of his wife or not. OKIAN, quoting Wikipedia pages which you could have written yourself is unacceptable. But you finally dropped your mask here:

    No problem here. You’re right, that is non-sequitor, isn’t it? Husbands being responsible for what their wives do at work.

    Pat

  69. Comment by Louanne on May 28, 2008 4:15 pm
    >Some of these Anonymous goons still don’t get what an SP is (most likely they give a shit but I am ignoring this for now).

    >So I updated the definition of SP and PTS on the site:

    >http://scientologymyths.info/definitions/suppressive-person.php

    >The source for all of that is the book “Introduction to Scientology Ethics”.

    >- Louanne

    Thanks, Louanne

    Pat

  70. Some of these Anonymous goons still don’t get what an SP is (most likely they give a shit but I am ignoring this for now).

    So I updated the definition of SP and PTS on the site:

    http://scientologymyths.info/definitions/suppressive-person.php

    The source for all of that is the book “Introduction to Scientology Ethics”.

    – Louanne

  71. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 26, 2008 4:06 am

    Pat, OKIAN, may I propose to end this fruitless discussion about whether a husband is responsible for the job activities of his wife or not. OKIAN, quoting Wikipedia pages which you could have written yourself is unacceptable. But you finally dropped your mask here:

    “Don’t be silly. We’ll be referring to me as “that guy who attacked Scientology(TM).” Since your organization will be nothing but a memory.”

    Well, such statements normally start a deadly war. You are a coward, OKIAN, hiding behind anonymity to spill venom on good intended people. Bring on factual statements or piss off.

    – Louanne

  72. @Comment by Nobody on May 26, 2008 3:30 am

    ““Sectarian.” That’s certainly one I haven’t heard before.”

    “Cult” would fit better. You know, the 2008 understanding of the word, like “hidden” (masked), “secretive” (anonymous), “sinister” (directed at destruction). And those who try to leave the group get owned. That’s “Anonymous”, isn’t it. Oh, and not to forget, Anonymous is blindly following orders – at least the ground troops in front of our buildings. They come when told to and they run away when the leader calls it off. The only part which does not fully fit “Cult” is that you have more than one guru but three or four and their minions who handle the thinking for you.

    “Well, I can guarantee you that you are wrong on that assumption based only on the fact that you’re speaking in generalities. “They” are extremely diverse. Some may be intolerant of Scientology, but others aren’t. As I’ve stated, I’m one person who has no problem with any of the Scientology belief system, just the crimes and questionable policies of the CoS. But I feel like I’ve gone over this before already.”

    That’s your “shore story” and it does not run well because in reality most of the Anonymous members are geared for intimidation, harassment and destruction.

    – Louanne

  73. @Comment by TFW on May 27, 2008 11:46 am

    Thanks, that is interesting and I must confess I never finished reading the book(let).
    Nibs (LRH jr.) has retracted a lot of his earlier statements in the media and in court, so I am very curious where he said that. Do you have a source?

    – Louanne

  74. I’m sorry for posting on an unrelated matter, but how do you reconcile this:

    Your website: “There is a document written on Brainwashing. It was not written by the Church of Scientology (though a church did print copies and distribute it in 1955 to get it known what was happening).”

    L Ron Hubbard Jr: ‘Dad wrote every word of it. Barbara Bryan and my wife typed the
    manuscript off his dictation. And then we took it up to New York and tried to get them to do a program on it with Charles Collingwood at CBS. Dad also tried to sell it to the FBI. Years later they snuck it into the Library of Congress, and somebody else came by and said, “Oh lookee, it was found in the Library of Congress!” which is a lot of baloney.’

    The book has neologisms like “thinkingness” and “pain-drug-hypnosis” and calls Dianetics a “healing group”.

  75. > She had a job and he let her get on with it. That is policy. Teaches people to be strong, with out some supervisor breathing down your neck.

    Nice try, Pat. But LRH wasn’t just her supervisor. He was her husband. Isn’t it reasonable to suppose that they were in communication? Or did LRH just not give a damn about his second dynamic?

    > The test is in the statistics and products.

    The statistics… eleven top “Church” executives found guilty.
    The products… Dynamite, Freakout, Snow White.

    And you expect me to believe that the “Church” didn’t notice anything amiss until well after the wogs got involved?

    > Regretfully, there were people under her who were more intent on sabotage.

    Like whom? And how is it that Mrs. LRH wasn’t able to discover and handle their suppression until it was too late? Was she as incompetent on the third dynamic as L. Ron himself was on the second? Good Lord, man, this is your prophet and his wife. If they can’t get things right, what hope is there for the rest of you?

    > She received her “ethics handling” and correction. At least, in Scientology, people always get another chance, even SPs.

    Then why did she remain disconnected from the “Church” of Scientology(TM) until her death?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue_Hubbard#Disconnection

    > I guess down the road we should still be referring to you as “that guy who attacks Scientology” ?

    Don’t be silly. We’ll be referring to me as “that guy who attacked Scientology(TM).” Since your organization will be nothing but a memory. After all, COB is already way downstat: it’s only a matter of time. Tick, tock, tick, tock,… :-)

  76. “Sectarian.” That’s certainly one I haven’t heard before.

    Well, I can guarantee you that you are wrong on that assumption based only on the fact that you’re speaking in generalities. “They” are extremely diverse. Some may be intolerant of Scientology, but others aren’t. As I’ve stated, I’m one person who has no problem with any of the Scientology belief system, just the crimes and questionable policies of the CoS. But I feel like I’ve gone over this before already.

  77. Irrelevant-
    Except anyonymous had demonstrated it is sectarian and intolerant of scientology and not merely the COS structure as they claim, as proof anyone can establish this fact by popping over on youtube and seeing for yourself.

  78. Thanks for the clarifications, Pat. I actually didn’t know that it was two separate things. I still think the Suppressive Person Declaration is sort of a strange concept, but the anti-social personality thing isn’t nearly as strange. That exists in various forms already in psychology, sociology, hell, even history books elude to it though they don’t have a term for it. It’s an interesting concept.

  79. Comment by Nobody on May 20, 2008 8:02 am

    >Ok, so I have another question. I was doing some more reading on your site and it seems to imply that an “SP” is a label that can only be applied to Scientologists. Am I understanding that right? Can a non-scientologist be an SP? I thought it could be applied to anybody that met those criteria.

    >Again, clarification would be great.

    No, I can label you as a Suppressive by stating that that’s what you are – it’s just a tag.

    I think you’re confusing the characteristics of anti-social personality (suppressive person)
    with Suppressive Person Declarations.

    An anti-social personality (suppressive person) is one who has the anti-social characteristics.
    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH11_1.HTM

    Suppressive Person Declarations are those with the specific actions committed by the one being so declared to inform those of the group (Scientologists).

    Pat

  80. Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 22, 2008 2:16 am

    >So a person could be PTS or suppressive, and his or her second-dynamic partner could be completely oblivious to that fact, even if that partner were Lafayette Ronald Hubbard? Doesn’t say much about Scientology(TM)’s ability to hone the ol’ perceptics, does it?

    Considering that at the time MSH was in California running the GO and LRH was doing research on the ship (and elsewhere), I’d say that his perceptics would have to have been planetary. She had a job and he let her get on with it. That is policy. Teaches people to be strong, with out some supervisor breathing down your neck. The test is in the statistics and products. Regretfully, there were people under her who were more intent on sabotage. She received her “ethics handling” and correction. At least, in Scientology, people always get another chance, even SPs. It is now 30 years later and here you are trying to judge LRH in present time (added time). I guess down the road we should still be referring to you as “that guy who attacks Scientology” ? Your own statements go to proof of anti-social characteristics of thinking people don’t get better. You kinda fit the bill, yourself. I can label you, just not issue an official Declare.

    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH11_1.HTM

    Pat

  81. And people ridicule Christians because Jesus “came back from the dead”. Big whoop not everyone believes what Scientologists believe. That’s not the focus of anonymous and if you want to believe do dianetics makes your life longer, go for it. STAY ON TARGET!

  82. I’d like to add a brief somewhat unrelated piece to the discussion here, was hoping Lou or Pat could chime in but anyways I found a stat that listed life expectancy from the 1840’s-up to the present. So I specified under white male and looked up LRH’s brith(1911) and the chart said 50.3 years, now I mention this because I have seen lots of anons ridiculing dianetics in where it says that often a clear lives a better life which also happens to be extended. So if this chart is correct then it leads me to guess that if hubbard was 75 on his deathbed, he beat average life expectancy, by about 50%, sure you can debate how much of it was through dianetics or a combination of that with nutrition or what have you.
    75 aint such a big number for us towards the 80’s and beyond but possibly it was a leap for a man from LRH’s time.
    Any thoughts or added info would be appreciate, something interesting for me to look into anyway ;)

  83. Can we establish some standards here what DOCUMENTS are and what opinion pieces are, and that the latter might be written with a certain agenda in mind?

    Sure. Documents come from unbiased, reliable sources and establish certain facts as true. Freedom Magazine is not unbiased. Fletcher Prouty is not reliable. And all the Post article establishes is that the “Church” of Scientology(TM) made certain claims. Unless you can offer evidence that those claims are true, I will have to respectfully ask you to s.t.f.u.

    (Oh, and the only “agenda” on the site I cited is to debunk conspiracy theories of the JFK assassination. But Prouty has made plenty of other questionable assertions:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Fletcher_Prouty#Controversial_Claims )

    No, I am not commenting on freely available material which somebody “leaked” for the sole reason to circumvent copyrights.

    You call it circumventing copyright, I call it fair use. After all, it’s not like the “Church” is being deprived of any commercial gain by the spread of Hubbard’s lectures, right? ;-)

    Although I admit that this is anecdotal, I bet your mother did not always know what your father did (mine didn’t).

    So a person could be PTS or suppressive, and his or her second-dynamic partner could be completely oblivious to that fact, even if that partner were Lafayette Ronald Hubbard? Doesn’t say much about Scientology(TM)’s ability to hone the ol’ perceptics, does it?

    None of the scientologists on this blog can be RPFed.

    Yeah, yeah. We’re just joking, you know. I mean, if you were in Sea Org (and thus able to be RPF’d), you wouldn’t be allowed to make contact with the outside world (and thus to be on this blog). Duh.

    I think that the word “Cult” is being used to invalidate people and to make them look weird, secretive and maybe dangerous. It’s a label, a brandmark and thus an instrument of discrimination.

    You’re right. There are better phrases, more accurate phrases, like “totalitarian criminal organization that seeks to eradicate worldwide the sciences of mental and physical health, and to replace them with its own pseudo-scientific practices, as part of a relentless pursuit of money and power.”

    I don’t say it did not happen, it’s just that Freakout did not happen and was not tried.

    True again. The original campaign to neutralize Cooper was called “Operation Dynamite.” It was carried out, though it did not quite succeed. This led to the second attempt, “Operation Freakout,” which was mercifully stopped in the planning stages, not by the “Church” of Scientology(TM) or by L. Ron Hubbard, but by the United States government.

  84. Thanks for your answers Louanne.

  85. @# Comment by Nobody on May 20, 2008 7:23 am

    “If Operation Freakout didn’t happen, how do you explain all the things that happened to Paulette Cooper? The fake bomb threats, the fake phone calls, etc.”

    Does it need an operative plan to get people to do stupid things? The things which happened to Cooper were not written up in a plan called “Operation Freakout” and I don’t know any other plan where harassment of Cooper would have been written down.
    I don’t say it did not happen, it’s just that Freakout did not happen and was not tried.

    – Lou

  86. @Comment by Nobody on May 20, 2008 8:02 am

    “Ok, so I have another question. I was doing some more reading on your site and it seems to imply that an “SP” is a label that can only be applied to Scientologists. Am I understanding that right? Can a non-scientologist be an SP?”

    You can personally consider someone an SP but the Church of Scientology does not declare people “SPs” if they are not members.

    I laid this out here:
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/fair-game/what-is-fair-game2.php
    and here:
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/disconnection/what-is-disconnection.php

    “You talk about the use of the word “Cult” and how it can be applied to a lot of minority religions unfairly. Well, that word has been used a lot in the news lately. Do you think that groups like the FLDS, the Westboro Baptist Church, and the Osho-Rajneeshpuram are also labeled as such unfairly?”

    I think that the word “Cult” is being used to invalidate people and to make them look weird, secretive and maybe dangerous. It’s a label, a brandmark and thus an instrument of discrimination. This is not the original meaning of the word which was “A religious group that follows a particular theological system.” or similar. So if a group was called a cult in the 1970s it might have been normal and ok, but in 2008 this same word is an insult.

    – Lou

  87. @ Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 21, 2008 12:23 am

    >>Where oh where have all the Scientologists gone? Pat? BradS? I know Louanne said she’s busy, but it’s been eerily silent around here…
    >Oh, don’t worry. They’re probably just spending some quality time with the RPF. After all, all these comments by Anons can’t possibly be good for these guys’ stats.

    None of the scientologists on this blog can be RPFed. Which reminds me that I wanted to recommend you read and under stand this here:

    http://www.scientologymyths.info/rehabilitation-project-force/

    – Louanne

  88. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 20, 2008 3:44 am

    “Finally, although I admit that this is anecdotal, it’s somewhat difficult to buy the “a few bad apples” argument when one of the indicted head conspirators was Hubbard’s wife.”

    Although I admit that this is anecdotal, I bet your mother did not always know what your father did (mine didn’t). But you are right, all this talk is useless for one reason and that is reforms were done and they worked. Looking back in history to decide who should have won the war might be an intellectual challenge but does nothing for the truth in 2008.

    – Louanne

  89. @# Comment by Elial on May 20, 2008 3:16 pm

    “A Hubbard Saint Hill Lecture has been leaked:
    Very interesting stuff here, do you care to comment?”

    No, I am not commenting on freely available material which somebody “leaked” for the sole reason to circumvent copyrights, under the guise of “whistle blowing” and to the damage of an otherwise useful and necessary whistle blower site. Disgusting and criminal, that’s all that is.

    – Louanne

  90. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 20, 2008 2:46 am

    Predictable. Someone gives me a trash opinion piece and – voila – OKIAN shows up knowing it better than an established newspaper and giving another – even badly designed – opinion piece on a conspiracy page as a reason. Tiring. Can we establish some standards here what DOCUMENTS are and what opinion pieces are, and that the latter might be written with a certain agenda in mind?

    – Louanne

  91. I’m around. Just haven’t found anything worth answering.

    Pat

  92. LOL.

    Wait, no, that’s sad actually. Very sad.

  93. Pat, we miss you. Come back. This blog isn’t the same without your antics.

  94. Where oh where have all the Scientologists gone? Pat? BradS? I know Louanne said she’s busy, but it’s been eerily silent around here…

    Oh, don’t worry. They’re probably just spending some quality time with the RPF. After all, all these comments by Anons can’t possibly be good for these guys’ stats.

  95. Where oh where have all the Scientologists gone? Pat? BradS? I know Louanne said she’s busy, but it’s been eerily silent around here…

  96. Another fine example of Scientology ‘ethics’

    Scientology will have no problem lying to you if it does the greatest good over the greatest number of dynamics.

    A Hubbard Saint Hill Lecture has been leaked:

    https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Scientology_cult_-_The_Free_Being_-_proof_of_alien_theology_-_L._Ron_Hubbard_audio_and_transcript_%281963%29

    Very interesting stuff here, do you care to comment?

  97. Ok, so I have another question. I was doing some more reading on your site and it seems to imply that an “SP” is a label that can only be applied to Scientologists. Am I understanding that right? Can a non-scientologist be an SP? I thought it could be applied to anybody that met those criteria.

    Again, clarification would be great.

    I’m rereading a lot of your site. I read it a few months ago, but I think I need a refresher. However, this refresher is just bringing up a ton of new questions, so sorry for my double post.

    Another question…

    You talk about the use of the word “Cult” and how it can be applied to a lot of minority religions unfairly. Well, that word has been used a lot in the news lately. Do you think that groups like the FLDS, the Westboro Baptist Church, and the Osho-Rajneeshpuram are also labeled as such unfairly?

    I’m not calling Scientology a cult right now, so please don’t be offended. I’m merely curious about Scientologists opinions on the term applied to other groups, both past and present.

  98. If Operation Freakout didn’t happen, how do you explain all the things that happened to Paulette Cooper? The fake bomb threats, the fake phone calls, etc. Or were those part of Operation Dynamite? The two seem to have sort of blended together. They were both plans to discredit Paulette Cooper, weren’t they?

    I’d love some clarification on this.

  99. Finally, although I admit that this is anecdotal, it’s somewhat difficult to buy the “a few bad apples” argument when one of the indicted head conspirators was Hubbard’s wife. You can try to argue that he had no idea what she was doing or that she was part of some tiny rogue cabal within the church, but I think that’ll be an uphill battle.

    And even if that argument is made, it only raises all sorts of other questions. If Mary Sue was performing criminal acts, that means she was either an SP or connected to one (i.e. PTS). How is it that Hubbard didn’t notice his wife’s problems until it was far too late, until the wogs had thrown her into the clink and the “Church”‘s reputation was flushed down the crapper, a crapper from which it still has not emerged? And what hope is there for the rest of us to discover, confront, and handle suppression when Hubbard himself was unable to do so?

  100. How can you say that Freakout was never put into action? Paulette Cooper was -indicted- for bomb threats that -really were- made on her behalf. That isn’t hearsay; it happened. Investigators uncovered entries from a GO person whose responsibility it was to “befriend” and spy on Cooper.

    These things -happened-. They were part of Operation Freakout. I don’t see how you can say, then, that Freakout was never put into action. It didn’t -succeed-, and there were elements of it that were never implemented, but there were certainly parts of the plan that -were- executed, much to the detriment of Ms. Cooper. Regardless of whether you blame these actions on “a few bad apples” in the GO, it’s pretty hard to deny that they did happen.

    Also, I’m aware of the difference between Snow White and Freakout; the two tend to be mentioned in the same breath for two reasons:
    1: Both contained elements involving illegal activities executed by the Guardian’s Office; and
    2: The federal raids following the discovery of the Snow White break-ins/thefts were what led to the discovery of the Freakout documents, which led to the charges against Ms. Cooper being dropped.

    Also, that sentencing memorandum isn’t JUST a memo; it is an official court document written on behalf of the United States authorities regarding the sentencing in the appropriate cases. I think that lends it a little bit more weight.

    Finally, although I admit that this is anecdotal, it’s somewhat difficult to buy the “a few bad apples” argument when one of the indicted head conspirators was Hubbard’s wife. You can try to argue that he had no idea what she was doing or that she was part of some tiny rogue cabal within the church, but I think that’ll be an uphill battle.

  101. Louanne, re: your “docs”:

    The Post article merely confirms the existence of your claims, not their veracity. Strike one.

    “Freedom” is owned and operated by the “Church”. Hardly unbiased. Strike two.

    The Toronto decision references an affidavit by Fletcher Prouty. Unfortunately, Fletcher Prouty is (or was) completely bonkers. Strike three.

    For more about Prouty, click here:

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty.htm

  102. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 19, 2008 7:46 am

    “Wait, are you dismissing that sentencing memorandum?”

    No. But it is what it is. A memo spiked with personal comments of its author and one-sided by its nature. I read it as that. What’s important is the outcome, a weighted judgment which considers both sides and not just one. There is no evidence uncovered here. Freakout was a criminal and outrageous plan and it never got executed. The people whose strange minds gave birth to this plan were kicked out of the organization and – maybe even all of them – sentenced for other attempts to copy the behavior of government institutions. The Church of Scientology organization learned from this experience, having a badly controlled, autonomous PR and Legal Department called Guardian’s Office, and got rid of the whole structure, even those which were not involved in bad deeds, and build a new transparent organization from scratch. This is now more than 20 years ago and that new system has proven successful. You attempt to connect up with the old times, but mind you, these are gone.

    EA, It is also not helpful if you confuse Freakout and Snow White. They are different things. Snow White was a public program to use FOIA and legal means to uncover false reports in government files, authored by L. Ron Hubbard (the full text of the program is even somewhere on the net). Freakout was the dirty dream of a few and never made it into real life action. Those who were involved got corrected by the justice system of the United States of America decades ago and the Church of Scientology organizational structure was reformed. In the year 2008 these stories have no relation to reality.

    – Louanne

  103. Wait, are you dismissing that sentencing memorandum? I mean, that’s a -legal court document- that explains, with references, the evidence uncovered RE: Operation Freakout. I’m not seeing how you can claim that it isn’t relevant or that it’s based on opinion.

    If you like, you could look at Mary Sue Hubbard’s sentencing memorandum as well, which includes the same reference to “at least one” instance in which a critic of Scientology was framed with forged documents:
    http://lisatrust.freewinds.cx/legal/snowwhite/USAVMSH%20SENTENCING%20MEMO%201980-01-72.PDF

  104. Several sets of opinion do not make a fact and Martin Hunt is a notorious anti-Scientology propagandist. The GO memorandum is annotated heavily and neither a verdict nor related to Cooper (I could find the name, but the crucial “information” is mere opinion put in decades later). Last but not least: an indictment is not a judgment, please remember that. Especially in the 1970s have been the most fantastic indictments or claims but what counts is the result, and that is in the judgment. Yes, there has been a judgment – see my site – but this one does not mention Cooper or the Snow White program, because both did not have anything to do with the case.

    Ah, docs, here are two:
    Washington Post Article
    Freedom Mag Article

    And about the Snow White Program (as I say, “Operation” is an invention of the critics, not Scientology), a Canadian court decided on that here:
    Toronto Court decision excerpt (I do have all pages but only anonymized)

    – L

  105. A question on Snow White:
    “In 1984 the Church found out that the U.S. Army had secretly sprayed potentially harmful bacteria in open-air tests in Washington, D.C.’s National Airport and in bus terminals in Washington, Chicago and San Francisco in 1964 and 1965. From the information found through FOIA these covert government actions were undertaken as part of a biological warfare experiment. The germ used to spray hundreds of unsuspecting American citizens has been found to cause symptoms of respiratory infections, blood poisoning and food poisoning.”

    Docs, please?

    There is info on Operation Freakout at http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/cooper1.html and http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_of_America_v._Jane_Kember%2C_Morris_Budlong%2C_Sentencing_Memorandum (the latter is a court transcript – search it for Paulette Cooper).

  106. I’m not sure how you managed to distance the Church of Scientology from the wiretapping and infiltration of the US Government that is, nowadays, called “Operation Snow White”.

    L Ron Hubbard’s own wife was sent to prison over those charges, and L Ron himself was considered an “unindicted co-conspirator”.

  107. @Comment by cansomeonesayBS? on May 16, 2008 1:56 am

    Link please.

    – L

  108. There are court documents detailing Operation Freakout. To say that it never happened is a complete and utter lie. It is true that it happened long ago but there were synthesized bomb threats sent to embassies and stuff. Just google it. Just because a biased blogger says its fake doesn’t make that statement true. These documents were seized by the FBI and are certainly not “half truths”. The fake bomb threats and fair game tactics used against paulette cooper were used again when COS bawwed about a bomb threat from the BBC! (yeah I am laughing too) and there is evidence to suggest that they did the same with the group anonymous… (source materials, backround was a logo for a FRONT GROUP) and the FBI have found no traces of anonymous’s involvement in the anthrax scare or bomb threats.


Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos