This is not going to stop I guess…

Generally I am opposed to little jerks clogging up and slowing down the court system but on the other hand, well, better late than never!

This morning on PRWeb:

Hate Group Member Sentenced in Crime Against New York Scientology Church

A member of the hate group Anonymous, Mahoud Samed Almahadin, aka Matt Connor, was sentenced today in New York City Criminal Court.

New York (Vocus/PRWEB ) April 15, 2010 — A member of the hate group Anonymous, Mahoud Samed Almahadin, aka Matt Connor, was sentenced today in New York City Criminal Court in connection with a January 8, 2009, attack on the Church of Scientology of New York. (People vs. Almahadin, Mahoud; Criminal Docket 2009NY00410).

Almahadin smeared himself with a mixture of Vaseline, nail clippings and pubic hairs donated by other members of the Anonymous hate group, ran into the New York Church just off Times Square and desecrated the Church, including causing damage to Scriptural materials. Almahadin’s sentence, forbids him from going near the Church of Scientology for five years. He was also sentenced to pay the damages caused by his acts and to perform substantial community service as further restitution for the crime.

Church of Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon said of the result, “The action against Almahadin is a victory for everyone’s right to peaceably practice their religion. It is a warning to others who desecrate houses of worship and commit hate crimes. It is also the latest blow against Anonymous.” “Anonymous” is a loosely connected hate group targeting Scientologists, Jews and other minority racial and ethnic groups and organizations.

Another member of Anonymous, Jacob Speregen, also charged in the same incident, will stand trial later this year.

The conviction follows the November 18, 2009, sentencing of a New Jersey man to one year and one day in federal prison on a felony conviction for his part in a cyber attack against Church of Scientology websites in January 2008. (Case No. CR 09-87-01) That attack was also carried out by Anonymous members.

Dmitriy Guzner, 19, of Verona, New Jersey, who in May 2009 pled guilty to one count of computer hacking, was sentenced for his role in the distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack against Scientology websites. A DDOS attack occurs when a large amount of malicious Internet traffic is directed at websites, overloading their capacity and making them unavailable to legitimate users.

Church websites were made unavailable to valid users for over 24 hours, with the attacks continuing for 12 days, requiring the Church to hire a computer security company to protect against the attacks and to reroute traffic. Due to the severity of the crime, Judge Joseph Greenaway in U.S. District Court in Newark sentenced Guzner to the 366-day prison term, plus two years probation following his prison term, and ordered Guzner to pay $37,500 restitution to the Church.

On October 31, another Anonymous follower, Brian Thomas Mettenbrink, 20, was indicted by a Grand Jury in the US District Court in Los Angeles, for his role in the same attack on Scientology websites, for conspiracy and “transmission of a code, information, program, or command to a protected computer.” (Case No. CR 09-01149) The indictment states that he obtained a computer program from an Anonymous website and executed a DDOS attack from his dormitory at Iowa State University against the Church computers in Los Angeles. He is awaiting sentencing.

According to court documents, Anonymous is an underground hate group that, in addition to the cyber attack, targeted Churches of Scientology and members with death threats, bomb threats and fake anthrax mail. In addition to Scientology Churches and the Prime Minister of Australia, Anonymous has also targeted The Epilepsy Foundation, hip-hop music websites and others.

Scientology is a worldwide religious movement with more than 8,000 Churches, Missions and affiliated groups in 165 countries. The Church and its members dedicate their time and resources to numerous humanitarian programs that Scientology has become known for around the world, including combating drug abuse, immorality, illiteracy, and human rights violations.

91 Comments

  1. Sounds like you’re not joking any more…
    What do you mean?

  2. ” Comment by Big Daddy on May 23, 2010 7:45 pm
    I don’t believe I’ve ever called anyone a “F**ker”, “loser” or “criminal”, or used the words “GTFO”… :) (I’m assuming we’re still poking gentle fun here, lol)”

    I am aware of that. Let me rephrase: maybe you need to be more direct….

    – L

  3. I don’t believe I’ve ever called anyone a “F**ker”, “loser” or “criminal”, or used the words “GTFO”… :)
    (I’m assuming we’re still poking gentle fun here, lol)

  4. ” Comment by BigDaddy on May 23, 2010 6:07 pm
    “There is no list of acceptable webpages and certainly there are scientologists reading all kinds of sites”
    Not many of them seem to post, though… :P”

    Maybe you need to be nicer… :-P

    – L

  5. “meanwhile, i just saw there is a new freedommag.org site now. Maybe I start reading there.”

    It’s lovely, but I’ve never been much of a fan.

    “There is no list of acceptable webpages and certainly there are scientologists reading all kinds of sites”

    Not many of them seem to post, though… :P

  6. Another wall, with some random thoughts :)

    “Not a crime. I can get you named in all kinds of cases in no time. Doesn’t mean a thing.”

    It actually means quite a lot. President Richard Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in indictments stemming from the Watergate Investigation. Nixon was not indicted due to concerns about whether the United States Constitution allowed the indictment of a sitting President. He was involved, that’s common knowledge, but he was not indicted for certain reasons.

    The US Attourney’s Manual, from the Department of Justice, states that one should only name an unidicted co-consipirator if there is sufficient justification. In today’s procedures, it is clear that “For purposes of indictment itself, it is sufficient, for example, to allege that the defendant conspired with “another person or persons known.””. However, prior to US v. Briggs (1975), such a person that was involved in a consipiracy, when known but sufficient legal evidence was lacking, or they were unavailable (such as out of the Country), they were named as an Unindicted Co-conspirator.

    “Link? Evidence? I know that his records were mispresented internally and externally but I don’t think he did anything like that himself. And why is this relevant at all?”

    You are aware that you can request his records vis the FOIA, right? And that you can compare that to his claims? (in line with what you’re saying, I won’t address the many rediculous and easily refuted claims by the CoS, and stick to his own words. I think we can all agree that the CoS misrepresented him to some degree) For instance, did he not state: “blinded with injured optic nerves, and lame with physical injuries to hip and back… Yet I worked my way back to fitness and strength in less than two years, using only what I knew about Man and his relationship to the universe.” That, of course, is not in his medical record. Nor did he have”a bomb go off in (his) face.” And, of course, he never did bomb and submarines, but I think we can all agree on that. :) Now, did he claim to have received 21 wartime medals, or was that just the CoS again?

    “Non-photoshopped? How do you know? I see artifacts. In any event. A “PR Photo” does not compare to screen shots etc displayed on sites whose purpose it is to degrade Scientologists. ”

    You you addressed this yourself, in the same breath. You can see him in full video. Surely you would admit that the man is scary?

    “Maybe. I am always waiting for indictment. An Italian raid and someone running amok (not saying that fowler is the one, let the court decide based on evidence) are different”

    You didn’t wait to post about the presumed guilt of the two scientology computer hackers. You were posting about them well before any conviction. Regardless, do you need a court decision to tell you what’s correct? Can you really expect that it’s a coicidence that the victim was shot three times, while the initial police and medical reports show that Fowler was injured from a self-inflicted gunshot wound? Each using a gun given to Fowler from his son (in his son’s words), while he had a carefully worded note to the police and a living will in his pocket? Okay, we won’t think about that one ourselves, we’ll wait for 12 random people to tell us what to think :) (oh, come one, just poking fun). Likewise, this isn’t the first time that such dossiers have been located is it?

    “I missed that. Where?”

    His own employees, the arrest warrant, news reports. He had to apologize. It’s why the victim quit. Did you really miss that?

    “ROFL. Ok, I understand you don’t trust the court systems. Sorry, but may I break to you that Committee of Vigilance are out of business since more than 200 years! ”

    Would you say that you trust the court systems that has convicted many, many scientologists, voted to ban scientology books in russia, and convicted the entire organization in Canada?

    Anyways, I actually do trust the courts, to some degree. But I don’t rely on court decisions to tell me right from wrong- just what’s legal.

  7. “Comment by Anon1722 on May 23, 2010 8:33 am
    Louanne: is it true that if you are busted going into this site as a scientologist, you will be sent to ethics, as this site is not supported on the official list of “acceptable” webpages for a scientologist to be allowed to go to?
    Would it then be an “overt” to read this site?”

    Complete nonsense. There is no list of acceptable webpages and certainly there are scientologists reading all kinds of sites. You had a specific one in mind?

    – L

  8. wall of text… i need some time to read this all.

    meanwhile, i just saw there is a new freedommag.org site now. Maybe I start reading there.

    – L

  9. Louanne: is it true that if you are busted going into this site as a scientologist, you will be sent to ethics, as this site is not supported on the official list of “acceptable” webpages for a scientologist to be allowed to go to?

    Would it then be an “overt” to read this site?

    Dear

  10. A well-reasoned and plausible scenario.

  11. “-“Scientology was nothing more than the continuation of his pulp fiction career.”
    ..
    “Anon put forth an opinion, which cannot, by its definition, be “wrong”. ”

    Yes, it is just my opinion. Let me elaborate why i have this opinion, though.
    I have the impression that L. Ron Hubbard was truly talented as a pulp fiction writer and excelled especially in the art of improvised storytelling, which is also evidenced by his good grades in the discipline “rhetoric”. The skill to quickly invent relatively complex stories and convey them in an entertaining way to an audience is exactly what a prolific pulp fiction writer needs.
    Somewhere i have also read an account of one of his publishers, who described a situation where Hubbard during a job interview introduced himself to the publisher as a writer and when asked about his qualifications, Hubbard demonstrated his talent by telling him a well decorated story that he just made up on the fly. The publisher was pretty impressed by that and hired him.
    Now, the impression that i get, when i listen to his Scientology lectures is that he often also made up stories during these lectures, and maybe even just improvised the whole lecture about some subject.
    As i said, that is just my impression and the reason why i called Scientology a continuation of his pulp fiction career.

  12. A few other thoughts, ideas and concepts:

    -“Scientology was nothing more than the continuation of his pulp fiction career.”
    -I heard that before and it doesn’t get truer by repeating the lie (your Adolf was wrong, Anon). The problem is, Scientology works and it helps people. Every minute of the day, everywhere in the world. So if that is pulp fiction, then the world needs more pulp fiction.

    Anon put forth an opinion, which cannot, by its definition, be “wrong”. Likewise, it cannot be “true”. It’s an opinion, and a seemingly common one. Just like your opinion cannot be right or wrong, even if there are those that don’t agree.

    “He certainly was a nuclear scientist per definition in the 1930s.” and “See above. Nuclear science, in 1932, was not a fully defined profession yet.”

    In the 1930’s, Harold Urey discovered deuterium, James Chadwick discovered the neutron, Fission was discovered, Scientists began experimenting with nuclear fission, the role of fusion in the sun was determined, and more. (atomicarchive.com) Hubbard is not mentioned, nor are his actions in the field of nuclear physics in any way comparable. I wonder what 1930’s definition you’re using?

    “I have observed and participated in all the mentioned campaigns and that’s why I know that they do what they promise to do. I can’t validate the numbers, yes.”

    My personal experiences differ- I have volunteered, for example, in a rather successful work release program, and had talked to several narconon graduates- with (in all but one case) a 100% recidivism rate. But, I suppose it’s just a matter of who we speak to, isn’t it?

    Good enough for now, more later.

  13. I really don’t think that Hubbard did have a very strong scientific understanding. So, agreeing with Louanne, we can call him a philosopher if we want to (not speaking as to the value of his philosophies- we’re talking about his “science” at the moment, so I’ll limit it to that), but we certainly can’t call him a “scientist”, by any stretch of the imagination.

    Even Hubbard said, “… because I was educated in the field of atomic physics – which doesn’t mean a thing, by the way … I wasn’t really supposed to be there, I was a writer, and I had to go to school just like anybody else. They said that was what I was taking and so I obediently sat there and took it, but not very deeply… It was very hard for a young man like myself to absorb it.” (March of the Atom, October, 1956). Others agreed with him. The Australian Anderson Report noted that his writings (particularly “All about radiation”) demonstrated the “sort of knowledge that perhaps a boy who has read Intermediate Physics might, with a lot of misapprehensions and lack of understanding, demonstrate” due to the numerous demonstratable factual and logical errors.

    Now, anon did post a copy of Hubbard’s school record, which can be confirmed via the FOIA, if one desires. We can see, quite easily, that he was a rather poor student, excelling only in the “soft” arts- that is, the non-scientific courses. We can of course see, here, that Hubbard did not demonstrate a strong grasp of science or scientific concepts.

    The scientoltologytoday website touches on this, to a small degree. They say only, “Theorizing that the world of sub-atomic particles might possibly provide a clue to human thought processes, L. Ron Hubbard enrolled in one of the first nuclear physics courses taught in the United States.”. They do not address the fact that he failed the course, achieving an average grade of a “D”.

    So, I believe we’ve established that we can call the man many things, but an “advanced physicist” or “scientist” really isn’t one of them.

  14. I’ll note: Hubbard’s woeful military record does not seem to be under dispute, so I believe we can all agree that it was not exactly a “heroic” record.

  15. I guess I’ll move to Hubbard and Sequoia University…
    I believe that we all agree that his “doctorate” was issued from Sequoia university, and that he used that title in 1961:
    “Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, C.E., Ph.D., a nuclear physicist, Scientology has demonstrably achieved this long-sought goal. Doctor Hubbard, educated in advanced physics and higher mathematics and also a student of Sigmund Freud and others, began his present researches thirty years ago at George Washington University.”
    [Hubbard, “P.E. Handout”, HCO Information Letter of 14 April 1961]

    I think that we can all also agree that his current biographies, to include in the content of the CoS and related websites, do not list his title as “Doctor”. In fact, I can’t find any reference to his title since he abandoned the title “in protest against the abuses and murders carried out under the title of ‘doctor'” [Hubbard, “Doctor Title Abolished”, HCO Policy Letter of 14 February 1966].

    At this point, I must note that it was actually the Kevin Anderson, of the Australian Government, that first raised doubts as to the validity of the degree. In the 1965 Australian Report of the Board of Enquiry into Scientology, Anderson stated that he “was informed by the Australian Consul-General in San Francisco that the Sequoia University was a privately endowed institution which was not accredited, that is, not registered with the Western Association of Schools and colleges, which is the accrediting body for the west coast of America.” Of course, a few months later, Hubbard would abandon the title for entirely “different” reasons.

    Actually, interestingly, in 2009, the British Daily Telegraph reported “British diplomats compiled evidence 30 years ago that the founder of Scientology, L Ron Hubbard, was a “fraud”, according to National Archive papers”.

  16. that came out wrong, but maybe you’re not filtering comments… oh well, I’ll keep posting.

  17. You can not approve this comment- it’s to you direct. It looks like your manually approving comments, or at least my own. Would you be able to turn that off while you’re gone, so I can post content for you?

  18. “tl;dr

    What’s the point? ”

    That’s very dismissive- your original post was longer :)
    But that’s just TWO official government studies, rather than some of the questionable private studies that scientology is able to present. I didn’t include the Russia study, or some others that I’ve found. I think that makes the point to allow me to move on.

  19. “Comment by Big Daddy on May 21, 2010 4:45 pm
    well, there’s plenty of other ones. I’ll continue compiling, you feel free to enjoy your movie.”

    Thanks, still got hours to go. But I have to finish some work now. Be back tomorrow, maybe.

    – L

  20. “Comment by Big Daddy on May 21, 2010 4:42 pm”

    tl;dr

    What’s the point?

    – L

  21. well, there’s plenty of other ones. I’ll continue compiling, you feel free to enjoy your movie.

  22. Ok, they end off saying that research about the program is needed (and probably asked for more money). So, what’s new?

    – They are missing a bunch of other studies and
    – they could have visited Narconon (in Sweden) for example.

    The latter would have prevented their complete misunderstanding about the relation of Narconon and the Church of Scientology.

    – L

  23. Okay, wow. So much to go through. I’ll post in batches to save room.

    Let’s start with Narconon. You present a scientology-owned website as proof, but at least there’s some referenced information. However, many of them are re-hashing of the same report, including summaries and other versions of the same report. But, at least it’s something. However, as anon pointed out, the existing reports have been fairly well debunked. So I will try a different route.

    The Board of Mental Health, State of Oklahoma, in 1991, concluded that “that the program offered by Narconon-Chilocco is not medically safe.” And, also, “There is no credible scientific evidence that the Narconon program is effective in the treatment of chemical dependency.
    There is no credible scientific evidence that exercise speeds up the detoxification process.
    Large doses of niacin are administered to patients during the Narconon program to rid the body of radiation. There is no credible scientific evidence that niacin in any way gets radiation out of the patient’s body. Rather, the more credible medical evidence supports the existence of potential medical risks to persons receiving high doses of niacin.
    There is no credible evidence establishing the safety of the Narconon program to its patients.
    There is no credible evidence establishing the effectiveness of the Narconon program to its patients.”

    The California Department of Education determined, in 2005, that:
    “Some drug-related information presented in the NDAP and supplementary resources—although aligned with the Narconon drug rehabilitation methodology—does not reflect accurate, widely accepted medical and scientific evidence. Some information is misleading because it is overstated or a distinction between drug use and abuse is lacking.
    Examples of inaccurate information presented to students in NDAP presentations and supplementary resources include:
    drugs burn up vitamins and nutrients
    drug-activated vitamin deficiency results in pain which prompts relapse
    marijuana-induced, rapid vitamin and nutrient loss causes the “munchies”
    small amounts of drugs stored in fat are released at a later time causing the person to re-experience the drug effect and desire to use again
    This information reflects hypothesized processes of drug metabolism, bioavailability, and psychoactive impact, and is the premise for the Narconon detoxification regimen. a This theoretical information does not reflect current evidence that is widely accepted and recognized as medically and scientifically accurate.
    Examples of misleading statements and inferences presented to students in NDAP presentations and supplementary resources include:
    drugs are poisons
    the amount of a drug determines if it acts as a stimulant or as a sedative
    anyone who takes drugs does so to avoid problems
    drugs ruin creativity and dull senses
    This information is overgeneralized or exaggerated.”

  24. ” Comment by Big Daddy on May 21, 2010 4:32 pm
    try reading the rest- it’s more in depth than where you stopped.”

    Painful, dude, really:

    “Narconon was started by the Church of Scientology in 1966,”

    WTF? No, a program that first – in 1965 – was called “Narcotic Foundation” and in 1966 became “Narconon” was started by a prison inmate called William Benitez at Arizona State Prison. His story his here (with a 1968 video interview and all you need):
    http://www.narconon.org/about-narconon/william-benitez.html

    I’ll continue reading.

    – L

  25. so he didn’t really do any science stuff? Just some (possibly, and unprovable) mind stuff?

  26. “Comment by Anon on May 21, 2010 4:27 pm
    “Still false. Let’s assume this document is real. I can see an “F” in German (is that why you are so pissed?), Differential Calculus and Atomic/Molecular Phenomena. Indeed, evidence that he was participating in nuclear physics classes. ”
    So according to your logic, if i take a course in say quantum physics and fail it with an F, i can still call myself a “quantum physicist” nevertheless, just because i participated in the course, right?”

    Totally! And why not. I could even start to work in a nuclear power plant with that or thrown bombs on Japanese. But Hubbard did something else: he did some research in the mind, now knowing that nuclear physics won’t help him anything in solving problems of the mind, and 18 years later came up with Dianetics.

    – L

  27. try reading the rest- it’s more in depth than where you stopped. They say that they couldn’t find it from REPUTABLE sources, but found some pro-stuff on google, such as the ones referenced by the CoS.

  28. ” Comment by Anon on May 21, 2010 4:21 pm
    ^this is already covered in the norwegian study.”

    There is no Norwegian study.

    I am reading that opinion piece you send and it finds that the “Narconon Drug Rehab program are designed to prevent drug abuse”. I normally would stop readin right there. A rehab program is a little after prevention failed, right?

    In any case, this 2006 piece then goes on to waffle about something or other they couldn’t find. Well, did they ask anyone? Talk to people, get with Narconon to be send any expert statements, studies etc? Nope. Nothing. What a great research.

    Read the studies linked from the page I sent you and decide for yourself.

    – L

  29. “Still false. Let’s assume this document is real. I can see an “F” in German (is that why you are so pissed?), Differential Calculus and Atomic/Molecular Phenomena. Indeed, evidence that he was participating in nuclear physics classes. ”

    So according to your logic, if i take a course in say quantum physics and fail it with an F, i can still call myself a “quantum physicist” nevertheless, just because i participated in the course, right?

  30. darn you, anon- you beat me to it. The Norwegian study is a good one that addresses some of the other claims. You win this one… for now! ;)

  31. ^this is already covered in the norwegian study.

  32. “No, they were never proven effective by any independent scientifc study.”

    False.

    http://www.narconon.org/about-narconon/research.html

  33. “Comment by Anon on May 21, 2010 3:46 pm
    ““Also he completed failed the course with an ‘F’, as he also failed ALL other science related courses in college.”
    False again. But yes, he did not finish university and did not have good grades, mainly due to not being present at all. ”
    Not false.
    Here is the proof:
    http://www.lermanet.com/L_Ron_Hubbard/mr142.htm

    Still false. Let’s assume this document is real. I can see an “F” in German (is that why you are so pissed?), Differential Calculus and Atomic/Molecular Phenomena. Indeed, evidence that he was participating in nuclear physics classes.

    He primarily was a philosopher with basic engineer training and a lot of mileage when it came to field studies and personal observations. This mix made him a good researcher and writer, and a very prolific one at that. And thus he is respected as the founder of Scientology (an applied philosophy and religion) on one hand and a pulp and science-fiction writer on the other hand. Some people seem to be too dumb to keep the two things apart. Or too unwilling to look.

    – L

  34. “* L. Ron Hubbard’s procedures for drug rehabilitation are presently employed in 47 nations. They have proven five times more effective than any similarly aimed program.”

    No, they were never proven effective by any independent scientifc study.
    The Norwegian Directorate of health recently comissioned an evaluation of the Narconon program and found no evidence that would support their claims.

  35. “Comment by Anon on May 21, 2010 3:55 pm
    “That’s splitting hairs. He certainly was a nuclear scientist per definition in the 1930s. ”
    Then what did he discover in his career as a nuclear scientist?”

    I think his main discovery he made was that scientists will blow up this planet if you don’t inject some morality and reason into them. That made him one of the first publicists against nuclear war.

    – L

  36. “Comment by Bigdaddy on May 21, 2010 3:48 pm
    Quite well, thanks. I’m on a train, so it’s a little bumpy; but spellcheck is a beautiful thing.
    I’ll have something for you tonight. What are you seeing?”

    Cool. I was thinking to get an Ipad but the form factor does not seem right yet.

    Movie: Shrek, in 3D, if I make it.

    – L

  37. “That’s splitting hairs. He certainly was a nuclear scientist per definition in the 1930s. ”

    Then what did he discover in his career as a nuclear scientist?

  38. “Sequoia University was an unaccredited higher education institution in Los Angeles, California which acquired a reputation as a prolific “degree mill” selling degree certificates”

    yes, that says it all. Thank you.

  39. Quite well, thanks. I’m on a train, so it’s a little bumpy; but spellcheck is a beautiful thing.
    I’ll have something for you tonight.
    What are you seeing?

  40. ““Also he completed failed the course with an ‘F’, as he also failed ALL other science related courses in college.”

    False again. But yes, he did not finish university and did not have good grades, mainly due to not being present at all. ”

    Not false.
    Here is the proof:
    http://www.lermanet.com/L_Ron_Hubbard/mr142.htm

    His only good grade was in Rhethoric (improvised storytelling) and physical education.
    So why did he only attend these two classes if he was SO interested in science. After all he talks in his lectures and books a lot about science and what a great scientist he supposedly is.
    He was a liar and con man. Face it.

  41. ” Comment by Bigdaddy on May 21, 2010 3:41 pm
    Darn, see now I gotta go and pull up real data when I get home. Oh, well. Unless you beat me to it, anon, of course”

    Go for it. I am going to the movies tonight and won’t be around. Plenty of time.

    – L

    PS: how’s that mobile device coming along? i see your typos are less now.

  42. “Sequoia University was an unaccredited higher education institution in Los Angeles, California which acquired a reputation as a prolific “degree mill” selling degree certificates. Although it was shut down in 1984 by a court order, it is most notable today as the institution from which L. Ron Hubbard obtained an honorary “Doctorate of Philosophy” in the 1950s.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia_University

    Even the most shabby sources – Wikipedia on Scientology subjects that is – could make you smarter here.

    – L

  43. Darn, see now I gotta go and pull up real data when I get home. Oh, well. Unless you beat me to it, anon, of course

  44. “LOL and you really believe that Sequoia university awared him a PhD title. Alright, for WHAT accomplishment if i may ask?”

    He didn’t have a PhD in nuclear physics. What crap is that?

    “On February 10, 1953 Hubbard was awarded an honorary Ph.D. by Sequoia University, California, “in recognition of his outstanding work and contributions in the fields of Dianetics and Scientology.””

    Read more Wikipedia!

    – L

  45. ” Comment by Anon on May 21, 2010 3:33 pm
    “False. There are lectures where he describes in detail how he participated in the first classes on nuclear science at George Washington University. And he did. ”
    Yes he did. But just participating in a class on nuclear science doesn’t make him a nuclear scientist, as he claimed on the cover of “All About Radiation” and in his lectures.”

    That’s splitting hairs. He certainly was a nuclear scientist per definition in the 1930s.

    “Also he completed failed the course with an ‘F’, as he also failed ALL other science related courses in college.”

    False again. But yes, he did not finish university and did not have good grades, mainly due to not being present at all.

    “He was a pulp fiction author after all.”

    A good one, yes.

    “Scientology was nothing more than the continuation of his pulp fiction career.”

    I heard that before and it doesn’t get truer by repeating the lie (your Adolf was wrong, Anon). The problem is, Scientology works and it helps people. Every minute of the day, everywhere in the world. So if that is pulp fiction, then the world needs more pulp fiction.

    – L

  46. “False again. Some UK Ministry in some internal document concluded that this might have been the case. In fact, Sequoia University awarded the title in absentia and he returned it a little later. The University was shut down as a “degree mill” DECADES later. You’re reading too much Wikipedia. ”

    LOL and you really believe that Sequoia university awared him a PhD title. Alright, for WHAT accomplishment if i may ask? He didn’t even graduate college, so why would any legitim university award him a PhD degree for nuclear physics?

  47. “Comment by Bigdaddy on May 21, 2010 3:31 pm
    So you believe in the concepts, but agree you can’t validate the numbers, yes?”

    I have observed and participated in all the mentioned campaigns and that’s why I know that they do what they promise to do. I can’t validate the numbers, yes.

    – L

  48. “False. There are lectures where he describes in detail how he participated in the first classes on nuclear science at George Washington University. And he did. ”

    Yes he did. But just participating in a class on nuclear science doesn’t make him a nuclear scientist, as he claimed on the cover of “All About Radiation” and in his lectures.
    Also he completed failed the course with an ‘F’, as he also failed ALL other science related courses in college. His only true talent was improvised story telling and scamming people. He was a pulp fiction author after all. Scientology was nothing more than the continuation of his pulp fiction career.

  49. So you believe in the concepts, but agree you can’t validate the numbers, yes?

  50. “Comment by Anon on May 21, 2010 3:28 pm
    “Nope, man, all you have is some 1980 newspaper story that does not match reality.”
    All i have is court documents that show his conviction.”

    Where? (on your desk, I know that). Can you send it? Post it? Link to it?

    – L

  51. ” Comment by Bigdaddy on May 21, 2010 3:24 pm
    So no sources for your wild claims, louanne? Why do you believe it, if no one is giving you the actual data?”

    My observation counts too in this. And I have no reason to doubt my sources.

    – L

  52. “Nope, man, all you have is some 1980 newspaper story that does not match reality.”

    All i have is court documents that show his conviction.

  53. “There are lectures where he claimed to be a nuclear scientists.”

    False. There are lectures where he describes in detail how he participated in the first classes on nuclear science at George Washington University. And he did.

    “one of the first nuclear physicists.”

    See above. Nuclear science, in 1932, was not a fully defined profession yet.

    “Well he was a doctor, but only because he had awarded himself a doctor degree from a sham dimploma mill that he acquired.”

    False again. Some UK Ministry in some internal document concluded that this might have been the case. In fact, Sequoia University awarded the title in absentia and he returned it a little later. The University was shut down as a “degree mill” DECADES later. You’re reading too much Wikipedia.

    – L

  54. So no sources for your wild claims, louanne? Why do you believe it, if no one is giving you the actual data?

  55. ““- lied about his naval war record and his academical credentials”

    Link? Evidence? I know that his records were mispresented internally and externally but I don’t think he did anything like that himself. And why is this relevant at all? ”

    There are lectures where he claimed to be a nuclear scientists.
    In the first editions of his book “All about radiation” he even claimed to be a doctor and one of the first nuclear physicists.
    Well he was a doctor, but only because he had awarded himself a doctor degree from a sham dimploma mill that he acquired.

  56. ” Comment by Anon on May 21, 2010 3:16 pm
    “He never went to jail nor did he pay a fine. That case was canceled. ”
    He didn’t go jail,”

    And why did neither the UK (where he was living most of the time) nor the US (where he was living later) deport him or even tried to? Or why did France never asked for the execution of what you claim to be a “judgment”? Nope, man, all you have is some 1980 newspaper story that does not match reality.

    – L

  57. ” Comment by Bigdaddy on May 21, 2010 3:11 pm
    I should say- any support from non-cos sources, just to be specific.”

    No, what do I need this for?

    – L

  58. ” Comment by Anon on May 21, 2010 3:10 pm
    Are you claiming here that Scientology can improve the visual appearance of a person?”

    Absolutely! At least the person looks happy, right after finishing a church service. Not sick and ass-raped.

    – L

  59. “He never went to jail nor did he pay a fine. That case was canceled. ”

    He didn’t go jail, because he was a coward who never took responsibility for his own criminal actions and instead hide on his ship. The case was not cancelled for Hubbard, only two other Scientologists.

  60. “Comment by Big Daddy on May 21, 2010 3:04 pm
    All that I’m saying is that it seems to be in poor taste to judge one based on looks alone, especially given the non-photoshopped examples that I gave.”

    Non-photoshopped? How do you know? I see artifacts. In any event. A “PR Photo” does not compare to screen shots etc displayed on sites whose purpose it is to degrade Scientologists.

    “In fact, strip the jpg from the gawker post, and you’ll see the actual video- it’s pretty scary. The man is insane, by any standard.”

    Opinion, opinion. He’s provoking Sweeney just as Sweeney provoked him (under direction of some other asshole who ran away from the Church right after).

    “I did give two examples of pending legal actions, to some degree. But I would remind you that you posted of the “anonymous” hacking incidents long before convictions.”

    Maybe. I am always waiting for indictment. An Italian raid and someone running amok (not saying that fowler is the one, let the court decide based on evidence) are different. Come on, bd, sanity: “the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities.”

    “Also, Fowler confessed to the theft, so that’s a matter of record.”

    I missed that. Where?

    “Also, “innocent until proven guilty” is a legal term, to be applied to courts- it doesn’t apply to clear cut issues.”

    ROFL. Ok, I understand you don’t trust the court systems. Sorry, but may I break to you that Committee of Vigilance are out of business since more than 200 years!

    “For instance, if you were to shoplift in front of a police officer, you would be legally innocent until proven otherwise, even if DM himself saw you do it. You can wait for the conviction, but one man was shot three times, one once from a self-inflicted wound. We can all do the math.”

    Hm. Self-defense? A third person that shot both of them? Were you there? I agree it’s an ugly case and I have known people who tilted over the edge and did very crazy things, maybe even criminal things. This happens. But I reject that it is being presented as anything “typical” for the Church of Scientology. That’s just insane.

    “Do you not have a comment on what the police found?”

    Haven’t finished reading the affidavit. Is there any particular fact I should put my attention on?

    – L

  61. I should say- any support from non-cos sources, just to be specific.

  62. Are you claiming here that Scientology can improve the visual appearance of a person?

  63. Just a shot in the dark, but do you have any links or verification of your claims? We do.

    I call your cards, chief.

  64. ” Comment by Anon on May 21, 2010 2:48 pm
    “I find it tiring to discuss theories and maybes. Give me an actual incident, name or something relating to real life and we’ll see. Otherwise, no. ”

    L. Ron Hubbard:

    “- convicted of fraud and given a 4 year prison sentence and a 35,000 F fine in France”

    He never went to jail nor did he pay a fine. That case was canceled.

    “- named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Snowhite case”

    Not a crime. I can get you named in all kinds of cases in no time. Doesn’t mean a thing.

    “- lied about his naval war record and his academical credentials”

    Link? Evidence? I know that his records were mispresented internally and externally but I don’t think he did anything like that himself. And why is this relevant at all?

    How about this:

    * L. Ron Hubbard’s procedures for drug rehabilitation are presently employed in 47 nations. They have proven five times more effective than any similarly aimed program.
    * His program for criminal reform is presently at work in more than 2,000 prisons and penal institutions internationally and has produced an 80 percent reduction in recidivism.
    * His technology for learning and literacy are delivered across 74 countries.
    * L. Ron Hubbard’s universally acclaimed moral code entitled The Way to Happiness, non-religious and appealing solely to common sense, has statistically reversed declining moral trends across entire communities, with 82 million copies distributed in 95 languages in over 150 countries.

    – L

  65. All that I’m saying is that it seems to be in poor taste to judge one based on looks alone, especially given the non-photoshopped examples that I gave. In fact, strip the jpg from the gawker post, and you’ll see the actual video- it’s pretty scary. The man is insane, by any standard.

    I did give two examples of pending legal actions, to some degree. But I would remind you that you posted of the “anonymous” hacking incidents long before convictions. Also, Fowler confessed to the theft, so that’s a matter of record. Also, “innocent until proven guilty” is a legal term, to be applied to courts- it doesn’t apply to clear cut issues. For instance, if you were to shoplift in front of a police officer, you would be legally innocent until proven otherwise, even if DM himself saw you do it. You can wait for the conviction, but one man was shot three times, one once from a self-inflicted wound. We can all do the math.

    Do you not have a comment on what the police found?

  66. Links fixed (my own post was stuck in the spam filter too).

    I see you are missing the context to the photo I posted. My bad. It is a self-made, self-posted photo and here is the text going along with the photo:

    “Carol Kramer is our first End of Endless OT VII completion. She is an incredible being. Artistic, yet unbreakable; theta, yet unyielding.”

    Do you agree that this end of endless gang bang photo is different to the video screen shots and downgrading photoshop work you posted?

    I am amazed about the blindness of the poster to call this zombie “theta”. Unless she was already rotting away and got revived I would say Rathbun did her in quite thoroughly. Another good reason not to let people fiddle around with Scientology but keep the standards high and Scientology technology unchanged.

    Enough internal joking. How about answering my open question? You brought two examples of pending legal cases. Who knows how they end and when. Not useful.

    – L

  67. “I find it tiring to discuss theories and maybes. Give me an actual incident, name or something relating to real life and we’ll see. Otherwise, no. ”

    L. Ron Hubbard:
    – convicted of fraud and given a 4 year prison sentence and a 35,000 F fine in France
    – named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Snowhite case
    – lied about his naval war record and his academical credentials

    So the founder of your religion was a criminal and a liar himself.

  68. Thank you for correcting my links to allow the posting- lesson learned and appreciated.

  69. “And this zombie (center) is a product of “true scientology tech”? ”

    Are we judging people based on their looks now? That’s a very slippery slope. Otherwise, we would have to consider:

    This wide-jawed nutjob, telling people that they will die “alone, in pain and miserable”, and that he’s going to take their picture to OSA:
    cache.ga wker.com/assets/stills/sciento_convo_gawker.flv.jpg

    Or maybe this vein-throbbing psycho?
    i69.phot obucket.com/albums/i68/sadhu77/blonde_in_black_2.jpg

    Or this foul-mouthed vampire?
    home.s nafu.de/tilman/berlin1997/carmichael2-17.jpg

    Perhaps this is a road that we should not go down…

  70. Okay- perhaps a high-ranking scientologist stealing a quarter million dollars from his own company, and then murdering a US Military Veteran?

    Or, we could talk about the police raiding a scientology center in Italy and finding dossiers on “enemies” and former members?

  71. ” Comment by Bigdaddy on May 20, 2010 2:21 pm
    Related to previous comments, related to the difference between critic’s and adherent’s crimes. Would you rather not discuss it?”

    I find it tiring to discuss theories and maybes. Give me an actual incident, name or something relating to real life and we’ll see. Otherwise, no.

    – L

  72. Related to previous comments, related to the difference between critic’s and adherent’s crimes. Would you rather not discuss it?

  73. “Here is a good place to start (nothing confidential; mostly populated by true Scientology believers): http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/

    Wow, I had missed that one! ROFL! “True Scientology believers”! LMAO!!!

    And this zombie (center) is a product of “true scientology tech”? http://markrathbun.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/terrific_trio.jpg Well done auditing hours by Mark Marty Rathbun. Wheeeee!

    Good one, Brendon, you made my day!

    – L

  74. “Comment by Bigdaddy on May 20, 2010 1:11 pm
    I see that Rex fowler pled not guilty today- it’ll be interesting to see what comes out in the trial. I read that the defense is concerned about a fair trial, since the victim was so well liked and respected in the community. The judge, however, does not feel there’s a conflict of interest.”

    I read the article too. What has this to do with this post?

    – L

  75. I see that Rex fowler pled not guilty today- it’ll be interesting to see what comes out in the trial. I read that the defense is concerned about a fair trial, since the victim was so well liked and respected in the community. The judge, however, does not feel there’s a conflict of interest.

  76. Only ten, Anonymous? If that were the case, the Scientology-criticism movement would be very small one! it would be more accurate to say “thousands”! The critics have only had a very small number of arrests related to Scientology (all for minor acts) and a ZERO body count. Scientology, on the other hand, has seen multiple felony arrests and convictions, and a rather large number of suicides and murders.
    Which one is more ethical group, as a whole?

  77. Why bother, Anonymous? We don\’t really need to do much work- Scientology is doing it for us! Sure, their recent search engine optimization (SEO) efforts have increased some of their rankings, but the truth is still on the \’net, archived at countless sites. People can see Hubbard\’s actual Military record. They can see his claims of a doctorate. They can see the stories of the countless people that have escaped the group. The upcoming generations are much more net savvy than the first generation of scientologists- they have much more information available to them than any other generation. That\’s why scientology is hemmoraging members, and any non-cos study, survey or count reflects this.
    So you don\’t have to come to them, just sit back and watch.

  78. Where one falls 10 shall take his place.

    We do not forgive, do not forget, WE ARE COMING FOR YOU!

  79. Long before Anonymous, people had a dislike for Scientology. In a 2006 CBS survey of people asked “What is your impression of [specific religion]” it received 52% “unfavorable” responses (most of all the religions mentioned) and 8% “favorable” (least of all the religions mentioned). The rest were unsure or had no opinion.

    I think the negative numbers were even higher for the study the COS itself conducted in Florida during the Lisa McPherson case, (my initial searches for that didn’t turn up the data…maybe someone else can find it).

    Of course just because someone has an unfavorable impression, that doesn’t make them a critic. But the COS definitely has a bad public perception that is not limited to a “dark corner of the world.”

    And however many critics there are, the newest ones are former, often long-time Scientologists; they may be the fastest growing group of critics! You should check out what they have to say, Louanne. They used to be just like you.

    Here is a good place to start (nothing confidential; mostly populated by true Scientology believers):
    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/

  80. Here’s an interesting question. Most Scientology members seem to assert that the mistakes of one person reflect equally on anyone else of the same group. Therefor anyone who associates with the cause of anonymous must in fact bare the same responsibility as this young man who played a rather nasty prank in New York. By all rights, according to what I’m seeing, all persons who rally to the Anon cause are as guilty as this fellow with his Vaseline. Would you say this is a true statement?

  81. I just read that, when louanne says, “I don’t feel that way”….
    Are you saying that this one young man DOES NOT reflect on all critics?

  82. Louanne says: Did you just say that you are incapable in using Google?

    What a bizzarre leap. No, I’m certainly not saying that.
    Maybe you should use it to wordclear “rhetorical question”.
    Point remains valid and sidestepped.

  83. Louanne says: I don’t feel that way. Maybe I should but then there are no “hundreds of thousands of critics”. Superiority complex on your part, I guess.

    How do you know? Is that just your reflex, to automatically say such a thing? Or can you provide any sort of decent counterpoint? A quick search on the Internet finds countless critical messages, by countless people. Tell me, how many pro-scn posters can you find?

  84. “Documented in court files, acknowledged as true even by Anonymous. ”

    It doesn’t become a fact just because you say it.
    Which court documents? Who acknowleged this as true?

  85. And I’ll also point out that Scientology doesn’t “worship”. Another PR word chosen to misinform.

  86. Actually, Tommy lee Davis covered that quite well in another post. But, of course, it’s been ignored. Suffice to say, no one except scientologists, and those that think they’re telling the truth, believe that anonymous is the same as the anti-Scientology movement.

    This message is just spin, and posted on a free site because no actual journalist would write so poorly, in every possible sense. Just like the other 20 free press releases someone posted in favor of the group. Sad, that they have to post their own positive news.

    Louanne, maybe you’ll be so kind as to answer this time. Why do you feel this small-time vandal represents the hundreds of thousands of critics, while still maintaining that accused murderer OtVII Rex fowler somehow does not represent Scientology?

    • “2010/04/15 at 5:31pm
      Louanne, maybe you’ll be so kind as to answer this time. Why do you feel this small-time vandal represents the hundreds of thousands of critics”

      I don’t feel that way. Maybe I should but then there are no “hundreds of thousands of critics”. Superiority complex on your part, I guess.

      – L

  87. Yes, obviously that was a CoS pr release, because it reeks of propaganda and outright lies.
    Let me get some things straight here:
    “Almahadin’s sentence, forbids him from going near the Church of Scientology for five years. He was also sentenced to pay the damages caused by his acts and to perform substantial community service as further restitution for the crime.”

    Actually he was sentenced to only 5 days community service, $660 to pay for damages and to stay away from the New York org for only 1.5 years.
    Looks like the judge did not consider this to be a “hate crime” as Co$ wants to make us believe, but rather as the juvenile prank it was.

    ““Anonymous” is a loosely connected hate group targeting Scientologists, Jews and other minority racial and ethnic groups and organizations.”

    That’s not true.

    “According to court documents, Anonymous is an underground hate group that, in addition to the cyber attack, targeted Churches of Scientology and members with death threats, bomb threats and fake anthrax mail. In addition to Scientology Churches and the Prime Minister of Australia, Anonymous has also targeted The Epilepsy Foundation, hip-hop music websites and others.”

    According to court documents? Show me that court documents!
    It’s also not true that Anonymous targeted the epilepsy foundation or hip-hop music websites. That wasn’t the same Anonymous, who protests against Scientology. For all we know that could also have been Scientologists posting anonymously, so that they could blame it on Anonymous later on.

    • “2010/04/15 at 5:19pm
      Yes, obviously that was a CoS pr release, because it reeks of propaganda and outright lies.”

      Yap, yap, yap.

      How about some facts?

      “According to court documents, Anonymous is an underground hate group that, in addition to the cyber attack, targeted Churches of Scientology and members with death threats, bomb threats and fake anthrax mail. In addition to Scientology Churches and the Prime Minister of Australia, Anonymous has also targeted The Epilepsy Foundation, hip-hop music websites and others.”

      Documented in court files, acknowledged as true even by Anonymous. Maybe in that little dark corner of the world of yours these facts don’t exist? Stunning. Or not. I am always amazed how much effort goes into “critics'” actions, just to keep the lies alive. Must drive you crazy.

      – L

  88. Say, isn’t prweb that free press release website, where anyone can write and post their own story?

    • “2010/04/15 at 3:51pm
      Say, isn’t prweb that free press release website, where anyone can write and post their own story?”

      Did you just say that you are incapable in using Google?

      http://www.prweb.com/

      – L


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

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