17 Jun 97
Some very interesting discussions on OT3 incident 2 took place on A.C.T. during May 1997. Here I'm going
to summarize some of the things that I thought were noteworthy and toss my own two cents worth in as well.
I'll use different prefixs on the lines from different speakers.
>Homer W. Smith wrote:
>> The Pilot's words, according to Hubbard, are "I am mocking this up." > > Does anyone have some specifics about this incident? What does the > Pilot look like? Where is he located? etc. > > The 'Pilot' claims that he was > the big kahuna spirit that tried to take responsibility for the > incident by postulating "I am mocking this up".
See "a more accurate look at incident 2" in section 6A of Super Scio <14 of 32>.
Note that I only claim to be a fragment, I think that you'll find thousands of people on Earth who are shattered
pieces of that guy. Also, I think that everyone will find many times that they were gods on the track. In
other words, I'm not trying to grandstand here or pull status. It simply gave me a different perspective
on the incident.
>Has anyone actually >run this incident? No generalities please, and I don't care what >cHubbo said about it.
# From: ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) # # The visio I got on running inc 2 was a frontal view of a space suited # pilot with a helmet. The image was holographically projected and # appeared high in the air without any associated craft. # My experience of the "I am mocking it up" was similar to that # mentioned by Ken. It seemed to have the meaning "I mocking this and # you up" or "I am God the Creator and you are all my created entities".
Ralph is referring to an earlier post by Ken Urqhart.
I didn't get/have the intention "you are all my created entities" when I ran this incident from the pilot's viewpoint, but maybe it was there. However, it definitely has the implication of "I am God and this is my universe and my mockup so you'd better agree to my postulates". This is done knowing that there are other Gods (each of whom would say the same thing and argue with you about it) and knowing that the fragmented beings in bodies are also potentially gods. In other words, it is a trick to get control of the mockup by overwhelm and intention and responsibility (in this case at least, because the goal was to stop the implant rather than continue it), as I descibed in the super scio writeup.
When I ran the incident from the pilot's viewpoint, I got the idea that I was mocking up a big pilot's head
in the sky. But it seemed to me like it was a 1930's style barnstorming pilot.
# I have not run anything that substantiates the version posted by the # 'Pilot' however I wasn't around here at the time. I have come across # similar things to what he states but in very much earlier incidents.
Now we're getting somewhere. There are lots of these mass implants.
Even Hubbard knew better. In the HCL lectures of 1952, he says that there are at least 5 major "joiner"
incidents, and that "the last one seems to have taken place here on Earth, but I don't know the details yet"
(approximate quote). So its late on the chain.
Why put out details on the "last incident on the chain" when you know that you need to run earlier
similar and then not even mention that there are earlier ones.
# From running thousands BTs through it I found common aspects to the # story but also many individual variations. # Many have come up with later parts of the incident which in their # version includes being transported to other planets and used in # astrological implants.
Very interesting. Any idea how they are used? To project the implants? To be the astrological
symbols? To infest the guy and push him into following his horoscope?
# Other appear to have been set up in a belt around the planet which # would trap beings trying to exteriorize from the planet with visions # of various different "heavens".
Again interesting. My first thought on applying this is to ask "were you built into a screen"
if I hit one of these guys.
# It also seems that this type of incident has occurred many times. # Entities have also come up with an earlier "experimental" version of # the implant occuring on a moon. I have also dated more recent # recurrences.
Yes.
# My own tendency is to neither believe nor disbelieve these track # events. I run what the PC (i.e. the BT/Cl) comes up with.
Excellent attitude.
# When I ran OT3 in the CofS the first 15 - 20 hours was almost purely # inc 2 and inc 1 as per LRH. In those few hours I had more subjective # case gain than all the 400 or so hours prior to it put together. After # that I was running mostly other incidents. After a few hundred hours I # switched to the Milazzo rundown and found it much smoother. (In the # Milazzo version one doesn't initially direct the cluster to inc 2 but # one asks for the cluster making incident and then one date/locates it. # Over the later years it became apparent that inc 1 was quite late on # the track of a being.
When I studied the level, it was very unclear as to which rundown to use. My feeling was that you would just know if it was inc 2 (because you had just studied it) and if not, then you would simply do Milazzo, and I found this to be the case (but most of the inc 2 guys took off on an automatic blow when I read the materials and only a couple had to be run on it). The supervisor, however, was sure that you had to run inc 2 first in all cases. The only way to pass the practical drill was to do it his way (of course you can evaluate for a student with repetative flunks). So my first session was continually checking for an inc 2 that wasn't there before running cumulative cluster formation. The CS sent me to cramming for this (right action but wrong target) and I got them to cram the supervisor instead.
I think that inc 1 is recent and is the incident used to shift people from the magic universe into this universe.
The first time might be as far back as 86 trillion, but there could also be very recent occuances because we do
excape occasionally.
# The principle tech violation in OT3 and extensive NOTs , as I see it, # is that it violates the self determinism of a being. There has to be a # point when the Pre-OT has freed up enough charge to be able to take # responsible for their part in the BT/Cl phenomena.
Definitely.
# My perception is that BT/Cls stick to the early track aesthetic # creations of the Pre-OT. These creations often have multiple ownership # and alter-is.
Here I wonder if we are talking about abberative BTs or intentionally getting others to put pieces of themselves onto your asthetic mockups so as to gain agreement and solidity.
Of course I think that there is a natural mechanism (infinitely big beings exchanging bits of themselves conciously)
that was abberated (unconcious beings putting implanted bits of themselves onto each other to keep themselves trapped
and human).
# Bill Robertson has put forward some similar ideas but # with different ways of running than mine in his OT12/13.
We are forever cursed with beings dramatizing keeping things hidden and confidential (I mean Bill rather
than Ralph). Hubbard wasn't the first or last either. Almost all of the big gurus and anchient magicians
all had their top secret upper levels. If Faraday, Edison, and Tesla had each kept their own stuff confidential
(because it can be used to electrocute people), none of them would have had a workable technology and we'd still
be reading by gas lights.
< From: Jazzlamont@aol.com 17 May 1997 (LaMont Johnston) < Re: Alan Walter Tell us about Xenu < < <Tell me, what is the significance of the pilot saying 'He's making it up'? < < As written up, the pilot is saying "I'm mocking it up". < < I ran it the first time through Book One auditing the stupid-PC-mistake way, < "making it up", not being familiar with the use of the term "mocking it up" < at that time. < < I've subsequently always thought of it as a back door, a wink of the eye and < a nod of the head, - a little bit of rebellion, and a stage cue for the < not-so-totally unconscious. < < It has never had any further significance to me. < < There is a whole range of considerations which clarify the incident if one < accepts the "overt" side, and runs the thing from the viewpoint of "The < Pilot". Then the line becomes, "I'm mocking it up". Ta-daaaa. < < Get 360 on it, and it's not that big a deal. <
Now here is an interesting slant. Either LaMont and I are both split off of the same big guy, or there
is another twist here, namely that everybody can run this incident from the pilot viewpoint. Any comments?
< ... & in a second post of the same day < < Answer: I ran OT III, Incident 2, the first time in a Book One session (no < meter) with no prior understanding of Scn, (I did read the serialized version < of dianetics as a nine year old, but that was my last contact -1949 until I < began auditing with the student Book Auditor in 1964).
Serialized version?
Evolution of a Science was in the May 1950 Astounding. There was a whole run of Editorials about Dianetics
by Campbell, starting a few months earlier and continuing off and on for most of the year. Maybe this is
what you're thinking of. I never heard of DMSMH being serialized. However, Ron's "To the Stars"
was serialized in, if I remember right, the Feb and March issues and his short story "Greed" (probably
his last one) showed up a few months after EOS. I picked up a huge collection of old Astoundings at 5 cents
each back in the early 1960s.
< I ran the phrase "I'm just making it up", while watching a pilot turn around < and speak these lines over his shoulder. It looked like a movie set. Found < out later the line "mocking it up" when I opened the OT III pack at the AO. < < ... < Question: "was it or was it not a real incident for you." < < Answer: That this incident was experienced at some time in "my" past was real < to "me".
Since I knew the date of Inc 2 from the RJ 67 tape, and since I occasionally got bored and wanted to look for things with real charge while I was being run on Dianetics (after an unattested clear state and after having been keyed out OT), I tried to run the thing on R3R before I had any knowledge of OT 3.
When I moved to the date, I got the following strange incident:
I was the navigator of a spaceship and I "couldn't be the pilot". So I was jelous of him and fed him a wrong course and we smashed into a sun and died in a burst of radiation.
I ran this through a few times, it seemed to sort of errase with an FN and we dropped it, but no more data had come up on repeated passes and it was all very vague and was one of the few times that I seemed to get a sort of flat picture instead of 3D in Dianetics.
Looking back at it now, there were only 2 actual perceptions present when I ran the incident. First there was the feeling that I "couldn't be the pilot", and then there was the feeling of being hit with a nuclear explosion. Nothing else. The rest was dub-in. If I can't be the pilot, then obviously I must be the navigator. If there was some kind of nuclear stuff, then we must have fallen into a sun. And if there was so much charge, then I must have comitted an overt, so I probably was jelous and fed him a bad course.
The dubbed-in incident FNed on my getting my confront up on being hit by a nuclear explosion.
The odd thing is that now I can see the logic behind the dub-in. But none of this was concious when I ran the
incident. I got a "real" picture and I thought that the content was at least partially correct
when I ran it.
= From: Norman Culver <ndc@icanect.net> = Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology = Subject: Re: Alan Walter Tell us about Xenu = Date: 18 May 1997 00:26:53 -0400 = Message-ID: <337E840C.6366@icanect.net> = = Jazzlamont@aol.com wrote: = = > I ran the phrase "I'm just making it up", while watching a pilot turn = > around and speak these lines over his shoulder. = > It looked like a movie set. = = Yes, I have run this incident several times, each time with slight = variations but the pilot always says "He's just mocking it up". = The incident seems to be a vignette that stands alone, whatever = came before or may come after just goes away. There is nothing = particularly heavy about this recording, but you have do some = digging to get it to pop off. Is this really part of OTIII? I = don't know. = = ndc
Makes me wonder if there is more here than just incident 2.
> From: Joe Harrington <joeharr@worldnet.att.net> > Subject: Re: Fake > > Homer W. Smith wrote: > > > You know Alan, if LRH faked OT III as an incident, then in > > all likelihood he faked a whole hell of a lot of others things > > along the way. A saint doesn't turn joker in one day. > > Some of the major outpoints of OT3: > > The date for incident 2, and the data on different land masses and > volcanoes is contradicted by geological data. Someone posted an article > about this some time back.
If incident 2 is real, the radio-carbon date for the great dying would have to be off because the calculations assume a constant background radiation level which would be thrown off by a large number of nuclear explosions.
I'm sure that Ron must have known the textbook date. He makes a crack somewhere about radio-carbon dating being wrong, but he didn't sound like he understood the process or knew why it was wrong. So I assume that he got the date by meter assessment. To some degree I find the "wrongness" of the date to be a mark of accuracy. If it had been textbook, I would have assumed that he got it out of the book and was making things up, because the textbook date would have to be wrong if the incident is correct.
As to the volcanos and landmasses and DC-8s, it is really easy to twist things around a bit until they seem familiar. How many times do you get real sonic on a forign language in an incident instead of dubbing in English? It doesn't normally seem to interfear with errasure.
I've mentioned before that I don't think that the modern volcano locations are accurate for the incident, but it doesn't usually matter because the PCs are vague about where they really are and just spot something in that general area. Same for the islands and everything else. For all I know the "packaging" might have been done in Atlantis and Lemuria (that almost indicates).
A winged shuttle craft makes sense for ground to orbit. It might even have some vague resemblance to a DC 8 in the same way that an electric bubble car has a vague resemblance to a Model T. If all you knew were Model Ts and steam cars, you might dub the Model T in simply on the basis of familiararity.
In other words, this is dub-in on account of reality and havingness rather than dub-in due to too much charge. But we also know that Ron was dramatizing extremely heavy charge on the incident, so I would also expect dub-in on this basis as well.
> There is no evidence that he did ANY kind of "research" on this or
> piloted it on others before releasing it. The same holds true for NOTS
> and he was in a similar, if not worse, mental and physical condition
> when he created NOTS.
There is evidence of research in 1952. Sloppy, of course, but not completely absent. This is where Nots comes from. After hearing the HCL lectures, I wondered what the hell we were doing fooling around with incident 2 (I'd done OT3 but not NOTS) when there was an easier way. Almost anybody could have come up with Nots after hearing those lectures. In fact, one of the reels was immediately labled confidential when Nots came out (its in pubs catalogue 4 and left out of catalogue 5). They used to play that one for public over at LA org in the days before Nots was released.
I think that his idea of resarch was to figure something out, occasionally trying an experiment or two. As far as any real testing went, we know that there was never more than a lick and a promise on any level.
>He was at the bottom of the tone scale and using drugs during this
> period.
Very likely.
> Its illogical to assume that everyone here today was here, or somewhere >in the vicinity, 76 million years ago.
That is mentioned in the OT3 materials, but downplayed. I would think that the majority of people wouldn't
have been here. But there might be a tendency for people who were here at that time to tend to pull the place
in again if it was re-activated for use as a prision. And people might pickup an occasional BT who had been through
the incident as a side effect of re-incarnating here.
> OT3 and NOTS is not optional and is a gross violation of the Auditor's >Code.
Pushing incident 2 at somebody would certainly be an eval and a code break. I think that they should leave NOTS alone until the PC originates it. Then start with Nots. If Nots flattens without EP, one could check over the incident 2 platen without using it as a heavy eval.
I do think that you bump into the Nots stuff eventually if you do enough OT drills. But its wrong to block
the upper bridge by having to do Nots first.
> This "event" was purported to be the panacea, the "4th dynamic engram", > the last step before "OT". It has not proved out and Hubbard and his > organization just got crazier after this was released.
Too true. It was a wrong why and really sank the org.
When I was running the penalty universes (see Super Scio), I realized that the later part of inc 2 (and any mass implant) intentionally restimulated these penalty universes by showing the pc various pictures and items from them. The penalty universe with the goal "to join" shows a Hitlerian SS style military organization. Pictures of this are in the later part of inc 2, and it can't be errased by running inc 2 because it's too late on the chain (and doesn't include the first item of the penalty universe, which is "to join is native state").
Ron thought that the later part was just random pictures and couldn't errase them (and was too dumb or too overcharged to go earlier). So he dramatized them instead. It's not a literal dramatization (the body types are wrong, for example) and he got pictures out of more than one of these penalty universes all jumbled up together. But I would still say that the entire Sea Org structure and operating basis is an implant dramatization. He stirred it up, he stopped thinking, and he projected the damn thing into the physical universe.
> Hubbard was a pathological liar and his claims of "research" are not >creditable. > > I don't wish to contend with any who believe that his OT3 scenario was > some actual event, or that they contacted something that was similar to >it, or any who feel they have benefited from running "Body Thetans" that > are clinging to them or their body.
Very good. I did get gains from this stuff despite the mess that was made of it. It's just a shame to think that it could have been done right. If he'd supported other researchers instead of shooting them, and encouraged research, and encouraged good testing and validation of each point (even if he wasn't up to doing that himself), then we'd have real answers and have avoided much misery and he would not have ended up psychotic and paranoid and hunted at the end. Yes you can be paranoid (scared of the wrong conspiracy) and be hunted by a real government at the same time.
>Joe
# From: wisdom@cyberstation.net (alan) # Subject: Re: Alan Walter Tell us about Xenu # Date: 17 May 1997 01:56:44 -0400 # # Homer asks: # # > Did or did not LRH know the outcome of his actions when he gave the # >pc the incident to run? # # ... # I may have inadvertently caused LRH to produce OT 111, in a flawed manner. # # What happened was 73 people were brought to the Royal Scottsman. We were # docked in Valencia, Spain. It was Dec '67. # ... # Went back to LRH and told him how much we had just collected. # # What I didn't realize until this moment was, it forced Ron to write up and # issue OT3.
At least one guy in the anti camp has misinterpreted this. Alan needs to be a little bit more aware that this is a public forum.
I think that most of us here are aware of the big pile of session notes from Ron's African trip. I've seen this mentioned by a number of sources. I don't think that Alan meant to say that Ron made up inc 2 on the spot.
But what Alan is saying here is very pertinent. Namely, that he put Ron on the spot to deliver a level, and Ron simply sat down and wrote the handwritten instructions (based on the mess he'd made of running the incident during the previous month) and gave it out to people without any kind of a pilot program.
The level was not well thought out and tested. Ron had not even flattened the process himself.
# So to answer the above question: It was a poorly produced # solution to a problem. # # > WHAT WAS RON'S INTENTION # # To deliver something? # # At that time there was no on going research in existence. OT 3 is the only # Tech I know of that was not thoroughly tested before it was issued.
Yeah.
And once Ron got the damn sea org crazyness going, there was little time for any more research and little feedback from the field because anything but bullshit success stories got you into ethics and anything critical even on staff comm lines was marked entheta and dead filed.
I think that Ron had good intentions in the old days. But at this point I think that he was fleeing (off to the sea in ships) and trying to build up a war chest to defend himself.
-------------
Doing OT3 was a big blowout for me. I turned on an automatic blow while reading the materials. I only ran the materials for about a week and then turned on an unkillable dial wide persistant FN that lasted for about 6 months. During the entire 6 months I was occasionally spotting BTs and blowing them by inspection.
It became obvious to me during that time period that the incident was a criss cross implant of each of us into the others. At one point I got a fairly real picture of putting out 7 fragments and 7 other people each putting out 7 fragments. The pieces were reshuffled to form 8 "new" beings, which each of us being a "core" personality with fragments of each of the 7 other guys attached to it and a piece of ourselves on each of the 7 other guys. This was how I thought of the "packaging" process.
-------------------
If one of you is feeling helpful, it would be nice if you could email some of the search engines such as yahoo about the Scientology Reformer's Home Page (see below). I'd really like the loyalists to run into this page. It might wake some of them up. Note that I don't use email for fear of exposure (remaining hidden in the ranks gives the org something to worry about and keeps them restimulated on the subject of reform).
-------------------