-

From Wikileaks

Link to summary:
http://www.spaink.net/cos/essays/robinson_summary.html
Bittorrent is recent, since 2006. Since the documents were stolen in 1983 they have been available on 'secret' websites and widely distributed on CD. The mass media likes to claim they are still 'secret' so it can repeatedly write exclusive revelations about them!
The Church of Scientology has no consistent policy on the documents. It claims copyright on them whilst simultaneously saying they are faked or altered.
--Hartley Patterson 02:22, 26 March 2008 (GMT)

I believe in Wikileaks as much as anyone, but if this document, "written by L.Ron HUBBARD" as yu say, is copyrighted, then wikileaks is, perhaps, vulnerable to a suit over it.

As wikipedia says, no copyright material on wikipedia is allowed.

this isn't wikipedia.

this is the internet

noone can hear you scream

tonight we dine in clearwater

For A group that claims to have such important information about our past and our souls sure wants it all hush hush... Most groups that have information like this want it to be known either for our sake or theres. Either way, if this information is real and they want to keep it from us unless we pay or it isn't real and it's all about money, how can they expect me to care about their copyright rights at all. Information is knowledge, and I have the knowledge to stay away from these people and care not for them.

[edit] Scientology's OT documents

Readers of Scientology's OT documents should realize that while LRH would have written the original version(s) in his day--the OT materials have been edited and revised numerous times over the years by CofS officials, specifically through the Senior C/S Int's office, RTRC (Ron's Technical Research Compilations). For example, specifically OT V--many of the materials were written by Ray Mithoff, Dan Koon, Sue Koon, and revised by David Miscavige. Parts of OT VIII have also been changed--compare the original materials and mentions of Jesus Christ to the latest version(s).

One of the many reasons CofS tried so hard to keep all the docs confidential under threat of expulsion and sp declare is so that people wouldn't talk about content and compare differences and similarities betwen the versions. Church members, who choose to remain trusting of their leaders and therefore remain oblivious of the truth about the lack of "standard source" materials, would never know this because they maintain their pledge to confidentiality, and therefore, their naivity and oblivion.

It's only people outside of that bondage who realize that there is no such thing as "pure source materials." Were the members to actually catch onto this, the Scientology empire would crash. Why do you think church officials encourage members to put a filter on their computer to "weed out" the "lies" about Scientology being told on the Internet? Just another example of how Scientology promises total spiritual freedom but actually gives total spirital bondage.

[edit] OT 8?

Previous revealed text for OT 8 (e.g. Fishman) have been generally accepted as either fraudulent, or as an early version no longer in use. No OT 8s that have left the Church have provided or confirmed any OT 8 source text as yet. If this text can be confirmed, it's a major advance in Scientology scholarship - David Gerard 10:45, 29 March 2008 (GMT)

[edit] An Ex OT8 on the Wikileaks hosted OT PDF specifically

I can only comment on the levels I did and they all look authentic except for "The New OT8" which I have never seen before. L10 looks correct. L11 and L12 I don't know. The Superpower process is out of date as Blowforgood carefully explained to us last week. He would be good for some authentifications too.

[edit] Michael Pattinson OT8

(Everything below is quoted from a post on enturbulation.org)

For Enturbulation.org and Wikileaks:

I have been asked to add to public understanding of the Scientology level of OTVIII which I did in 1990. I believe this should be done to avoid widespread misunderstood words (OTVIII, for example) which, according to Hubbard would breed hostility if not clarified fully.

The end result of OTVIII (as released in a public document-video deposition in the case Pattinson vs Miscavige et al.) is "Now I know who I am not and am interested in finding out who I am".

That is the top, the summit, the pinnacle and ultimate enlightened reality of the Bridge to Total Freedom advertised and sold by Scientology. There is NO higher level of attainment in Scientology even 18 years after I did the level. Promises of OT9 and 10, which have been paid for (around $10,000.00 per person) by hundreds of Scientologists have never been delivered.

The only version of the entire OTVIII procedure I have seen is by Ariane Jackson and she was very courageous to have posted it in a time of extreme fair game. Her account describes also what I did on that level, and it is small but missed nothing of relevance. I have not wanted to post the same description so that Ariane's courage will get its due recognition.

The Hubbard letter referring to various highly controversial statements such as the Christian Jesus being a pedophile, etc was not on the OTVIII level that I did, nor on the one Ariane did.

When I did the OTVIII level it was subject to EXTREME high security, with loyalty, ethics checks, contribution factors, background checks ad nauseam. The actual materials were stored in a library-courseroom with alarms and guards on the doors with swipe-card entry after personal invitation only. When we went to get our study packs they had a cord with a plug on them and we had to get to our table and plug it in within 30 seconds or alarms would go off.

In high contrast to this security overkill, the materials were utterly bland and virtually content-proof. There were a few pages (6 or 7?) in the whole pack for the actual OTVIII process. One of them was a 1 line page with a definition which was already in the non-confidential "Hubbard Technical Dictionary", i.e. "red herring". This (as can be verified more precisely by another contributor?) simply said that mental image pictures (note; these are the entire focus of all of "Dianetics") were just a red herring and should be ignored as of no importance. I know that this info will not thrill all those folks who paid for Dianetics over the decades but Hubbard said it, not me.

It seemed to me (though I would not even have thought of complaining after all the trouble I had to get onto OTVIII) that something big was missing from the course and level. In the "Bridge" from "raw meat" (Hubbard's term for new recruits) to OTVIII I had heard of a lot of outlandish science-fiction style claims by Hubbard and claims of super human powers being attained by OTs. So, as OTVIII is the first actual OT level (I-VII are Pre-OT levels) I was honestly expecting some meat and potatoes. Instead of an OT data banquet there was only the remnants of some formerly whole pretzels and cold coffee. I felt I had missed the buffet.

I can only speculate as to what was taken out of OTVIII to make it such a lame scam. Jesse Prince has affirmed that the "Fishman doc?" was a valid Hubbard writing, so that would fit the bill of "hot content" that may have originally been part of the real OTVIII. In any case David Miscavige told us that OTVIII was so sensitive (it's title was "Truth Revealed") that it COULD ONLY BE DELIVERED ON A SHIP. So Scientologists were coerced to pay for a $35,000,000.00 ship back in 1985-86 for this super sensitive stuff. The OTVIII I got could have been delivered in a local coffee shop, folks.

Go figure...

The publication __________________
"All those billions of dollars and no OTs to show for it. Epic Fail."
Yes, I did OT8. Long story; www.lermanet.com/michaelpattinson

Thank you, WikiLeaks for posting the O.T. Levels!

[edit] Red Volume XIV

I thought Red Volume (ie. The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology) #14 was for HCOBs from the years 1981 - 1982, not the OT levels?

The Scientology lawyer who sent the letter to Wikileaks asking for it to be removed is called "Ava Paquette"?

Really?

Is that some kind of joke, or a fortuitous satirical critique on the nature of the CoS?1.0.22.53 10:35, 14 April 2008 (GMT)

yes, seems to be correct. a google search for the lady clearly shows she has been involved in quite some scientology based lawsuits (http://www.scientology-lies.com/people/ava-paquette.html). Moxon & Kobrin in general is Scientology-focused and from what I know all partners are also staff members of the church. Kendrick Moxon actually is a former OSA member when it was still called "Guardians Office", working with Mary Sue Hubbard. He was also the one providing false papers to the FBI in Operation Snow White. Leaves one wondering what kind of scamming criminals are allowed to practice law in the US - Wikileaks through Olle. Olle 18:21, 15 April 2008 (GMT)

Does it not seem weird that this legal demand email to the Wikileaks website to remove the Scientology documents is from ampaquette@aol.com ? Surely the lawyers would have a @*company*.com domain or whatever? Ive got enough spam emails from rediculous things like tonyblair@hotmail.com etc!!!

[edit] The PDF files: scientology-ot-levels.pdf has been hacked

It appears that after the word got out about the cult papers, someone has hacked the PDF files so no one else may view them. Both the primary and alternates sites have damaged files.

Are you sure about that? I can view them fine. It's a heavy PDF, weighing in at 613 pages, so maybe it just hasn't finished downloading on your end.

[edit] How to download The Scientology "secret" Bible

After not being able to use the links listed on the page, I spent about an hour on the Internet trying to find this document. As it turns out there is a secondary "https" site that mirrors the ones listed. It took a few minutes but I was able to download the entire file at https://secure.wikileaks.info/leak/scientology-ot-levels.pdf (please copy and paste into a different Internet Explorer window)

All links presented on secure.wikileaks.org are working, have always been and will always be. All claims of corrupted documents or similar are local browser and/or connection issues by users. In case of larger files we suggest to download and save them (right click on link, save target as) locally if in-browser viewing is giving troubles. The domain above works also, yet might produce a security warning/error as it forwards to secure.wikileaks.org and the certificate is not valid for the .info domain. Wikileaks

[edit] SPAM from an AOL e-mail address

Very funny that the 'legal letter' was an e-mail received from an AOL e-mail address. Does this mean that neither scientology nor the law firm representing them have their own domain name?

[edit] jibberish

I tried to read it but it's all jibberish. what a load of crap. what the hell is this guy talking about. I thought I was reading an old work manual written by a schizo.... I say if they want it it taken off due to copyright let them have it... ITS CRAP

- It's written using scientology's own terms and internal language. Essentially this serves to make it sound authoritative to those within the church and also to exclude those outside. It may be gibberish, but it's gibberish that people mistakenly pay thousands and thousands for and that scientology bases it's entire existence on. Scientology uses these to justify it's actions and abuses. It's incredibly important that these are available for all to see.

[edit] Doing These Levels

The purpose of these levels is to increase one's spiritual abilities and nothing else.

These abilities can theoretically be many.

Including the possiblity of "flying out the window to Paris" while remaining a student on the level.

Hopefully, somebody got it.

[edit] typical scientology bullshyte

You shouldn't expect anything else. Be careful guys. Scientology will screw you into the ground if you let them. If they sue you, don't waste time hiring a lawyer. Just claim harrassment and superfluous lawsuit. Maybe in California you might need a real lawyer, because there even the judges(never mind New York)) are a bit potty), but most of the rest of the world is wise to what they are up to.

[edit] Providing an alternative legal service for copyrighted material

If somehow WikiLeaks were connived into removing this document -or say, any other material due to copyright claims- it would be valuable if it continued to provide a page that had meta-information about the document and especially its MD5 hash. Don't forget that it's still legal to talk about copyrighted material, and it would also be legal -even if you weren't distributing material- to confirm or deny that if someone else had a copy through another channel, that that copy is a copy of the legitimate document as you know it. (MD5 Hashes)

Even with the document being served it would be great if the MD5 signatures were shown, it would safeguard the document in the future and rectify any claims of "hacking".

The SHA256 hash, which is superior, is shown. Wikileaks content isn't going anywhere and never has. Wikileaks 04:25, 9 September 2008 (GMT)