Page last updated: Sep 15, 2020 @ 11:01 pm

Evolution of a Science


DM: Indeed, the most notable discovery was the inclusion of a footnote written by the editor of the magazine that first published the book and erroneously included in all published editions. Indeed, a later editor decided to reinforce that false datum adding the letters “LRH” which weren’t even part of the original footnote. Needless to say that footnote happens to be the most confusing part of the book and has been appropriately deleted forevermore.

David Miscavige showed a photograph of the footnote on the screen so it must be true, right? This sentence from the description of disinformation applies in this case:

A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation
with false conclusions and lies.

The footnote was NOT included in all published editions.

1950 – original footnote


1977 – NO footnote


1989 – NO footnote!


2002 – FOOTNOTE!



The footnote was NOT included in editions subsequent to the magazine publication. It was specifically reintroduced in an odd edition in 2002 by Bridge Publications – the same Scientology publishing company controlled by David Miscavige that publishes the 2007 “Basics.” Bridge Publications is managed by members of the Sea Org that operate on ORDERS. Nothing is done unless there is an order to do it, especially something as major as producing a new edition of a book. So who gave the order to create a new edition in 2002 and include the footnote?

Also, isn’t it strange how David Miscavige refers to the company that he controls as “a later editor?” Of course, if he said it in SPECIFICS – “the Bridge Publications” – it would immediately raise an alarm in people’s minds, but by simply OBSCURING THE ACTUAL SPECIFICS WITH GENERIC STATEMENTS, somehow it is no longer a problem and is a part of some generic “story” that makes sense in people’s mind who do not question or think in terms of the specifics to begin with.

So when all is said and done, what does it look like? David Miscavige ordered Church staff to produce an odd edition in 2002 that reintroduced the “confusing footnote” – in order to then use this very same publication to claim that there has been something wrong with the book?

And of course, the footnote is not at all confusing but provides a very clear analogy to support Ron Hubbard’s idea that the human mind must be an “error proof computer.” I actually wish the footnote was continued to be included maybe with another footnote to explain “a vacuum-tube computer circuit” – though there is Google now, and it is not even necessary to understand exactly what it is in order to understand the analogy. But, as can be seen by LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL PUBLICATIONS, the footnote was not included – not until “someone” reintroduced it in a 2002 edition.

The most notable alteration in this book hits right at the heart of the subject – alteration in the definition of an engram.

As stated in the original description, the actual book was not a direct reproduction of the initial magazine article but had some terms “changed to current usage.” Along with that, the definition of an engram was updated to a more correct form – as an engram is NOT the actual “period;” it is not the actual experience but “an energy-picture,” a RECORDING of that experience.



INSIGHT NOTE: It is interesting to think about the fact that in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Ron Hubbard compared the action of an engram with an action of a command installed by a hypnotist that continues to effect the subject from the subconscious outside of one’s conscious volition. If so, then actual “pain” may not be necessary for an engram-like recording to form in the subconsciousness of an individual.

“An engram is received only in the absence of the analytical power.” But what if that “absence of the analytical power” isn’t brought about by a painful experience or a hypnotic induction, but by some form of confusion, subversion or suppression of analytical processing, of critical or logical reasoning, of one’s ability to organize and evaluate some given information? Could this even include some confusing, overwhelming or nonsensical communication – especially when combined with key messages to take away and instructions to follow? In other words, what if communication is specifically structured to be confusing, overwhelming, and maybe even shocking in order to then “implant” the desired thoughts, perceptions and instructions for action?

In the case of this event, the key message (which is actually false datum) is that the original books were all messed up, the new books are “100% LRH,” and that people should buy and study the new books in order to reach “total conceptual understanding.” This includes the lectures which “have never been available” which is yet another “implanted” false datum.

Of course, an engram-like effect where there is loss of analytical power should not be confused with a conscious level event where someone is simply deceived with lies and misleading information (dis-information). But couldn’t there be a mix of both? And an engram is audited by going through and reevaluating SPECIFICS of an incident, or more often a chain of incidents – a chain of interconnected segments of experience and information… Information that is brought to view to the analytical mind which becomes actively involved in organizing and reevaluating that information. There is an ANALYTICAL EFFORT involved toward an engramic area.

In this way, this report may be a considered a form of “auditing,” not of incidents of actual trauma, but of communication that is designed to confuse and overwhelm the analytical mind and implant false data and instructions to follow. This should be a subject of a separate write-up. Definitely something to think about…



Advanced Procedure & Axioms


Let’s first look at an original publication from the 70’s.

1979 Reprint

Notice the aesthetic layout of “To The Reader” page:

No redundant footnotes except for the usual informational footnotes such as the one on page 23.

The two chapters “Effort” and “Effort Processing,” one logically following the other – as clear as a daylight. There is absolutely no confusion or misunderstanding.


Look at the body of text on page 32 that starts with “The only thing of value to recover from an engram is the effort; the only reason one recovers the effort is to recover the postulates…” and continues to the end of the chapter and see if you can clearly determine whether this text should be at the end of the previous chapter on “Effort” or stay where it is at the end of chapter “Effort Processing.”


To me that body of text looks like a kind of “afterthought” where Ron Hubbard wanted to add some extra thoughts and information, and in my view it would basically make no difference whether it was at the end of chapter on “Effort” or stayed where it is at the end of chapter on “Effort Processing.” So there is absolutely NO ACTUAL PROBLEM in this area of text.

The “problem” was invented by David Miscavige and STATED INTO THE MINDS of the audience – an IMAGINED PROBLEM instead of an actual one.

In fact, there is not even a need to be guessing as to the correct placement of that text that was intended by L. Ron Hubbard since this question is easily resolved by looking at the ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION of this book in the first Technical Bulletins Volume as well the relevant pages from the FIRST EDITION.

As clearly stated in the original description:

The first edition was typed on stencils by L. Ron Hubbard



The First Edition

The chapter on EFFORT is on page 11a after chapters on THOUGHT and EMOTION, just as indicated in the TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The chapter on EFFORT PROCESSING follows through 11e.

And then we come to page number 12 with that body of text at the end of chapter on EFFORT PROCESSING. The numbering then goes to page 13 for the next chapter – POSTULATES – just as it is indicated in the TABLE OF CONTENTS.


So much for “an editor with a brain of a shellfish.”

So this body of text is in fact kind of an “afterthought” by Ron Hubbard related to effort and effort processing, and it was appropriately appended at the end of chapter EFFORT PROCESSING just where Hubbard himself had originally placed it. There is no actual problem.

Do Scientology staff members have no access to the First Edition to clear up the intended placement of text, if there was an issue raised for some reason?

And what was the source of the animation that David Miscavige displayed on the screen – the Second or Third Edition? – as it doesn’t match the way text appears in the First Edition.



DM: Then there is the later editor from the not quite right side of the track who decides he’ll interject his clarifications so he assumes with no basis in fact except his own case that everybody must have misunderstood words whereupon he footnotes every word YOU don’t understand turning a one page LRH introduction into 5 pages with the LRH text only occupying the top inch and a half of the page – the rest reserved for his definitions. It not only doesn’t make for an aesthetic read, it also destroys the entire book, in effect, throwing it entirely out of sequence, and here is why: the definition of terms that editor decided to throw on page one are, each one, the subject of an entire chapter later in the book where LRH gives the first and very complete definition of these new subjects so you get “thought” defined in a footnote on page 1 after getting to read all of one sentence of the book, and yet thought is the subject of a two page chapter 44 pages later. Wow, Mr. Editor, thanks a million for the clarification.

But, yes, all of it is back to source a 100%…

The footnotes in the book that Miscavige showed on the screen are definitely an “output,” but did he give any SPECIFICS for this edition that he was showing? Of course not. What he showed is 1989 “L. Ron Hubbard Library” edition published by Bridge Publications – the same Scientology company that now publishes the “Basics.”

1989 “L. Ron Hubbard Library” Edition



Within a few years after Ron Hubbard’s death in 1986, all of the books were released in new editions carrying a new copyright of “L. Ron Hubbard Library.” This was the first set of books released under the leadership of David Miscavige! that already contained some alterations in content along with an overwhelming amount of FOOTNOTES. ALL of the books from this “Library” set were populated by an overwhelming amount of footnotes. [You can see basic information for these “Library” editions at]

Here is another good example – a “Library edition” of Scientology 8-80:

Looking at this, the question obviously arises: if there were no redundant footnotes before and then suddenly all of the books contain footnotes – along with a note at the beginning of the book specifically about the footnotes – then WHO ORDERED CHURCH STAFF AT BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS TO PRODUCE SUCH EDITIONS WITH THE FOOTNOTES?

David Miscavige has been the top official in Scientology’s corporate structure as the Chairman of the Board Religious Technology Center (COB RTC) which is in addition to holding the top leadership position over the Sea Organization that manages all of Scientology organizations including Bridge Publications. As COB RTC and a virtual dictator in the Church’s rigid top-down command structure, it has been David Miscavige’s direct and sole responsibility to “preserve, maintain, and protect the Scientology religion” [] with L. Ron Hubbard’s books being the “holiest of holies” as Scientology’s “religious scripture.”

So when David Miscavige is talking about “the later editor from the not quite right side of the track,” he is actually talking about HIS OWN SUBORDINATES. Or since it is most likely that David Miscavige was the one giving orders to Church staff at Bridge Publications to begin with, then he is really talking about himself?

If by some miraculous circumstance these “Library” editions with extensive footnotes were produced outside of Miscavige’s knowledge which is virtually impossible, but let’s assume, these books were in publication for almost TWENTY (20) YEARS before release of the “Basics” in 2007. At ANY POINT during that time, David Miscavige could have ordered Church staff to remove the redundant footnotes from the books. Yet, he never did.


The most notable alterations in this book include removal of some important text from the description of ADVANCED PROCEDURE – which is the very subject of this book! – and reintroduction of a useless sentence from the First Edition which was specifically removed in later editions. It was a joke by Ron Hubbard that he probably realized did not belong in a book.

It could be said that this body of text in 2007 was made uniform with the First Edition where later additions were dropped, EXCEPT the sentence “It includes PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE PROBLEMS.” under THE FOURTH ACT was present in the First Edition, yet it does not appear in the 2007 remake. Where did it go?



Handbook for Preclears


DM: Yes, it’s a dictated book, but no it was not garbled beyond comprehension. In fact, there were only a few garbles. Unfortunately they happened to be the very words that described the substance of the book. Or to be more precise, the very word that the book is based on is mistranscribed. Only the lectures that were discovered reveal this alter-is. The word or phrase is “Life Continuum” which the typist changed to “Life Continuation.” If you’ve never heard of or understood “Life Continuum,” you now know why.

PEOPLE WHO HAVE READ THE BOOK DON’T KNOW THE PHRASE AS IT’S NOT IN THE BOOK, and yet its resolution is the entire purpose of the book.

Just so that I don’t leave you with misunderstood, and although you will hear more in a moment, Life Continuum is the phenomena of individuals taking on the fears, habits, and pattern of others particularly those people who are dead. In summary, here is the answer to fixed behavior patters and why habits seemingly can’t be broken.

So while the term “Life Continuum” is used by LRH in many books following the Handbook, NOBODY’S EVER REALLY KNOWN WHAT IT MEANT.

DM’s fortitude in manufacturing lies and disinformation seems to know no bounds. He even displayed the words with a PHOTOGRAPH OF THE FIRST EDITION in the background – the First Edition were both phrases – life continuum and life continuation – can be found used interchangeably, and absolutely nothing in the use of those phrases has changed in any subsequent edition, INCLUDING the supposedly “corrected” 2007 edition. This claim by David Miscavige is COMPLETELY FALSE along with the whole story of how “nobody’s ever really known what it meant.”

So not only the phrase LIFE CONTINUUM has been present in all editions of Handbook for Preclears, there was also a detailed definition of this term in the extensive glossary of Scientology 8-80 (first published in 1952, a year after Handbook for Preclears) – the very glossary that David Miscavige removed from the 2007 remake of Scientology 8-80 [see page SET 2]. And of course there has been a definition entry for LIFE CONTINUUM in Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary (first published in 1975).

No lectures were “discovered” because no lectures were lost.

“They have never been available.” is actually THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AVAILABLE.

The original Technical Volumes not only provide detailed lists of lectures, they also indicated whether a given lecture was available or not as of the time of publication. The lectures related to Handbook for Preclears are listed right on the very next page after the book’s description.

Note the information on the EDITOR’S NOTE:

The symbol “**” preceding a tape title means that copies are available from both Publications Organizations. A tape preceded by “*” means that it will soon be available. No asterisk (*) means that neither Publications Organization nor Flag has a master copy of that lecture.

In a list of lectures for Handbook for Preclears we find the same lecture that is referenced in Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary for one of definitions for LIFE CONTINUUM – lecture 5112CM28B – and it has two stars in front of it meaning that it was AVAILABLE. [“C” stands for “copy.” “CM” stands for “copy master.”] How would Church staff be able to compile that dictionary entry and reference this specific lecture if it was “lost?” And even if the lecture became lost… somewhere, somehow, at some time pass 1976… the entry was already published in the dictionary.

** 5112C28B DCL-2B Chart of Attitudes, Part 2 — Life Continuum Theory

Notice how specific and detailed the numbering and description of the lectures are. And everything just easily connects across the materials. This indicates a great level of professionalism, attention to details and correctness in what people were doing under Ron Hubbard’s command. The list of lectures in the TECHNICAL DICTIONARY clarifies that “DCL” stands for “December Conference Lecture.” Yes, the dictionary contains a master list of all the lectures to the date of its publication in 1975. It is truly amazing that such volume and level of detail was produced without the use of personal computers.


Of course, the lectures were not available on CD’s back then because CD-ROM technology has not yet been invented – the lectures were available on REEL TO REEL TAPES.

Notice the quality of audio in 1968! Notice a Scientology staff members making copies of reel to reel tapes (toward the end of the footage selection):

Video source: “The Shrinking World of L. Ron Hubbard” by World in Action / aired August 1968.

Not so “shrinking” back in the day. The lecture segment that was played in the clip is from a Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC) lecture titled “Clearing, What It Is” delivered on September 3, 1964 (code: 6409C03 SH Spec 38).

This video segment also provides a great example of the kind of “insights” that circulate among Scientology critics – just useless, generic misrepresentation of the actual reality of the subject.

What he tells them, when you cut through the jargon, is partly good sense: teaching his disciples how to calm down and deal with the things that worry them. The rest is religious ramblings and stories about his achievements in this life and the ones he’s led before which are as imaginative as his science fiction.


DM: You use the Chart of Attitudes for Rising Scale Processing, and if that too is unfamiliar to you – MORE LOST TECH! It’s how to postulate yourself up the Tone Scale and is also for use in introductory auditing.

The description of RISING SCALE PROCESSING was provided in the book Scientology 8-8008.

Rising Scale Processing was clearly mentioned in the very chapter The Chart of Attitudes and then described in more detail on page 84 within the chapter Postulate Processing.

Of course, there was also a definition of Rising Scale Processing in the TECHNICAL DICTIONARY providing a description from the very same page 84 of Scientology 8-8008, as well as description from PAB 91. The full text of PAB 91 can be found in Volume II of the Technical Bulletins volumes.

And just like with Life Continuum, there are two lectures with this exact name “Rising Scale Processing” clearly listed in a list of lectures immediately following the description of Scientology 8-8008 in the First Technical Bulletins volume. Both of them are also marked with double star meaning that both lectures were AVAILABLE:

**5212C11D PDC-37 Chart of Attitudes: Rising Scale Processing
**5212C11E PDC-38 Rising Scale Processing

Note what it says in the general description of the lectures – that not only the lectures were available but also the charts that were created by Ron Hubbard during the lectures.

So where is “more lost tech?”

Coincidentally, there is even a mention of LIFE CONTINUUM in Scientology 8-8008 as well:


I would also like you to take note of the aesthetic layout of “To the Reader” page – sometimes it was even in color as in this particular book. I did not blur out the name because I wanted to demonstrate another reality insight – that these were not just some books sittings somewhere. They were personal. People bought them; they used them; and they gifted them to others.



Extended Analysis

See page: Church Staff and Scientologists

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *