Re: What Channel 4 wouldnt show you (Secret Lives)
[03 Feb 1998]

I had the good fortune to spend many months with LRH's private papers, diaries, notebooks, letters and manuscripts. At one point (as reported in the Washington Post and the San Luis Obispo paper) I was even tagged to be his official biographer.

Main Index A.R.S. Web Summary Ex-Scientologists Speak

From: (Robert Vaughn Young)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: What Channel 4 wouldnt show you (Secret Lives)
Date: 3 Feb 1998 11:18:11 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Lines: 282
Message-ID: <6b6udj$mlf$>
References: <>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: spln alt.religion.scientology:257515

I am deeeelighted to respond to THIS one!

miKe ( wrote:
: What Channel 4 wouldnt show you

: For viewers with no factual knowledge of L. Ron Hubbard, “Secret Lives”
: might have seemed to offer something in the way of information.

The "Secret Lives" show was not only accurate but well produced. I had the
good fortune to spend many months with LRH's private papers, diaries,
notebooks, letters and manuscripts. At one point (as reported in the
Washington Post and the San Luis Obispo paper) I was even tagged to be his
official biographer. However those who deign to tell the truth of LRH are
not popular. But let's move on...

: Yet even a cursory review of documentation made available to Channel 4
: prior to the programme’s airing reveals that the show’s producers painted an
: intentionally misleading picture.
: All those in the public eye have supporters and detractors. But this is
: not about opinion; it is not about, “you are entitled to have your view of
: L. Ron Hubbard and I have mine.” It is a simple matter of, did something
: happen in the manner described by Channel 4 or not? And, if not, how exactly
: did Channel 4 fashion the lies?
: One only has to examine a small portion of the available evidence and
: the answer becomes apparent to anyone with any common sense.
: Among other tabloid tricks employed was the attributing of statements
: to someone and then using those statements to discredit the person—when in
: fact the person never said anything of the kind in the first place.
: By way of example, Channel 4 repeated the tired old line in which a
: quote about religion and money is attributed to L. Ron Hubbard.
: There’s no doubt that it is a fitting quote, considering the historical
: revisionism Channel 4 had already committed itself to. But the fact is, L.
: Ron Hubbard never uttered those words. It refers to a quote from George
: Orwell as anyone can verify simply by consulting the author’s own published
: diaries. To ensure Channel 4 was aware of this, the relevant pages from
: those diaries were placed directly into their hands. But it was too good a
: line for their purpose so they left it in the script, knowing they were
: wrongly attributing the quote to L. Ron Hubbard.

Since I am the one who (while in the cult) found a statement by George
Orwell which was similar to the one attributed to LRH - the very document
you cite - let me respond. There were several people found who
individually remembered LRH making this remark. The fact that Orwell said
it means nothing. When we found that quote, we used it to divert
attention, as you are doing it, hoping that no one would realize that it
was hardly an original idea. I doubt that he and LRH were hardly the only
ones who said that a religion is a great way to make a buck. No, my
friend, LRH said it too. The difference between LRH and Orwell is that LRH
did it.

: In fact, this was only one of 94 statements contained in the show which
: Channel 4 should have known were lies, because they had been provided with
: documentation disproving most of them before they aired.

Comon, hit us with the rest of 'em!

: The War: Truth and Lies

: Like many other servicemen of his generation, L. Ron Hubbard spoke
: rarely, if ever, of his war record.

Excuuuuuuse me? Are we speaking of L. Ron Hubbard? You are saying he spoke
seldom of it? (ROFLMAO!) Oh boy! You really think anyone believes you?

: But as U.S. Naval records show, he was
: highly decorated for his service with the Allied forces in World War II.

Huh? Are you talking about the forged DOD214, I think it is. He was one of
the most UNDERdecorated men in the war. He had more reprimands than
medals! He was removed from more positions than he had medals.

Would you care to list his "medals"?

: But rather than present the little-known facts of this period of Mr.
: Hubbard’s lif

That would have been even more embarassing. Want to talk about the sub?
Mr. Barwell can tell you about the sub.

: e—as biographers may have been expected to do—the “Secret
: Lives” team knowingly presented a distortion of the truth. And to do that
: they had to take their motif of doctored facts even a step further.
: The intention is obvious: undermine the founder of a religion, and you
: undermine the whole of that religion. Yet the fact is, L. Ron Hubbard very
: definitely suffered blinding and crippling injuries through the course of
: combat in the Second World War, and that fact is perfectly clear in his
: naval medical records.
: One medical report describes a severe bone infection in the hip and
: back, forcing him to walk with a cane.

There is no "cane" in the medical records but there are "affirmations" by
LRH, in his own handwriting, where he was using self-hypnosis to create
the condition so doctors would think he had it. They did not find anything
but some arthritis. As far as his hip, he banged it falling down a ladder.
(Ship stairs, to you.)

: Another shows his vision was
: registered at 20/100—which, according to medical review, meant that he could
: not distinguish facial features until three or four feet away, could not
: make out a street sign beyond ten yards and could not read a newspaper.

But when he was sober, he could!

Now which "war wound" was this?

Was it when he grabbed the Japanese shell that landed on the deck of the
ship and failed to explode so that he threw it overboard to save his ship
and it exploded and blinded him? That was one of his stories. Was that one
of his medals?

Or maybe the machine gun bullets in his back?

Just let us know which ones you mean.

: Yet by 1948, medical records suddenly show him once again “physically
: qualified for active duty.”

Then why was he drawing disability pay until his death? Huh?

: It is a rather fascinating story; even Navy medical examiners found it
: utterly remarkable that a blind and crippled L. Ron Hubbard of 1945 was
: suddenly fit for active duty in 1948. Whether one accepts Dianetics or not,
: the fact remains that his vision was 20/20 and he never again wore glasses
: after Dianetics.

Ding! Sorry! LRH wore glasses and you will see them in some of the photos
of him after 1948! He had some snazzy ones, for the day, sort of sweeping
around the eyes.

: And why didn’t Channel 4 present that story? Well, it certainly wasn’t
: because they didn’t have the documentary evidence. L. Ron Hubbard’s official
: biographer placed the medical records directly into reporter Jill Robinson’s
: hands. She apparently chose to ignore them—since they disproved her own
: pre-conceived story.

You talking about Danny "B1" Sherman? Did he tell her how he had worked
for the old GO Intell Bureau? Or haven't we disclosed that yet?

: Say it With Innuendo

: When they were unable to tell outright lies, the “Secret Lives”
: producers resorted to other stock tabloid tools: suggestive innuendo and
: selective editing.

Wow, that's pretty hard-hitting!

: One example of this came when they presented a statement from L. Ron
: Hubbard’s former literary agent who claimed Mr. Hubbard hypnotized attendees
: at a science fiction gathering in 1948.
: There is not a shred of documentary evidence to support this story, but

Then why does LRH talk about his skills at hypnotism and give examples in
various tapes and directives? Huh?

: even that is beside the point. Channel 4 wanted a statement to suggest
: Dianetics is actually a form of hypnosis—despite the fact that it is
: diametrically opposed to any form of hypnosis, and that fact is
: well-established in more than 17 million copies of Dianetics.

Just keep repeating that phrase.... ;)

: So, to get their statement, Channel 4 paid this former literary agent
: $500, placed him in front of the cameras, and coaxed him to talk for hours
: on end. From this extensive footage they had no problem pulling sound bites
: to suit their pre-conceived slant.
: But when recently contacted again, that same literary agent revealed
: the part Channel 4 left out of his statement: “When Dianetics broke on the
: scene, he went out of his way to emphasize that he really didn’t feel it was
: a good idea to fool around with hypnotism. ... I never tell the hypnotism
: story without emphasizing that he corrected his feelings about the use of
: it.”

You need an editor, son. I think you're missing some puncs.

: Reality check
: When not knowingly lying, or using the editor’s scissors to get rid of
: anything that did not fit their “revision” of reality, the producers
: apparently just told their hired “sources” to let their imaginations run
: free.
: This is the only explanation for one statement which Channel 4 repeated
: from a man who, for the last five years, has been exclusively and only paid
: to utter anti-Scientology statements.

Gee, I wonder who you're talking about!

: His primary stock in trade is what one might describe as the
: unaccountable statement—the cleverly worded phrase aimed at presenting a
: distinct impression without actually saying much.

Such as you are doing here?

: This “source” admitted under oath in legal testimony just prior to the
: airing of “Secret Lives” that he never makes such statements unless paid.

Gee, they why did I talk to them and not get paid, huh?

: Channel 4 used him as a “witness” to describe periods from L. Ron
: Hubbard’s later years. However, while making it obvious that he intended to
: conjure images of the likes of the eccentric Howard Hughes, he conveniently
: omitted that not only did he never lay eyes on L. Ron Hubbard during this
: period, he never met the man at all, ever.

Rewatch the tape, goofus. That is made clear.

: The truth—available to anyone—speaks for itself. Mr. Hubbard always
: remained a tremendously active individual and prolific writer. During the
: period mischaracterized by Channel 4, Mr. Hubbard’s output as an author was
: truly astonishing. He wrote the largest single-volume work of science
: fiction ever written, and a sweeping ten-volume series—every one of them a
: New York Times bestseller.

Okay, wanna talk about that one? I was his editor for that book.

Wanna talk about how it got on the best seller list? Huh? Huh? Wanna talk
about the books being bought up and housed by Doug over at BPI to be
recycled for resale? Huh? Huh?

: He also penned two film scripts and three music albums.

He did do two screenplays but sorry about the music. Wanna talk about
that? I was there! Were you?

And have you listened to "Space Jazz" lately? It is without a doubt one of
the WORST albums of music EVER assembled. Try the dancing horse number for

: He wrote a
: non-religious moral code based purely on common sense and decency, The Way
: to Happiness, which has been circulated to more than 65 million people in
: more than 20 languages.

And he inisted that he get his 15% cut on all sales. Every copy is bought
and sold, even the ones given away. LRH laid it out that he got his cut.
So much for the great humanitarian. BPI has the contract.

: And that doesn’t even take into account the
: thousands of pages he wrote on Dianetics and Scientology during that time.
: In short, here was a truly prolific man, to the very last chapter of his
: life.

Nope, sorry. He couldn't even sign his name.

: Yet Channel 4 made no mention of this despite being aware of these
: facts.
: They also never even attempted to obtain statements or interviews of
: those who did know Mr. Hubbard during the last years of his life. But if
: they had, they would have heard something like this, from a
: non-Scientologist who worked for him for years on his property in
: California: “He was always very friendly and very interested in what was
: going on on the property and how we were doing. ... It didn’t matter if it
: was raining or bright and sunny, Mr. Hubbard would be out and about, asking
: questions, striking up conversations and taking photographs. He was very
: appreciative of anything and everything that a person did [and] always very
: friendly and very generous.”

Care to give the name? I was there for months.

: That is what the reality of Mr. Hubbard’s life is all about—and what
: Channel 4 lacked the integrity to show its viewers. Yet perhaps most amazing
: is the contradiction Channel 4 never sought to explain: If even a fraction
: of what has been alleged against Scientology were true, it is inconceivable
: that it would continue to be popular, to attract high-profile members—or
: remain the fastest-growing religion on Earth.

Sorry, Charlie, the stats show the orgs are failing and so is the
membership and so is the gross income.

: Moreover, Mr. Hubbard’s
: life—one rich in experience and friendships—would not have been a candidate
: for “Secret Lives” tactics.

You need an editor/spell check.

: Taken from the FREEDOM website:

Ah, yes, that pinnacle of truth! Talk about hack rags!

Robert Vaughn Young * The most potent weapon of the oppressor is * * the mind of the oppressed. - Steve Biko *