Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Hubbard's Affirmations Written by Gerry Armstrong?

L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (Ron's Journal 67, Black Dianetics, Conspiracy & Censoring)

On Jul. 2, 2008, I made a blog entry pointing to the strange fact that Gerry Armstrong, who made the "Affirmations" public, destroyed the hand-written original. I argued that I could not see the rational of destroying such a historical proof, especially since Armstrong was already a fugitive of the law at the time.

This makes the authenticity of the documents dubious, to say the least.

That impression is further reinforced when you know that Armstrong himself once declared: "We don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have to prove sh-t. We just have to allege it.”

The "Affirmations", or the "Admissions", as they are alternatively called, is a hand-written document supposedly written by L. Ron Hubbard, wherein Hubbard makes all kind of quasi-satanic affirmations.

If proven true, these would be very damaging to Hubbard and Scientology. Unfortunately, all we have is the word of Armstrong, someone who conclusively proven by blatantly violating the terms of his settlement, for which he received $800,000, that his words cannot be relied upon.

The link above points to a full scale research page documenting the possibility that the "Affirmations" may have in fact been written by non other than Gerry Armstrong himself.

ARS discussions on that page can be found here.

Other links:

Related blog entries: R-Affirmations-

25 comments:

Kenny said...

Where did Gerry Armstrong declare:
"We don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have to prove sh-t. We just have to allege it.”
?
Do you have the source for this?

Bernie said...

I already linked to the source where I got that information, which was an ARS post by RoadRunner.

However, I did a little more digging and this is what I found so far:

http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo1-b.html#armstrong
The same quote on RoadRunner's web page. It says " (Immortalized on video tape in November 1984, using a telephoto lens and a long range microphone that, amongst other, picked up this quote. Since, the 10 video tape recordings that were made, have become part of court record.)"

A transcript of that part of the video can be found in a leaflet the CoS made about Armstrong and webbed on his own web site at http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/whois-gerry-armstrong.html.

The tapes themselves are also referenced on his web site at http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/secret-illegal-videos.html

The problem with this is that only the supposedly "doctored" version of the CoS is actually available. The raw tapes, though being apparently linked, give an "Object not found" error.

Then, of course, if available, one would need to go through all of them to find the reference, the kind of things only someone with a load of time on his hand could afford, maybe RoadRunner (unless this information is already available otherwise).

By all means, I will email RoadRunner the reference of that comment.

An additional concern I would have is to know whether the tapes webbed by Armstrong are the original and have not been tampered themselves, so it would be better to cross-check the tapes with those obtained from another source.

By all means, I found nothing on Armstrong's web site to deny the claim. He only offers innuendos, that the tapes have been edited, that they were illegally recorded in the first place, and that the CoS quoting him constitutes "black PR". Nowhere could I found him explicitly stating that he did not say what is quoted from him.

Not that this constitutes a proof on its own, but a further indication that the quote may be genuine, plus the fact that I doubt the CoS would quote it, as they do on their RFW page on Armstrong, if they could not prove its authenticity.

Bernie said...

(The last link does not seem to work, here it is in full: http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/anti-religious-extremists/gerald-armstrong/.

popdüfte said...

While the quote may indeed be genuine, the context of the quote is important as well, especially since you use it to question Gerry Armstrong's credibility in general and such as evidence that Gerry wrote the Affirmations himself.

It would be relevant to what exactly he was referring to, that in his opinion did not need to be proven, but merely alleged and under what circumstances this happened.

In fact there are two declarations of Gerry Armstrong and court documents, which shed a light on the context of his statement and the whole CoS operation surrounding it, which had the purpose to fabricate evidence, which could be used against Armstrong in court.
See
Armstrong Declaration of 02-20-1994
and
Armstrong Declaration of 02-22-1994
and
other documents

Anti-Cult Controversies said...

I just asked Gerry Armstrong about that quote directly on ARS on the thread you referenced, since he is involved in the current discussion. So far, no response. If he said it and meant it, it is damning to his credibility but not conclusive evidence that he was lying about this particular matter. What I see as the more important issue is whether those LRH handwritten documents were ever produced in the first place and if there is any official record of that. Did the courts ever have the originals or did they just have his testimony that he saw the originals? I also asked about that.
The point some people seem to be missing is that if such evidence has not been produced, then as the one who made the original claim, Gerry has the burden of proof to produce it, not RR to prove they're not.
He also mentioned that others had seen the original documents, so I asked him who and whether they were willing to come forward and verify this.

popdüfte said...

"He also mentioned that others had seen the original documents, so I asked him who and whether they were willing to come forward and verify this."


In the foreword to the admissions Gerry says that:
"Robert Vaughn
Young and Stacy Brooks at least have read the Admissions and will be able to confirm that what follows
here is, within reasonable parameters, authentic."

Kenny said...

I have to say that Gerry's story about some mysterious stranger sending him the Affirmations and requesting him to post them on the web and afterwards destroy them sounds incredible to me.

The story, that Gerry wrote the Affirmations himself on the other side sounds incredible as well.

My own theory is this:
While Gerry was in possession of the documents from the Hubbard archive, he secretly copied the Affirmations and kept them.
When he was ordered by court to give the documents back to the church he still had his copy of the Affirmations, but he couldn't admit this of course, because it would have been highly illegal. So he just invented the story that a mysterious stranger had send him the Affirmations with the request to keep his name secret and destroy the evidence afterwards.

scarlettscion said...

bizarre. I've never caught a whiff of Satanism in the Church, myself...but whatever rolls your socks up and down, I guess.

M Pignotti said...

Unfortunately, Robert Vaughn Young died several years ago. Stacy has been incommunicado since the fiasco several years ago, so it is highly unlikely she would confirm anything. Gerry claimed in a recent ARS posting that people saw the affirmations who could vouch for them. Bob and Stacy wouldn't fit that description any longer and we'll never know if they ever did.
It is also unclear what Gerry meant that they could have confirmed what was in "within reasonable parameters, authentic". It sounds like he was citing their expert opinion more than claiming they were actual witnesses to the LRH handwritten documents. There's a big difference between their opining they were written by LRH and actually having seen the documents in his own handwriting. What I am asking is whether anyone else actually saw the physical LRH-handwritten documents that are claimed to exist and if so, who.

R. Hill said...

Scientology lawyer's statement in 1984: "They are completely out of context."

/---
Hubbard used black magic
By George-Wayne Shelor
[Clearwater] Sun staff writer
...

The Scientologists and Hubbard's wife, Mary Sue, claim ownership of the contested material and are demanding return of the document--unsealed--and unspecified damages.

Armstrong's attorney, Michael Flynn, was discussing the papers under seal when he made mention of the documents called 'Admissions,' bringing sect attorney Barrett Litt to his feet. Litt was adamant in his argument that those particular documents not be discussed in open court. He said the papers, reportedly in Hubbard's own hand, have not been autheticated and are protected from introduction by the California evidence code.

Nonetheless, Superior Court Judge Paul G. Breckenridge allowed Flynn to proceed, stipulating that he restrict his inquiry to certain areas of the "Admissions" described on a list of sealed documents as:

* Hubbard handwriting RE: Feigning injuries and illness.
* Hubbard handwriting admissions RE: Control over all mankind and naval records.
* Hubbard handwriting RE: Psychoses.
* Hubbard handwriting admissions RE: Hubbard's control over others.

...

But attorney Litt, again arguing the documents not be discussed in open court, said: "These particular documents do not lend themselves ... for one to conclude ... that the statements are statements of fact.

"They are (being interpreted by Armstrong) completely out of context."

...

http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/images/thecompiler-newspaper_jan-jun-84b-2.pdf#page=3
\---

========

"The problem with this is that only the supposedly "doctored" version of the CoS is actually available. The raw tapes, though being apparently linked, give an "Object not found" error."

Raw:
http://thewar.xenu.ca/?p=10
http://thewar.xenu.ca/?p=11
http://thewar.xenu.ca/?p=12
http://thewar.xenu.ca/?p=13

Doctored:
http://thewar.xenu.ca/?p=15

========

"He only offers innuendos, that the tapes have been edited"

Stacy Brooks Young did the work:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/59afd35565bb6cca

/---
So DM called me in and ordered me to edit the transcripts of the videotapes to
make it look like Gerry was admitting to being a paid informant, even though he
never had admitted any such thing. I was to edit out Rinder’s and Kluge’s
leading questions so it looked like Gerry was volunteering information, when in
fact all he was really doing was answering a hypothetical question that had been
posed to him.

I went through the transcripts and pulled the "best" parts I could find, doing
my best to comply with DM’s orders to make Gerry look like a paid informant.
Privately I thought it was obvious, even after the editing, that Gerry was being
set up, but I dutifully turned in my doctored transcript to DM, who then turned
it over to Ted Horner, a Gold staff member in charge of film editing, to use my
edited transcript to do the final edit on the videotapes.
\---

========

What amazes me in your "journey towards ultimate Truth" regarding Hubbard/Scientology, is what you *don't* find (or choose to leave out, whatever.)

Anonymous said...

This whole thing reminds me of the famous MJ 12 controversy, only on a smaller scale.

You go to St. Gerry's site and he allows you to download a poorly transcribed version of what was alleged to be a handwritten document purportedly written by Hubbard entitled "Affirmations".

Why doesn't he allow you to download the original handwritten version?

I mean all over the internet there are scanned copies of Hubbard's handwritten Secret Scriptures, yet not even a fragment of "Affirmations" available.

What's up with that?

Now he says he had to destroy the original.

His explanation is rather vague, almost comical.

Yet his accolytes accept this all on faith which is why I call him Saint Gerry.

Actually Gerry in reality has become a cult leader in his own right and maybe that was the problem he had with Hubbard.

He considered him competition.

Anonymous said...

If the affirmations are fake, then why did the cult fight to get them back when entered into court records in their litigation involving Armstrong, and not ever challenge the authenticity of the admissions/affirmations?

What about Omar Garrison's affidavit? Why did Omar do an about face about LRH and scientology, that had the cult buy Omar's silence and stop Omar releasing the bio the cult wanted written.

Seriously, linking to information on the cults own religiousfreedumbwatch DEAD AGENTING website adds no weight to your own credibility Bernie

Bernie said...

Thanks for the link to the tapes, Ray (is that what the "R" stands for?)

I wrote to RR about those tapes and he answered that he got them at some time from a Dutch site, the same Gerry was linking to. I was hoping he would have saved them and could trace them back, but I never got as far as answering him, though I did intent to do it. You beat me into that.

I hope RR can wade through the tapes and provide us with that reference. Obviously, it has to be gotten from the raw version.

quoting me saying: "He only offers innuendos, that the tapes have been edited"

I do not mean to say by that the the fact the tapes have been edited is an innuendo. I am sure the doctored tape is being so edited, and you provided useful information to further confirm how this was done, but that was never the question in the first place.

What I meant to say was that Gerry did not say explicitly that he did not say what is attributed to him. He only indirectly refers to it with innuendos that the tapes have been edited. Sorry that I can't find a way to turn that English sentence clearer.

R. Hill said...

I did find where Gerry made the statements:

First, these statements are hosted on Gerry's site, he even has a PDF of the original in which the statements appear. The fact that Gerry hosts these documents shows some dedication to the truth.

The first part is to be found in the 4th video, at 6m 40s [Google video time] on the following page:
http://thewar.xenu.ca/?p=12

The second part is to be found in the 1st video, at 9m 0s [Google video time] on the following page:
http://thewar.xenu.ca/?p=13

Now, notice that the whole statement is made of two parts excerpted from two different days. That's blatant doctoring. I call it typical Scientology practice.

Now the context shows where the comments come from:

Mike Rinder, under the guise of being a member of the Church of Scientology board who is disgusted by how the church spend funds on unreligious things like private investigators, smear campaigns, etc. is asking Gerry advices on how the few that want to rebel should proceed take over church management from the corrupt ones. The discussion spans two days, and mainly, Gerry advise to Mike Rinder that they can write affidavits on all the wrongdoings/misconducts they are aware of, such that a judge can possibly impose an injunction such that church funds are frozen, the time to re-organize management. An affidavit is a collection of statements of what one knows, or *allegations*. Then with these affidavits, the case can proceed to the court. If a judge is faced with many affidavits of wrongdoings by top Scientology members, then he may act in a way that benefit the entity given its nonprofit, religious statements of purpose. Of course, Mike Rinder's goal is not really to clean Scientology management from the corrupt ones (he is actually part of them at the time.)

Now try this: 3rd video, at 26m 15s [Google video time]:
"I have a higher commitment to the truth than I do to some label." Given his track record, I have no doubt about this. The track record of Hubbard is that of a proven liar.

Bernie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bernie said...

"what I mean to say is that I don't see GA faking them from the top of his head"

That's where GA's quote from the tapes may give more indications. Although appearing later, my last comments were really written before the lat post from R.Hill. Great job finding the quotes. Will try to listen to them and their context later. Thanks.

Bernie said...

"The first part is to be found in the 4th video, at 6m 40s [Google video time] on the following page:
http://thewar.xenu.ca/?p=12"

I had a first look, rather a first hear, of that.

Now it would be interesting how other people, from various sides, interpret this.

As for me, at first sight, it looks like Rinder (or whoever it is I don't know at this stage but I would take your word for it) is claiming that although they need indeed to have affidavit, they can't just write anything, they need to have a least a thruthful knowledge of what they write. GA seems to get angry with that and in between some statements as to how the CoS is trying to have him dead, does seem to say that to have truthful knowledge of it would not even be necessary, it would just be enough if they would allege it.

The sound is not very clear and I am not a native English speaker so I may miss something out of it but this is what I get from it. Others may hear better.

4:50 - Rinder: "Now these guys need to have like a truthful knowledge of this shit or what? I mean, for what I understand when you write an affidavit you got like to have guys who have "

GA: "do you have any personal knowledge"

Rinder: "Some, some, but I don't know if..."

(inaudible)

5:16 rinder: "I rather not. I rather not. I mean, as soon as I, as soon as I would write an affidavit then that is gonna go somewhere with my name on it wherever it goes (inaudible)...

GA: "... (inaudible) fucking thing ... fuck ... they are only allegations ... "

Follows some angry rant from GA among others that the CoS want him dead.

06:12: rolf (rinder, whatever) "Do we have to find someone who has a truthful knowledge of that in order to get an affidavit of those things?"

GA "how much they paid to this? [trying to kill him I guess]"

Rof "I don't know. I don't know that they did".

(something with attorney and that it would cost more...)

(Something GA says about rolf being a board member and he can't find out even though he is on the board...)

rolf: "am not asking where they can find out but whether they need to in order to be able to this. You see what I am saying..."

and here we are at 6:55. GA gets really angry and states in a loud voice "THEY CAN ALLEGE IT!" (and very ironically pointing directly at the camera...)

and he repeats: "they can allege it, they don't need to have... they can allege it".

That's it basically, unless there is more at some other points. Follows something about the organization destroying the documents or what... and something about mailing list...

That's how far I got. Really we would need a good and exact transcript of the relevant excerpts including what precedes it as I tried to do above.

To me it really seems like the context is that rolf or rinder or whoever it is GA is talking to is saying they can't make affidavit because they don't actually know for sure that it did happen or don't know anyone who did, and GA just saying that they don't even need to have that knowledge and that they can just allege it.

I did not get to the other bits yet but this one pretty much stands on its own.

Quote from R.Hill: "An affidavit is a collection of statements of what one knows, or *allegations*. "

Yes, but the point is that Rinder is saying that in fact he does not know about it. What it seems to me GA is saying that they don't actually need to know it, that they can just allege it, and thereby making a clear difference between a statement of what you know and an allegation.

Anyway, that's where it would be interesting to get other people's interpretation of that tape, but they would really need to start at least at 4:50 if not before to get the whole context of the statement.

Bernie said...

(I deleted my own post where I tried to summarize the situation. In view of the importance of the new information we got with the actual statements from the tapes, I found my post long and irrelevant, a distraction to the important points in the tape. If some people still want to have it I can always e-mail it to them.)

Bernie said...

Hmmm - I now find that my blog post has been linked from ARS, so I need to repost my long summary, because my position is not as clear-cut as it may seem.

Bernie said...

Here is my repost:

Initially with my blog entry I mostly wanted to point to RR's page about it, though I repeated my amazement that Gerry would destroy such a historical document, a hand-written document that would be the most absolute proof you could ever have! I also expressed my personal distrust of him, reinforced by the assertion of what he said or supposed to have said, now not completely 100% sure about that last bit.

I must admit that I did not follow the threads in ARS in all details and I have not got down to even read all of RR's page as I should, and there are more readings to do too. I thought that by pointing to RR's page people could make up their own mind about it, better than myself even.

However, in view of the number of comments I feel sort of obliged to look at it more closely. I will try to summarize the arguments on both side so far, mostly based on comments made here.

RR side:
1. GA is the sole source for the transcription of the 2000 documents
2. GA destroyed the hand-written evidence
3. The documents is written in the same style as GA
4. The documents are completely at odd with anything else LRH wrote
5. GA say many saw it but is unable to come up with any name
6. RVY and Stacy saw them but RVY is no more with us and Stacy is out of the picture as well for other reasons
7. GA is unreliable as proven by his $800 broken deal
8. GA is crazy as proven by his wanted to be a hostage replacement.
9. GA answer does not make sense
10. People should not present these Affirmations as factually coming from LRH.
11. GA is quoted saying "just allege..."

My (provisional) opinion. I agree with 1, 10. These are just facts. 2 is what I find incredibly puzzling, and frankly speaking the most damning in the whole story. 3 and 11 still need to be demonstrated. I partly agree with 5 and 6. two unreachable persons do not make "many". I would agree with 7 and 9. No comment on 8.

Now as for 4 is where I have the strongest doubts. RR does not claim GA actually wrote them (in spite of some initial statements attributed to him) but implies this may be a possibility (as I said I still have to carefully read his page so this is a temporary opinion. That his page is so verbose does not make it easy). I find it unlikely that GA, or anyone else really, could fake such. It seems a genuine writing to me, either by LRH or someone else. It also is possible that they were based on an actual writing by someone else and adapted with some LRH specifics to make it look as coming from him. Anyway, that's just all speculation, but what I mean to say is that I don't see GA faking them from the top of his head.

Another thing that makes me doubt is that I am crazy enough to actually believe that the statement that DMSMH was written in three weeks dictated by one "Emperess" might be true. Of course I don't expect people to agree with me on that but I am saying this to show that the whole issue of LRH dabbling in black magic is something of a mystery and I don't dismiss it out of hand.

I do believe that his 1938 experience was crucial in him ending up with Scientology, and it seems obvious that it was after this experience that he started to be interested in the occult, including Rosicrucian, and also started writing science-fictions more than adventures.

While auditing itself could be remotely considered as a "science" in that it is a systematic, practical, approach, the Axioms and Logics, on which Scientology is based, as well as the Factors, certainly aren't science, and I find nothing "obvious" about them either. It definitely is of the mystical kind, and things like the Affirmations could fall in that category too.

For that matter, these black magic accusation go along with other accusations such as drug-taking and drinking, mostly made by his son. I do have a second hand information about that as when I was in GO WW, Kevin Kember, who was my chief and would regularly brief us in the morning and insert all kinds of anecdotes, did tell that LRH had loads and loads of empty beer boxes with him, indicating that he may have been a heavy drinker indeed.

So my feeling is that LRH may have tried to reproduce his 1938 experience, or at least try to induce a trance state again, through various means, so why not black magic as well - especially if he really was using automatic writing or something.

RR would say to all that there is nothing objective in this, is not proper research or evaluation, and is maybe even more crazy than what critics say. He would probably be right. It really is just my opinion, and I am a bit of mystic myself, so nothing there that make a good argument.

GA side:
1. The documents are mentioned by name in the trial before they were returned to the CoS
2. RVY and Stacy saw them
3. The CoS fought fiercely to avoid their disclosure.
4. They did not challenge their authenticity.
5. We don't have proof of GA saying the allege thing, and we would need to know the context too.
6. Omar Garrison something.
7. The writing may be at odd with LRH Scientology writing but not with other information, from his son and dabbling with Crowley, etc.

Did I miss something? Maybe. As I said I only have a partial view on this so far.

My opinion: 1 is odd but not proof regarding the 2000 documents. On the contrary, it could be argued that they were faked based on that information. But well, it is an indication that they may be genuine. I agree with Monica about 2 and GA should come up with more names if he claims many saw them. 3 and 4 is remarkable too but then they did the same of other documents as well. There is a simpler explanation in that they wanted to get back all the private LRH documents and did not want any to be disclosed for privacy and misinterpretation reasons, or whatever. It also was not the place to start to discuss their content or validity. It may be an indication but is not really a proof to anything. 5 I agree we need better evidence. 6 am not familiar with that and is one of those things I would need to read about. 7 I wrote my opinion on that already. I don't necessarily agree with critics that this is proof enough to claim they are from LRH, but I don't dismiss it either.

In summary I think that RR does make a good point saying that we don't have any proof that the documents come from LRH, and that, at least, critics should not present this as a fact. That they were quoted in the trial is not proof enough. The most damning elements, IMO, is GA destroying the original hand-written proof. It just does not make sense and how easy is it, based on that, to jump to the conclusion that the reason he did was to cover up a forgery? As I said, his cheating with the $800T does not lend him credibility either, at least not in my eyes, and I personally don't find that his answer to RR's challenge has been adequate either, and no, him calling any criticism of him "black PR" does not make him look better.

This being said, I doubt GA actually wrote them himself, and I don't exclude the fact it may have been written by LRH. I have really no idea about that one way or the other and really I don't think anybody has either. It could be either way, just as it could be indeed a fake, wether written by GA or someone else or adapted. The only way we would know for sure would be to have the hand-written original, and GA destroyed them!

The truth is that we simply don't know, but, as always, the more factual information we have about it the better. So, if anything more, please keep coming up with them. As for me, I will try to find some time to read more about it all.

Thanks to all those who commented, one way or the other.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to point out, that Gerry didn't destroy the original. According to him he just received a copy of the Affirmations from someone and destroyed this copy pursuiant to the wishes of the person, who had sent him this copy.
So it might very well be the case that the original and the missing parts still exist and are in the hands of the church.

Bernie said...

Good point!

Bernie said...

This comment was stuck on my moderation page so is only included now

-start quote-
Kenny said...

I have to say that Gerry's story about some mysterious stranger sending him the Affirmations and requesting him to post them on the web and afterwards destroy them sounds incredible to me.

The story, that Gerry wrote the Affirmations himself on the other side sounds incredible as well.

My own theory is this:
While Gerry was in possession of the documents from the Hubbard archive, he secretly copied the Affirmations and kept them.
When he was ordered by court to give the documents back to the church he still had his copy of the Affirmations, but he couldn't admit this of course, because it would have been highly illegal. So he just invented the story that a mysterious stranger had send him the Affirmations with the request to keep his name secret and destroy the evidence afterwards.

-end quote-

I would largely agree with that statement.

The main reservation I have with this theory, apart from serious doubts these documents ever existed in the first place, is that GA was already in trouble with the law, having failed on his settlement. What difference would it make if he had published the original (or at least a copy)? Given the importance of such a supposedly handwritten document, given GA dedication to fight Scn, given even his dedication to immolate himself as Husein's hostage, I doubt he would have resisted the temptation to publish them if he really had them in 2000.

Can you imagine? Such a document in LRH handwriting would be the single most damaging document one could find. One may hesitate to publish them to avoid getting in trouble with the law, but what about someone in GA's situation? I just can't see him not publishing them if he really had them.

Even worst - what would have prevented him or his mysterious provider from publishing them anonymously on the Internet? as a scan. It would not matter if it was published anonymously. What would matter is the handwriting of Hubbard. Then, Armstrong could simply have testified that these were the ones he saw back then....

So, really, I don't believe he had anything the like in 2000. Either because they never existed in the first place, or because he did not make a copy of them.

Another possibility is this: that he transcribed the content, without making a copy, back when he (supposedly) discovered it or at some later stage while he (supposedly) still had access to it.

That, or someone took the affirmations of someone else and adapted them to make it sound coming from Hubbard. These are the two most plausible scenarios I can envision.

RR said...

I wish to make some comments on the summary made by Bernie:

RR side:
1. GA is the sole source for the transcription of the 2000 documents

Quite so. No other person can confirm anything here, also no person has come forward other then Gerry himself.

2. GA destroyed the hand-written evidence

A rather astonishing and illogical happening. It really doesn't make any sense. Even more astonishing may be is that that he even makes this claim without a shred of evidence or support from any other person.

3. The documents is written in the same style as GA

I could rather easily be perceived that they are. The affirmation as presented are not very logical and clearly contradictive in themselves.

4. The documents are completely at odd with anything else LRH wrote

I think they are. L. Ron Hubbard as seen from his published writings is the analytical observer. It is not promoted anywhere within the subject of Scientology to implant phrases like that into the mind. In fact quite the contrary as Scientology is all about to get rid of implants and reactive mind and all that. There is no evidence to the contrary anywhere on taped lectures, books or elsewhere. Therefore I do find the Affirmations being rather seriously at odds.

5. GA say many saw it but is unable to come up with any name

Apparently he did respond to Monica Pignotti about that, but he deleted that message from the ARS, to then republish it on his own website. A strange sequence of affairs. I documented this in my article.

6. RVY and Stacy saw them but RVY is no more with us and Stacy is out of the picture as well for other reasons

Monica Pignotti confirms this.

7. GA is unreliable as proven by his $800 broken deal

Most definitely. The more because he has never explained what happened with these funds. that they would have been used up in court is in fact nonsense as he is located in Canada and not in US. In addition he claims to journalist that he is broke and penniless.

8. GA is crazy as proven by his wanted to be a hostage replacement.

This doesn't say much into his favour. but there is more then just this occurrence.

9. GA answer does not make sense

He avoids and doesn't answer to questions. He refuses to talk to me as he figures I am an agent of Miscavige or sorts. To me this statement is delusional from his part. I have documented in my studies various serious criticism towards the Church's going-abouts, including the person Mr. David Miscavige. I think rather that Gerry doesn't want to talk to me as he can not mislead or manipulate me.

10. People should not present these Affirmations as factually coming from LRH.

It could be considered slander or lying. There is really not a shred of evidence of any authenticity.

11. GA is quoted saying "just allege..."

One should rather observe and study the utterances from this person Gerry Armstrong. He is not making particular supported statements. It is as if he want to overthrow with his assertions. For example this last video that he put out on his YouTube side (in my honour). It is all about that L. Ron Hubbard is a slaver, and miscavige is a slaver too, he continues to pund on this. It is really like he want to implant that into people. It is also a marvelous act of distraction. Because he points his finger at Miscavige, he has the originals, and that he should publish them. Taking away all the attention away from Gerry Armstrong who is ONLY making assertions and NOTHING else!

I want to add a #12:
Why would L. Ron Hubbard allow a biographist having access to papers such as these Affirmations that have unfavourable material in them. I don't think that this makes any sense at all.

Roadrunner

Bryon said...

Gerry's statement of "We don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have to prove sh-t. We just have to allege it.” is not that different than Hubbard's "The purpose of a lawsuit is to harass, not to win". I agree that Gerry deserves what he has gotten from breaking the terms of his original settlement. If some organization had given me that much money, I would have spent it more carefully. Why would a religion pay $800k to shut someone up in the first place? And do it routinely? Didn't Hubbard advocate open communication?