Mailing List Posts : Re: [COSinvestigations] Scn time track 1973-why was Swann mad?

Re: [COSinvestigations] Scn time track 1973-why was Swann mad?
From wisdom@c... Sat Jul 15 16:13:41 2000
Return-Path: <wisdom@c...>
Received: (qmail 22186 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2000 23:13:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org
 with QMQP; 15 Jul 2000 23:13:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO citrine.cyberstation.net)
 (205.167.0.5) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Jul 2000 23:13:40 -0000
Received: from default (dialup3.pm3.cyberstation.net
 [205.167.1.114]) by citrine.cyberstation.net (8.9.3/8.9.3)
 with SMTP id SAA21059 for <COSinvestigations@egroups.com</a>>;
 Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:13:38 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000715181418.00813800@c...>
X-Sender: wisdom@c...
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:14:18 -0500
To: COSinvestigations@egroups.com</a>
Subject: Re: [COSinvestigations] Scn time track 1973-why was Swann mad?
In-Reply-To: <004301bfeead$18f92fc0$8ee86bc6@c...>
References: <be.6a13ccd.26a22b91@a...>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Alan C. Walter" <wisdom@c...>

At 03:36 PM 7/15/00 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>Totally validates what the plant told me in 1980, the guy I caught trying to
>get on AOLA lines. He said that Scn was considered to be a national security
>risk for these two reasons:

OK say this is so!

Who?

The boogieman would have to get on tech lines.

I can name Tech Key Personnel from 1968.

68' - '69 Rod Taughton, Craig DeFan.

70 - 74 Otto Roos.

74 - 83 David Mayo.

84 - Pathetic "what's his face" fromCC.

>1. exteriorization = OTs being able to get at government secrets
>2. OT thought = able to influence the path of a nuclear weapon
>
>Now, is it any surprise, like the CTT says - that Scn was infiltrated, taken
>over, 

Crap!

>and the people running the place do not want to make any OTs?

For Sure!!!

But it takes many to make sure it is not achieved.

Especially the Rondroid processors who have no common sense.

>Where are the Theta Clears & OTs?
>
>There won't be any coming out of the formal church. Someone made sure of
>that.

Yes! LRH in 1964.
>
>Now, the old OT levels delivered up exteriorization and NOTs does not. So,
>maybe NOTs is part of the plan to prevent OT? Just a thought.

Matching terminals with a Bt is hardly an OT state.

Being less than a MIP is hardly being causative.

You got an upside down bridge.

Alan