Where did NOTs come from?

PIERRE ETHIER says:
July 17, 2014 at 4:10 am
ABOUT SOLO NOTS EP CHECKS
Since my name is repeatedly mentioned in this thread, I thought I would answer it. I count at least 6 different topics, so I will give the answer to one subject per message
Someone accused me of accepting Verbal tech concerning the Solo NOTS EP checks, if in different words, and coming from a person that seems to know nothing about me and who has never worked with me technically, I find it frankly offensive considering the amount of fighting and battling I had to do, even at Flag AGAINST RTC themselves, in spite of the risk, to reject their continuous attempts to indoctrinate/implant me wit their brand of verbal Tech. My mentors were two LRH TRAINED CLASS XII C/Ses who did their original training and the original Class X (XII) course long before David Mayo or Karen de la C. went to the Apollo. These people trained me be to be extra perceptive and to reject any form of Verbal Tech or Arbitrary.
In 1984, I was ordered to train of then SOLO NOTS EP checks. These issues were Highly confidential and only the SOLO NOTS C/Ses, Snr C/Ses involved and the auditors trained to do the check were allowed to see them.
These issues were in the same format as other LRH issues/orders coming through the office of LRH personal secretary were. The cover page, which was few people bothered to read, bore LRH initials and was in the identical format and form as the original HCOBs that I ran off as Mimeo operator when I was working for the Flag Bureaux in 1976.
Therefore I do not challenge their authenticity, because based on my independent experience, they matched 100% genuine LRH data issued at Flag since 1976.
The SOLO NOTS EP check consist of the following
PART A: a check to ensure the person is clean ethically and case wise. Seldom longer than 30 minutes, it has been perverted by RTC to now require several intensives.
PART B: a Special form of Rehab of the Full EP of SOLO NOTs
PART C: the actual attest at the examiner stating the SECRET EP of SOLO NOTS. ONLY the C/Ses were allowed to read it. I read it because I was asked to translate it in French, Spanish and Italian.
I did perhaps over 400 SOLO NOTS EP checks including those most celebrities such as Amanda Ambrose, Karen Black, Priscilla Presley, Chick Corea, Gayle Moran, and many others.
The assertion that 1000 hours on Solo NOTS is too many hours is a perfect example of being both an arbitrary and VERBAL TECH.
Whatever happened to the data: It takes as long as it takes. There are no references except in the warped mind of RTC personnel and those they brainwashed that a pc running a level well, with wins, cognitions and expected phenomena is a BAD INDICATOR. Only an R/Ser could possibly dream up such a datum and contaminate, typically using duress and threats that false data to otherwise good auditors.
Beside the 400 or so SOLO NOTS EP checks I did, I have audited at one point or another, over 80% of the first thousand people to have attested to SOLO NOTs, including Solo NOTs completion #1, the late Betty Filisky, so I know first hand from folder study or being at the forefront of SOLO NOTS delivery lines, the number of hours of at least 800 Solo NOTs completions.
When a person felt they may be done, the very first thing the C/S would ask is an hours count. This was based on the fact that the only “SOLO NOTS C/S ONLY” HCOB (I was the only non C/S allowed to read it for translation reasons) stated how many hours LRH did on Solo. It was verbally interpreted in true RTC style that if LRH is the best auditor, then no one could possibly audit less hours than he did.
Knowing better than this warped interpretation of tech data, I did not challenge verbally or in writing this datum, because doing so would have been the same as signing my death warrant as an auditor. However, I was not fooled by RTC cookie ideas. Read the C/S series and it will become abundantly clear that speed of auditing or length on a level is primarily a function of the case characteristics and very secondarily, the skills of the auditor.
This is why the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM before a C/S would dare programming a case of the EP checks was 900 hours. To be noted that the first 50 SOLO NOTS completions were not allowed to attest until RTC had reviewed their folders at CMO INT and given final OK to declare.
Before people start to complain, I can assure that this datum of 900 hours plus was needed in less than 5% of cases, as 95% of cases were happy to go beyond the 1000 hours mark.
Every case I saw and audited on further setups that was adamant about being done with a lot less hours had significant outpoints (unresolved somatics, or aberrations, chronic history of dramatizing evil purposes or PTSness, or quickie lower grades)
To summarize: out of the first 1000 Solo NOTS completions (I am Solo NOTS completion # 801 myself) 2% between 800 and 1000 hours 90% between 1000 and 2000 hours. 8% over 2000. The highest I know being a little over 4000 hours.
Pierre Ethier

    • Greetings Ethier ! So nice of you to stop by at MS2. I am a great admirer of yours. You should do it more often.

      Of those 90% you cases you mention, that finished Solo-NOTs between 1,000-2,000 hrs, what was their average total time on the level in terms of years and months ?

      ARC
      Peter

  1. Excellent question thetaclear!

    Based on all data I know, the shortest time I have heard of someone on the level (1981-1992) (1981 is the launch of Solo NOTs, 1992 is the year I left Flag) is a little bit over a year. The SOLO NOTs D of Ps (Kathy Roberts, Alycia Danilovich and Grace Lowrance were spending the bulk of their time debugging pre-OTs so they could do the most hours possible in a week. Kathy Roberts created the “25 Hours Club” (of which I am incidentally a member – I managed to do over 50 hours on public and 25 hours solo that week – my highest ever week at over 75 hours in the chair). There were about 100 members of that club. They also had a weekly newsletter giving the names and hours of the top 10 or 20 auditors. The Highest Producer (while he was on Solo NOTs) was always Steve Edison of Edmonton: always doing 50-60 hours a week (In spite of those high hours he was on the level for nearly 3 years.

    Rough estimate for the first 1000 Solo NOTS completions:
    Under 1 year: 0.002%
    1-2 years: 5%
    2-3 years 25%
    3-5 years: 50%,
    5-7 years: 15%
    7-10 years: 5%
    as of 1990, when I moved into the Class XII HGC and stopped doing Solo NOTs EP checks except in Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, and therefore had less data on SOLO NOS statistics.

    Of people still not attested to Solo NOTs in 1992 about 500 had been on the level for 4 years or more and 75 over 7 years. Another 500 were either blown, declared or deceased. Solo NOTS was launched in late 1981, so the longest someone had been on the level was about 7 1/2 years at that time.

    The common denominator among those who had been on the level for over 4 years was little auditing.

    In the Freezone there are vocal complaints about people being n Solo NOTS for 10 or even 20 years. Upon checking, I found in each and every case: 1- they were floundering about on Solo NOTs mainly without C/S or guidance, self C/Sing and ignoring all forms of BIs without addressing them properly and therefore grinding away over unaddressed BPC 2- Once bias, rumours and hypes were cast aside, I found that the majority of those decade long auditors had audited a total of between 200 and 500 hours top.

    Pierre Ethier

Milestone Two

writing pen

*We published an article entitled NOTS off the tracks, a few months ago, with specifics of out-tech on NOTs delivered within the Corporate Church. This new article follows on from that article. Please note, there is no confidential OT material in this article. The purpose of this article is to detail the source of the NOTs technology, as there seems to be confusions that some have regarding it.  Milestone Two Administrator

By Jim Logan

In the policy letter introducing the Data Series, The Anatomy of Thought, Ron Hubbard states:

“A BASIC LAW is usually confused by students with an INCIDENTAL FACT. This is conceiving a similarity when one, the law, is so far senior to the fact that one could throw the fact away and be no poorer.

“When a student or an employee cannot USE a subject he studies or cannot seem to understand a situation his disability…

View original post 493 more words

Advertisements