Tech degrade of a tech degrade

The following success story was just sent out to the field. This is someone who has just completed the GAT II metering course:


Pro Metering Ray Coetzee. “I did the previous Pro Metering Course back in 2007. It was tedious and very difficult and I knew at the end of it, I had no certainty. This GAT II Pro Metering course was awesome! After the 100% certainty of the new Student Hat and TRs courses, learning the meter was simple. The new meter makes 

it very easy. Pretoria staff rock! They got me through this course smoothly. Thanks to all and above all, thanks to LRH!”

“… I knew at the end of it I had no certainty.” This statement should be alarming for all those on delivery lines and leading orgs because it makes several things pretty clear:

  • He lied in 2007 when he completed the course. He would never be allowed to complete if he had said “I have no certainty”.
  • This lie and his accompanying indicators were missed (or ignored) by the delivery personnel at the time.
  • GAT I was a disaster and all the hype at its launch was just that: hype and no substance. In fact it was “tedious”.
  • What percentage of the rave GAT II success stories have come after completing “tedious” services but covered up with a glowing statement of success? Certainly the successes we see of late ring with a sense of emptiness and no real success, just fluff.

“The HUBBARD Professional Metering Course delivers the vital metering skills you need to audit others and to reach full OT yourself.

“When you complete this course you don’t just know the meter – you are a master of it.” From the “Golden Age of Tech” magazine, 1996.

Yet Ray looks like he was happy to pay up a 2nd time in the hope that this time it wouldn’t be tedious.

For more wins from GAT II have a look at this Buzzfeed article and video from June: Video Promoting Scientology




34 thoughts on “Tech degrade of a tech degrade

  1. The sad part of this is that The Pro Metering course was not produced by L Ron Hubbard its just another scam to be a ROBOT Auditor. I study only materials when L Ron Hubbard was alive before the 1980.

  2. Come on guys give the dude his due! The Pro Metering course IS tedious whatever version you do. The cheating I did to get through this course at Flag was incredible – something I’m proud of to this day. I had a twin that I managed to collar whenever I was on the dating drills and we worked out a routine that I knew what the date was beforehand. Eg. She’d give me the same frigging date every time. So by a process of elimination (no meter reads indicating it, I can assure you) I got there. There were also facial expressions that sped up the ‘process of elimination’ – a smile for getting hot and a grimace for cold. Man we had it down smooth. Of course, I reciprocated in kind. Being a relatively honest person, it did come up in a sec check, but I can assure you to this day there’s no way I can do those drills honestly. In my auditing I also made damn sure I never had to date anything. You will notice as well that I duly attested and also wrote some piece-of-shit success story.
    And all you pricks from KSW Lions (if there’s anyone left at that ghost site other than the three doing their liability) don’t imagine this is evidence that all us ‘out’ are out-ethics – at the time I was a KA drinker just like you C-Suckers.The drills are impossible! So if there’s anything to this Success Story that’s true – good luck on the easier version!

    • Re those e-meter drills. As I see it, it’s a case of “The emperor’s new clothes syndrome”. No course supervisor, student or coach, will admit that no one will ever pass the drills without “some cheating”. This can easily be put to the test. Simply get someone completely neutral to hold the cans – someone with no vested interest, none whatsoever, in whether the student passes the dating drill or not. Even better, have some neutral observers watch the dating drill being done on close circuit TV.

      • EM25 is wrong as it has been done for the last 30 years or more. It should be renamed to: How to make the meter read on unreading items.

    • The dating drill is only made hard by course sups who dont know how to supervise it. Its actually quite easy and thrilling to see the meter work as stated, if you apply the earlier drills, and are allowed to apply them, and the date just falls into your lap.

      • The meter does not read on uncharged items and this is what EM25 tries to accomplish. If there is no charge on 10′ s of thousands of years ago it will not read.

      • Cotch, I hear what you’re saying and I did see people doing it flawlessly at Flag and even did so once or twice myself (well, flawlessly-ish). However, from my experience this was entirely due to having a coach (you know, that’s the person holding the cans) who gave reliable reads every time – and there are such people. Personally, I never saw this as being one bit different to my cheating as it still had nothing to do with my skill.
        However, I believe the local course sup Dane Ryan says he can perform EM25 effortlessly on anyone, though I’ve never personally seen him do so. As his students rave about his supervising, I’m inclined to believe him. So you may be right!

      • Can you imagine a scenario like this.
        You start a session and the PC says: “I have an ARCX with my husband” – No read. You start to repeat it over and over again, no read, no read, no read. Use buttons – no read, no read. no read. But of course the PC said it so it must be true. The PC of course knows more about his reactive mind than the emeter does. So you check it 6 more times and then get the tiniest tick. “Aha, I have finally gotten this unreading item to read!”
        This is EM25!

      • Getting the correct read depends very much on the pc’s ability to recognize some outpoint in response to the question. The pc may be looking at some outpoints but they may not relate directly to the question; so they may appear as latent or random treads.

        “Fish and Fumble” was an interesting LRH demonstration that was following up on an outpoint that the pc was looking at, and not a response to some question.


      • And one more thing, to add to my other comments about EM25.
        What does the drill as it is currently done have to do with learning the technique of finding a charged Whole Track date? About 5%. And it is 95% about getting an arbitrary number the coach made up out of thin air to read on the emeter.
        The supposed purpose of the drill has been lost and converted to something entirely different.

      • Hey Maven. What you need for this drill is a really good coach who will give you a kick under the table when you call out the right number..
        (Just kidding. But wouldn’t that make this drill a lot easier?)

      • HI JustSomeGuy,
        You hit the nail on the head! That clarified something for me – don’t just listen to someone’s PR, by that person or by someone else. You have to see it for yourself.

      • My apologies, it was EM drill 22 I was thinking of and referring to, not 25. This is a paragraph out of “E Meter Essentials” 1961 edition I thought might be of interest:
        10. Dating things on a meter is not as important as it was, but a skilled auditor should be able to do it. It isn’t covered here because few can do it well and it looks so complicated you might miss the important things and they are all in this book.Dating is well covered in ELECTROPSYCHOMETRIC AUDITING, the first book on the meter, and the later book,THE HUBBARD ELECTROMETER.”

      • Oh my…. “However, I believe the local course sup Dane Ryan says he can perform EM25 effortlessly on anyone, though I’ve never personally seen him do so.”

        that sounds so similar to this:

        Here’s an example: A rave recommendation is given a graduating student “because he gets more TA on pcs than any other student on the course!” Figures of 435 TA divisions a session are reported. “Of course his Model Session is poor but it’s just a knack he has” is also included in the recommendation.

  3. “Certainly the successes we see of late ring with a sense of emptiness and no real success, just fluff.”

    They are empty, just fluff – a most apt description. I’ve been reading them for months and haven’t been able to stomach them.
    And as for the video – so gushy. How wonderful it all is – until GATIII. Ugh!

  4. This is just heart-breaking.His previous success story was probably just as gushing as this one was – so which is to be believed – the one then or the one now? The examiner would have done the key question (I don’t believe Joburg or Pretoria have ever had a qualified Success Officer on post). Proof once again that “thinking nice thoughts and grinning like a Cheshire cat will get you through anything”.

    This is a classic case of the Emperor’s new Clothes story. You sit and listen to people gush out their wonderful success stories, and then see them utterly failing in life – I could fill a book with such cases. The person attesting to the Happiness Rundown and crying while talking about it at graduation, the guy who just got back from Anzo having attested to Clear and promptly beating his wife to a pulp, the OT8 who got himself and the org into so much financial trouble he had to go to some far-flung African country to mine diamonds, contracting malaria and nearly drying in the process – the list is endless.

    Success stories mean nothing until proven that they are being applied successfully in life. I believe there is a quote “know them by their actions”.

    • Spot on Shelly! The whole “success story” thing was so full of hubris anyway. Even when it comes to states attained in auditing – if one becomes Clear, it is not a piece of paper and an organization that can label and own that state, which is intangible. One is either Clear or not, and no certificates can possibly encapsulate that. And the bottom line is, sorry to say, but a billion “wogs” out there do just fine, if not spectacularly, in life, without ever having known about Scientology.

      The map is not the territory. And Scientology is just one of many possible maps.

      Think about it for a moment – how many Scientologists do we know of who made long-standing contributions of magnitude to life on earth in the league of: Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Godel, Escher, Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Netwon., Einstein, Plato, Hypatia, Galileo, Socrates, Confucious, Marie Curie, Nelson Mandela, Steve Jobs, Vincent Van Gogh, the Dalai Lama, Mark twain, Rosa Parks, Mother Theresa, John Lennon, Ann Frank, Tim Berners Lee…….I could go on and on, but I think that makes the point.

      Which is not to say that good auditing has no value, but there are so many other paths out there for “clearing” old trauma, and expanding one’s consciousness that do not require one to sell one’s soul and life to embark upon. Consciousness expansion, and spiritual growth cannot be certified, trademarked or owned – it just IS.

  5. This article is great BUT HORRENDOUS!
    I have had fellow students who had taken 3 years to complete the
    metering course overseas!
    2 other fellow students BLEW!
    Then the magic of GA!! what a load of BULL SHITE!
    The Pro metering course was not written by LRH.
    It is designed to slaughter anyone’s intention to be an Auditor.

    How the…………… so many overt products get through QUAL
    believe me if you are on the ship you work the system to get your
    pass port back!
    You work the system to get out of Flag!

    The Church Qual is bloody useless!
    and for once I am so pleased so many wide awake students were
    able to Escape and beat the system!
    Wait when you go over LRH’s original policies and meter drills outside
    the Church you will see for your self WHY you would never make it
    as auditors in the Church

    So Insidious! . …

  6. While doing the e-meter drills at the Flag AO courseroom, I had two incidents that rocked me as far as thinking Flag could really train people.
    Once when I was on EM-25 one of the supervisors was squeezing the cans (purposely) to give me reads. I knew this because it totally looked like body motion. I went to Qual about it and I didn’t see anything done to the supervisor.
    At some point I totally realized that this drill (EM-25) was basically impossible to do perfectly on any student. I went to the RTC Rep at the Flag AO and told her this. She said that it was possible and I asked her to go and show me that she could or get anyone to show me that they could do this drill on any person of my choosing. Of course she didn’t do this.
    One of the basic lies is that this e-meter stuff can be learned “perfectly”. That was always the standard they put out…PERFECT. What a way to give people overts eh? I mean some people were really trying to learn and master this stuff. For me to just lie and say that I was perfect was a false attest imho. I did finally attest based on a certain definition of perfect. What a mind fuck they put you through. I think it is done purposely.

    • Right you are Tony. I have been thinking about the EM25 (and also EM22) drill for years and trying to get it sorted out with tech people at Flag and through comm to RTC etc. No luck on that for sure.
      I am confident I have it completely figured out for myself now and I am planning on writing this up in detail very soon.
      Have you read my other comments about this drill earlier on this blog post?
      Basically the way EM25 is done is WRONG, regardless of what it says in the EM Drill Book (“compiled from the writings of LRH” by the way, by someone else other than LRH). The technique to find a whole track date on the emeter is a valid skill, but EM25 is trying to get the student to do something else (mostly something else, and a LITTLE bit of learning that skill.)
      If you read my other comments above, let me know know what you think. Ask scnafrica for my email address.

      • We are all taught that the meter reads instantly, on reactive thought, because there is no time in the reactive mind…everything is right now, thus the instant read at the precise end of major thought voiced. When the coach is analytically selecting dates, it totally violates the whole premise of what the meter reads on, instant reactive thought.
        I went through many references tracking back when these drills first came to be (checking the history notes at the bottom of the drills, finding that reference, tracing back from that one too) and in the first (now long gone cancelled) version of tech vols, I found a reference that for em22, the student would actually be trying to locate real, charged areas on the coach and that on em25, the coach would simulate reads. These drills changed over the years to what they are today.
        Per the theory of the meter, you can’t get analytical thought to read as an instant read…it violates the whole theory of what an instant read signifies!

      • Addition to my comment…At the time I was doing this researching, I also went thru all the earlier versions of the meter drill books. Remember in the history note of em22, it used to be called “Hidden body part”? It did in fact look for charged incidents originally.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s