Scientology abandoned by Hubbard's granddaughter & Miscavige's father - Page 43

shuttlt · 7th August 2012, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I don't see why. The claim is that you can lose up to 30lbs, isn't it? So if you said, say, losing 10lbs was a hit, that'd be trivial for the auditing to accomplish but hard to fake.

I haven't seen any units for this. For all I know it could be 30 micrograms. Also, I haven't seen it confirmed that Justinian believes this part. He's already explained that the disease part isn't really part of his beliefs, except through an "if you're happy, you will live a bit longer" kind of process.

devnull · 7th August 2012, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

I've located my local Cult of $cientology and plan on doing the same if I could really be bothered.

You better hurry - word is that the "churches" are dropping like flies. Our local one might as well not be there, I havent seen them do anything in a year or more.

A couple of the girls were cute too.

The Dark Lord · 7th August 2012, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

That would be awesome. Even just a tape recorder would be great.

It'd be especially cool if, rather than just making stuff up, you pretended to be someone reasonably obscure but either fictional or dead. Sort of like that Irish guy who phoned up a TV psychic pretending to be Will Smith, and even managed to quote the theme tune at him and mention being friends with Jazzy Jeff without the guy catching on. I mean that'd be too risky an example to try for something like this, but if you can think of a character that they're unlikely to have heard of and incorporate their life story in to what you say, even spitting some exact quotes at them, then not only will that gain you kudos, but you'll have unequivocal proof that you were not telling the truth so there's no way that Scientologists could claim that the misreading was down to something else.

That's a great idea. I'll do that if I ever bother with the whole thing.

The Dark Lord · 7th August 2012, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by devnull

You better hurry - word is that the "churches" are dropping like flies. Our local one might as well not be there, I havent seen them do anything in a year or more.

A couple of the girls were cute too.

They just opened up a brand new Ideal Org around here as they have in many cities in the US. This isn't a sign that the "church" is expanding, because they get the money to do it by pressing existing Sciolons who have money very hard for it. They are expected to donate even beyond the crazy prices they pay for auditing and whatnot.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 7th August 2012, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I haven't seen any units for this. For all I know it could be 30 micrograms.

It was poted earlier in the thread. I'll look for it when I get home, rather than being on my lunch hour.

Quote:

Also, I haven't seen it confirmed that Justinian believes this part. He's already explained that the disease part isn't really part of his beliefs, except through an "if you're happy, you will live a bit longer" kind of process.

He hasn't confirmed he believes anything. But he hasn't said he disbelieves anything that the church teaches, only that he's against the way it's been run.

But, again, I'd think that the first step would be to find his nearest sceptic's group and work from there.

Justinian2 · 7th August 2012, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

I totally agree.

My understanding is that the E-Meter indicates muscle expansion and contraction and the results are logged (via the needle [then the interpretation of the Auditor]) as changes in resistance to the very small electrical current that is being pushed through the human body - but that it does this really badly. It probably registers activities in the brain but only indirectly through the minute expansion and contraction of muscle. I seriously doubt that there's any way anyone could recognise when the needle was indicating muscle contraction as a result of changes in brainwave patterns (or as Scientologists might say, the weight of a persons thoughts!), as opposed to say, gripping the cans tighter because you really want to go to the bathroom.
In other words, the bloody thing does not and can not do what is claimed.

Testing the E-meter (Anonymous):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YCoqYyQXqc

In that video you can clearly see how erratic the needle movement is. Maybe that's because there are skeptics in the room

ETA: If anyone can see where I'm wrong on this I'm more than happy to be corrected.

Scientologists are taught to recognize the differences. Flexing a leg muscle while holding the cans will give a read, however only the reads taken at exactly the end of the question are used. It is very difficult to time the fake read (due to muscle contraction) with the question being asked so that the read looks authentic.

Medical doctors are taught to differentiate between 'angry red' and just 'red' when making a determination of whether a wound is infected or just healing. In a similar fashion, Scientologists are taught to differentiate the nice clean fall of a real read and the ragged, mistimed, and inappropriately sized fall due to hand or muscle movement. A novice auditor can really make a mess of a session by confusing the two. An experienced auditor never makes a mistake.

Garrette · 7th August 2012, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

An experienced auditor never makes a mistake.

Except when a skeptic is around.

Or when trying to use an analogy.

Or when claiming the emeters are or aren't scientifically verifiable.

Or when claiming self-cures of non-existent war wounds.

Or when "helping" Lisa McPherson.

Justinian2 · 7th August 2012, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I don't see why. The claim is that you can lose up to 30lbs, isn't it? So if you said, say, losing 10lbs was a hit, that'd be trivial for the auditing to accomplish but hard to fake.

I agree, but I think it's got a built-in excuse for Justinian to not be able to do it, as he's already said that one sceptic briefly visiting one church would be enough to mess up everybody's auditing for the whole day. So you just make it so that all sceptics are an agreed distance away and have no contact with Justinian or the person he's auditing, so there's no reason for the auditing not to work.

We know he can't say that auditing won't work under test conditions because he's not only explicitly said that you can test it in a lab, but he's even given his own protocols which involve sceptics viewing through cameras. So, much as I don't think we should be discussing protocol yet, we do know that he should agree to these two parts of the protocol as he suggested them himself.

Auditing works in a lot of ways and for a lot of reasons. Sometimes a PC (patient) might - after session - stop obsessively thinking about something negative (like when the next panic attack is coming). However, if he is surrounded by people asking him about his panic attacks, it could negatively affect him and his recovery.

Colds and other ailments have disappeared after auditing, but it isn't always what it seems. In the Dianetic auditing of a cold, for example, the auditor shouldn't run out the narrative of having a cold and go earlier similar. You might be running out a fond friend that died a year earlier when you contact something influencing the cold. I've had colds end abruptly after auditing. Most colds end more quickly and with milder symptoms after auditing.

Now I just take flu shots and have no colds. Flu shots are cheaper. It's better to leave the auditing for more important stuff.

Garrette · 7th August 2012, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

Auditing works in a lot of ways and for a lot of reasons. Sometimes a PC (patient) might - after session - stop obsessively thinking about something negative (like when the next panic attack is coming). However, if he is surrounded by people asking him about his panic attacks, it could negatively affect him and his recovery.

Colds and other ailments have disappeared after auditing, but it isn't always what it seems. In the Dianetic auditing of a cold, for example, the auditor shouldn't run out the narrative of having a cold and go earlier similar. You might be running out a fond friend that died a year earlier when you contact something influencing the cold. I've had colds end abruptly after auditing. Most colds end more quickly and with milder symptoms after auditing.

Now I just take flu shots and have no colds. Flu shots are cheaper. It's better to leave the auditing for more important stuff.

Auditing cures colds. More medical claims for the tin cans and cold readers.

Krikkiter · 7th August 2012, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

Scientologists are taught to recognize the differences. Flexing a leg muscle while holding the cans will give a read, however only the reads taken at exactly the end of the question are used. It is very difficult to time the fake read (due to muscle contraction) with the question being asked so that the read looks authentic.

Medical doctors are taught to differentiate between 'angry red' and just 'red' when making a determination of whether a wound is infected or just healing. In a similar fashion, Scientologists are taught to differentiate the nice clean fall of a real read and the ragged, mistimed, and inappropriately sized fall due to hand or muscle movement. A novice auditor can really make a mess of a session by confusing the two. An experienced auditor never makes a mistake.

All this tells me is that you have no idea of the capabilities (or lack) of the E-meter.

dafydd · 7th August 2012, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

. An experienced auditor never makes a mistake.

Not even spelling mistakes?

dafydd · 7th August 2012, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

Auditing works in a lot of ways and for a lot of reasons. Sometimes a PC (patient) might - after session - stop obsessively thinking about something negative (like when the next panic attack is coming). However, if he is surrounded by people asking him about his panic attacks, it could negatively affect him and his recovery.

Colds and other ailments have disappeared after auditing, but it isn't always what it seems. In the Dianetic auditing of a cold, for example, the auditor shouldn't run out the narrative of having a cold and go earlier similar. You might be running out a fond friend that died a year earlier when you contact something influencing the cold. I've had colds end abruptly after auditing. Most colds end more quickly and with milder symptoms after auditing.

Now I just take flu shots and have no colds. Flu shots are cheaper. It's better to leave the auditing for more important stuff.

Proof please. Have any double blind tests been done? Your stories don't cut it.

Krikkiter · 7th August 2012, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

Auditing works in a lot of ways and for a lot of reasons. Sometimes a PC (patient) might - after session - stop obsessively thinking about something negative (like when the next panic attack is coming). However, if he is surrounded by people asking him about his panic attacks, it could negatively affect him and his recovery.

Colds and other ailments have disappeared after auditing, but it isn't always what it seems. In the Dianetic auditing of a cold, for example, the auditor shouldn't run out the narrative of having a cold and go earlier similar. You might be running out a fond friend that died a year earlier when you contact something influencing the cold. I've had colds end abruptly after auditing. Most colds end more quickly and with milder symptoms after auditing.

Now I just take flu shots and have no colds. Flu shots are cheaper. It's better to leave the auditing for more important stuff.

Wait, when did we agree that the E-Meter works? Why are you trying to discuss Auditing with people? There's no way you're clear.

hgc · 7th August 2012, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

Now I just take flu shots and have no colds. Flu shots are cheaper. It's better to leave the auditing for more important stuff.

More important stuff = Things that can't be measured or quantified

Justinian2 · 7th August 2012, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by Garrette

Except when a skeptic is around.

Or when trying to use an analogy.

Or when claiming the emeters are or aren't scientifically verifiable.

Or when claiming self-cures of non-existent war wounds.

Or when "helping" Lisa McPherson.

There seem to be three main types of skeptic.

1) A scientific skeptic who tries to duplicate experiments EXACTLY in order to verify the results. This type of skeptic should not have biases that will effect his findings.

2) The negative person that is just negative at anything not endorsed by government and society. This person is not really a skeptic, just part of the peer pressure and brainwashing system indigenous to society.

3) The negative person that hides behind the word skeptic to bully people. He gets satisfaction and amusement out of destructive criticism. He precipitates destructive acts of violence in others.

marplots · 7th August 2012, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

Scientologists are taught to differentiate the nice clean fall of a real read and the ragged, mistimed, and inappropriately sized fall due to hand or muscle movement. A novice auditor can really make a mess of a session by confusing the two. An experienced auditor never makes a mistake.

I think I understand, but I have what might be a dumb question.

How do you know when a mistake has been made?

Sideroxylon · 7th August 2012, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

There seem to be three main types of skeptic.

1) A scientific skeptic who tries to duplicate experiments EXACTLY in order to verify the results. This type of skeptic should not have biases that will effect his findings.

2) The negative person that is just negative at anything not endorsed by government and society. This person is not really a skeptic, just part of the peer pressure and brainwashing system indigenous to society.

3) The negative person that hides behind the word skeptic to bully people. He gets satisfaction and amusement out of destructive criticism. He precipitates destructive acts of violence in others.

No, a sceptic is someone who withholds belief until sufficient standards of evidence have been met. What is sufficient will vary with the kind of claim being made. As Sagan and others have put it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Being a skeptic does not necessitate doing experiments. A good skeptic should have a good grasp of how science works and why, leading to understandings of how various claims could be well tested or badly tested.

Your other two categories could, among other things, be described as cynical rather than sceptical positions.

hgc · 7th August 2012, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

There seem to be three main types of skeptic.

1) A scientific skeptic who tries to duplicate experiments EXACTLY in order to verify the results. This type of skeptic should not have biases that will effect his findings.

2) The negative person that is just negative at anything not endorsed by government and society. This person is not really a skeptic, just part of the peer pressure and brainwashing system indigenous to society.

3) The negative person that hides behind the word skeptic to bully people. He gets satisfaction and amusement out of destructive criticism. He precipitates destructive acts of violence in others.

So, in your mind, anyone who is not a scientist conducting experiments cannot be a real skeptic. How convenient for you.

By the way, scientists do not necessarily duplicate experiments EXACTLY. They also replicate experiments using different protocols, or conduct entirely new experiments in attempts to replicate (or contradict) another scientist's result.

Justinian2 · 7th August 2012, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

Wait, when did we agree that the E-Meter works? Why are you trying to discuss Auditing with people? There's no way you're clear.

There are several discussions here.

Some think the Emeter is an ohmmeter. An ohmmeter doesn't give reads. An ohmmeter would only tell the auditor that the PC was getting tired and going out of session or over-run or into something too heavy for the PC to confront.

The Emeter doesn't cure anything - it is just a compass into the PC's case. It's like the sunstone that skillful Viking Navigators used as a compass. An ignorant person wouldn't know how to use either the sunstone or the Emeter, nor would he try to learn. An ignorant person just ignores things that disagree with his biases.

Krikkiter · 7th August 2012, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

There are several discussions here.

Some think the Emeter is an ohmmeter. An ohmmeter doesn't give reads. An ohmmeter would only tell the auditor that the PC was getting tired and going out of session or over-run or into something too heavy for the PC to confront.

The Emeter doesn't cure anything - it is just a compass into the PC's case. It's like the sunstone that skillful Viking Navigators used as a compass. An ignorant person wouldn't know how to use either the sunstone or the Emeter, nor would he try to learn. An ignorant person just ignores things that disagree with his biases.

But you don't even understand what it actually does - you've shown that - so everything you've just said is redundant.

It really amazes me. I have, in the past used some pretty (comparatively in this forum) complicated electronic gear in order to achieve an outcome for a client. I know what these things do and I know how they do it and why. If I didn't, I wouldn't pretend to. That would be dishonest wouldn't it? I've read the instructions and looked at the schematics (even though there's no real need to - it's just that I like to know what's going on inside them so I have a better understanding of how things are happening), and tested them by myself and in live situations. To not know what the piece of equipment actually does but to claim that you do is just a foreign concept to me.

Evolved Wookie · 7th August 2012, 06:27 AM

So - could we present an auditor with two externally identical pieces of equipment, on the inside one a 'genuine' e-meter and the other an equivalent representation, and see if they can be told apart?

...you wouldn't need a sceptic anywhere near the set-up then...

Justinian2 · 7th August 2012, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

But you don't even understand what it actually does - you've shown that - so everything you've just said is redundant.

It really amazes me. I have, in the past used some pretty (comparatively in this forum) complicated electronic gear in order to achieve an outcome for a client. I know what these things do and I know how they do it and why. If I didn't, I wouldn't pretend to. That would be dishonest wouldn't it? I've read the instructions and looked at the schematics (even though there's no real need to - it's just that I like to know what's going on inside them so I have a better understanding of how things are happening), and tested them by myself and in live situations. To not know what the piece of equipment actually does but to claim that you do is just a foreign concept to me.

I'm an electrical engineer mate. I used electrical instruments long before you were born.

A scientific skeptic would first try to duplicate an experiment EXACTLY. He might then do more research. Other research in this case might include other instrumentation.

Others in the Freezone have invented new Emeters, some of which work with the PC (personal computer). Scientology 'skeptics' have validated that these new Emeters work correctly.

How is it that other Scientologists can invent new Emeters and you can't even validate the old Emeter?

That aside, if you insist on another instrument - try a digital oscilloscope set on the ten millivolt per division range with a sweep time of 100 milliseconds/division. Set the scope to give you the difference between channel #1 and channel #2. Put a can on either channel. Then have the subject hold a can in each hand.

It is most likely you would still mess up because you don't know how the human body works. You need to take the course - it would save you weeks of research.

Krikkiter · 7th August 2012, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

I'm an electrical engineer mate. I used electrical instruments long before you were born.

A scientific skeptic would first try to duplicate an experiment EXACTLY. He might then do more research. Other research in this case might include other instrumentation.

Others in the Freezone have invented new Emeters, some of which work with the PC (personal computer). Scientology 'skeptics' have validated that these new Emeters work correctly.

How is it that other Scientologists can invent new Emeters and you can't even validate the old Emeter?

That aside, if you insist on another instrument - try a digital oscilloscope set on the ten millivolt per division range with a sweep time of 100 milliseconds/division. Set the scope to give you the difference between channel #1 and channel #2. Put a can on either channel. Then have the subject hold a can in each hand.

It is most likely you would still mess up because you don't know how the human body works. You need to take the course - it would save you weeks of research.

Wow.

Krikkiter · 7th August 2012, 06:47 AM

And in which case, would you be willing to have some scientific testing done as has been suggested?

DuvalHMFIC · 7th August 2012, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

There are several discussions here.

Some think the Emeter is an ohmmeter. An ohmmeter doesn't give reads. An ohmmeter would only tell the auditor that the PC was getting tired and going out of session or over-run or into something too heavy for the PC to confront.

The Emeter doesn't cure anything - it is just a compass into the PC's case. It's like the sunstone that skillful Viking Navigators used as a compass. An ignorant person wouldn't know how to use either the sunstone or the Emeter, nor would he try to learn. An ignorant person just ignores things that disagree with his biases.

I don't know how to run the Mars Curiosity Rover, nor will I try to learn. However, people smarter than me can test it and make sure it works as claimed. Why isn't this true for the emeter?

Justinian2 · 7th August 2012, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

I don't know how to run the Mars Curiosity Rover, nor will I try to learn. However, people smarter than me can test it and make sure it works as claimed. Why isn't this true for the emeter?

Probably because the term Emeter isn't a prestigious name.

Call it "An Investigation into the Measurement of Elicited/Spontaneous Depolarizations of Skeletal Muscle fibers caused by Neurotransmitters binding to the Postsynaptic membrane in the Neuromuscular junction". Then you might get some medical student to do an investigation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...x-Endspike.jpg

dafydd · 7th August 2012, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

Wait, when did we agree that the E-Meter works? Why are you trying to discuss Auditing with people? There's no way you're clear.

There is definitely some kind of a blockage.

dafydd · 7th August 2012, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

There seem to be three main types of skeptic.

1) A scientific skeptic who tries to duplicate experiments EXACTLY in order to verify the results. This type of skeptic should not have biases that will effect his findings.

2) The negative person that is just negative at anything not endorsed by government and society. This person is not really a skeptic, just part of the peer pressure and brainwashing system indigenous to society.

3) The negative person that hides behind the word skeptic to bully people. He gets satisfaction and amusement out of destructive criticism. He precipitates destructive acts of violence in others.

4) The skeptic who takes the time to educate himself/herself.

dafydd · 7th August 2012, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

It is most likely you would still mess up because you don't know how the human body works. You need to take the course - it would save you weeks of research.

And you do? Please expound.

dafydd · 7th August 2012, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

Others in the Freezone have invented new Emeters, some of which work with the PC (personal computer). Scientology 'skeptics' have validated that these new Emeters work correctly.

Links to the scientific studies please. You really must realize that just because you say something that does not mean that it is true. How far up the $cientology ladder do you have to be to twig that?

dafydd · 7th August 2012, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

Probably because the term Emeter isn't a prestigious name.

Call it "An Investigation into the Measurement of Elicited/Spontaneous Depolarizations of Skeletal Muscle fibers caused by Neurotransmitters binding to the Postsynaptic membrane in the Neuromuscular junction". Then you might get some medical student to do an investigation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...x-Endspike.jpg

Medical students are very busy people, they wouldn't waste time on investigating a load of junk.

dafydd · 7th August 2012, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

How is it that other Scientologists can invent new Emeters and you can't even validate the old Emeter?
.

Who's trying to vaidate it? We know it's useless

http://askthescientologist.blogspot....y-e-meter.html

''That's the theory about the e-meter that is accepted by Scientologists.

But when you get into actual practice, things start to fall apart.

First, let's visit the Scientology course room again. When you are learning how to operate the e-meter, you must do the "Dating Drill". In this drill, one student thinks of a date and writes it down, the second student puts the first student on the e-meter and attempts to find out the date using only the e-meter.

Now, if Hubbard's theory about the e-meter is correct, this drill would never work. There is no trauma (and therefore no charge) associated with that date. And the first student is fully aware of the date -- it isn't "just below his awareness".

So why does the Dating Drill work? There is only one explanation: It works because they believe it should.

Oops! That isn't part of the theory -- and that drill alone destroys the certainty about any read on the e-meter. If something reads only because someone believes it should, then how can anyone determine which reads are "real" and which are "belief"?

In this same theme, let's look at a question asked at the beginning of every session about a person's "witholds" (things they have hidden and don't want found out). Why do they read on the meter? Where is the trauma? The meter may read even though no one was hurt at all. The person may have participated in some victimless, harmless activity that is nobody's business -- and the meter reads. Why? Because the person was afraid it would. All Scientology auditors know this happens but they don't question it. According to theory, the meter shouldn't read because the person is fully aware of what they did, there was no trauma and there was no harm.

Well, what if a person doesn't believe the e-meter will react? What happens then? Well, apparently the meter doesn't react. You get the all too frequent situation where a Scientology criminal continues their criminal activities for years and years -- all while getting auditing. Apparently, they don't believe the meter will react to their crimes, and it doesn't.

All these contradictions between theory and practice suggest a rather different theory than Hubbard's: The e-meter reacts not only to actual memories of actual "trauma", but also reacts because the person on the meter believes or fears that it will.

Do you see what this means?

This means that the e-meter is almost completely useless, since a reaction on the meter might indicate a real problem or it might not -- and the meter cannot detect the difference.

One result of this is the incredibly bizarre "4 trillion year past track history" that is accepted as truth by Scientologists but is logically, obviously and scientifically proven to be false.

Another result is that it seems there are thousands of Scientologists who were famous people. In fact, there are many who share being the same famous person -- and all these past identities were fully verified by the e-meter.

But the worst result of these reads-just-because-they-believe is the entire Bridge. Scientologists, and their auditors, believed they were uncovering and "handling" vast amounts of past track incidents of trauma and upset -- 4 trillion years of it, no less -- but what is the truth? No one has become Clear. No one has become OT. Scientologists, even those high up The Bridge are struggling. Where are the miraculous gains and the incredible abilities that were promised and were supposedly delivered?

They believed and the e-meter showed them what they expected to see.''

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/E-Meter/biophysics.html

''The crux of my theory is that a scientologist learns through feedback during auditing and feedback from the E-meter to exert control over the semi-automatic mechanisms that control enough membrane bound ion channels to change their body resistance enough to provoke a measurable response in the E-meter.

It is biofeedback in its most basic sense.

The stimulus for the scientologist to develop this control is the "Wins" (warm fuzzy feelings) that they develop during auditing sessions when they obtain the approval of their auditor and when they obtain E-meter responses which Hubbard said were correct responses which move them closer towards god-hood.

Hubbard's writings are laced with statements like: (From the OT III materials)

I have lately been C/Sing a number of failed OT cases and have found them all running well on solo now. The errors are made as follows:

(1) The solo auditor cannot audit, needs more training.
(2) Cases are not well prepared with Dianetics.

Here Hubbard states very clearly, if you can't produce the proper E-meter responses then you have to go back and work with an auditor to train yourself until you can.

Now, scientologists have told me that it doesn't matter, that if the E-meter is reacting to their emotions then they don't care that they are controlling it.

I respond: If you control the E-meter, then the E-meter can not tell you anything that you don't already know. Using an E-meter to tell how you feel is just silly, but the real self delusion comes in when you use the E-meter to "verify" the many bizarre statements Hubbard made about ancient evil space emperors, evil spirits crawling all over you and past lives where you spent all your time wandering around biting things (I'm not joking) or polishing bricks (again, no joke).

Other scientologists have told me that if you connect any person off the street to an E-meter you can obtain reproducible meter responses.

I respond: Yes, that is the basis of a police "lie detector", that if you provoke strong emotions within a person that body resistance is one of the physiological indicators that can be used to detect the stress. It is important to note that lie detectors which include galvanic skin response meters are not accepted as legal evidence in many (all?) courts because they are too unreliable.

Also, this does not invalidate anything I have said, it simply demonstrates that untrained people change their body resistance due to stress. I would also add that my experiences with the "Pinch test" led me to conclude that at least this one test was not nearly as reproducible as scientologists would have me believe.''

devnull · 7th August 2012, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

I'm an electrical engineer mate. I used electrical instruments long before you were born.

A scientific skeptic would first try to duplicate an experiment EXACTLY. He might then do more research. Other research in this case might include other instrumentation.

Others in the Freezone have invented new Emeters, some of which work with the PC (personal computer). Scientology 'skeptics' have validated that these new Emeters work correctly.

How is it that other Scientologists can invent new Emeters and you can't even validate the old Emeter?

That aside, if you insist on another instrument - try a digital oscilloscope set on the ten millivolt per division range with a sweep time of 100 milliseconds/division. Set the scope to give you the difference between channel #1 and channel #2. Put a can on either channel. Then have the subject hold a can in each hand.

It is most likely you would still mess up because you don't know how the human body works. You need to take the course - it would save you weeks of research.

I'm actually calling poe now. Ths is just too deluded to be real.

Krikkiter · 7th August 2012, 08:07 AM

It appears the E-meter may well do "something" after all:

http://www.lermanet.com/e-metershort.htm

Measurement made by this author, (who spent some time while in Scientology actually involved in the building of E-Meters) , of a Mark Super VII [tm] model of Scientology's E-Meter yielded the following: The E-meter can expose the human body with a left hand to right hand current up to 300 Micro Amps. 1/3rd of the value that is generally considered noticeable by a person. In fact some members have reported to me, being able to feel the current go through their bodies.

It has been long known that very low amounts of electricity, given over time, can be highly addictive in a certain percentage of the population.

Also:

The magnitude of charge provided to a human body in a 2.5 hour exposure to the E-meter is approximately 1 coulomb.

The magnitude of charge provided to the human body by a set of three shocks used in a single treatment of Electro Convulsive Shock therapy, ECT, is only 1.2 coulombs.

And:

The actual amount of charge delivered to the body by many FDA approved medical devices is of the identical order of magnitude of the small current provided by the Scientology E-Meter.

Thus, I conclude that the E-meter directly provides a pain killing adjunct to the implied result of Scientology auditing technology's release state.

And:

In the author's opinion, endogenous activation of BCEC systems, leading to unidirectional flow of current over long time periods, may lead to modification of cells and tissues. Strong currents will destroy cells and tissue. Weak currents, on the other hand, will gently create new internal and external environments for cells. The currents will also directly interfere with cellular metabolism and modify structural elements of cells, damage to structures e.g. the DNA molecule, is evidently one possible effect of such modifications. Cells subjected to the conditions described can be expected to show variable abilities to survive and adapt themselves to the new living conditions.

http://www.lermanet.com/shock1.htm

tsig · 7th August 2012, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

There is definitely some kind of a blockage.

There's a lot of freewheeling going on plus being enturbulated and low on the tone scale.

tsig · 7th August 2012, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Justinian2

Probably because the term Emeter isn't a prestigious name.

Call it "An Investigation into the Measurement of Elicited/Spontaneous Depolarizations of Skeletal Muscle fibers caused by Neurotransmitters binding to the Postsynaptic membrane in the Neuromuscular junction". Then you might get some medical student to do an investigation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...x-Endspike.jpg

Here's an experiment you can do:

Take an ordinary analogue ohmmeter, set it to the appropriate* scale and grasp the leads. Squeeze the leads and watch the needle then hold them loosely, notice how the needle moves? Now put some moisture on your fingers and try again, looks a lot like an emeter, doesn't it?

*

Quote:

A rough value for the internal resistance of the human body is 300-1,000 Ohms. Naturally, the resistance also depends on the path that electricity takes through the body - if the electricity goes in the left hand and out the right foot, then the resistance will be much higher than if it goes in and out of adjacent fingers.

Within the body, the tissues with the greatest resistance are bone and fat - nerves and muscle have the least resistance. That said, the majority of the body's resistance is in the skin - the dead, dry cells of the epidermis (the skin's outer layer) are very poor conductors. Depending on the person, the resistance of dry skin is usually between 1,000-100,000 Ohms. The skin's resistance is much lower if it is wet or burnt/blistered.

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGd....php%3fid=6793

Krikkiter · 7th August 2012, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

There's a lot of freewheeling going on plus being enturbulated and low on the tone scale.

I think he might blow.

Krikkiter · 7th August 2012, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Here's an experiment you can do:

Take an ordinary analogue ohmmeter, set it to the appropriate* scale and grasp the leads. Squeeze the leads and watch the needle then hold them loosely, notice how the needle moves? Now put some moisture on your fingers and try again, looks a lot like an emeter, doesn't it?

*

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGd....php%3fid=6793

I read somewhere that Auditors often advise the use of moisturiser during sessions.

dafydd · 7th August 2012, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by devnull

I'm actually calling poe now. Ths is just too deluded to be real.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Let's carry on though, any wavering lurkers will have realized by now that $cientology/ Freezonia is a one big crock.

dafydd · 7th August 2012, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

There's a lot of freewheeling going on plus being enturbulated and low on the tone scale.

Is enturbulated the same as discombobulated?

7th August 2012, 01:38 AM	#1681
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,936	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim I don't see why. The claim is that you can lose up to 30lbs, isn't it? So if you said, say, losing 10lbs was a hit, that'd be trivial for the auditing to accomplish but hard to fake. I haven't seen any units for this. For all I know it could be 30 micrograms. Also, I haven't seen it confirmed that Justinian believes this part. He's already explained that the disease part isn't really part of his beliefs, except through an "if you're happy, you will live a bit longer" kind of process.
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,936	Last edited by shuttlt; 7th August 2012 at 01:43 AM.

7th August 2012, 02:05 AM	#1682
devnull Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 4,533	Originally Posted by Krikkiter I've located my local Cult of $cientology and plan on doing the same if I could really be bothered. You better hurry - word is that the "churches" are dropping like flies. Our local one might as well not be there, I havent seen them do anything in a year or more. A couple of the girls were cute too.
	__________________ no, i don't think i need to read naturalistic literature more accurately, to be convinced its true. - Gibhor

7th August 2012, 02:32 AM	#1683
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim That would be awesome. Even just a tape recorder would be great. It'd be especially cool if, rather than just making stuff up, you pretended to be someone reasonably obscure but either fictional or dead. Sort of like that Irish guy who phoned up a TV psychic pretending to be Will Smith, and even managed to quote the theme tune at him and mention being friends with Jazzy Jeff without the guy catching on. I mean that'd be too risky an example to try for something like this, but if you can think of a character that they're unlikely to have heard of and incorporate their life story in to what you say, even spitting some exact quotes at them, then not only will that gain you kudos, but you'll have unequivocal proof that you were not telling the truth so there's no way that Scientologists could claim that the misreading was down to something else. That's a great idea. I'll do that if I ever bother with the whole thing.
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

7th August 2012, 02:47 AM	#1684
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	Originally Posted by devnull You better hurry - word is that the "churches" are dropping like flies. Our local one might as well not be there, I havent seen them do anything in a year or more. A couple of the girls were cute too. They just opened up a brand new Ideal Org around here as they have in many cities in the US. This isn't a sign that the "church" is expanding, because they get the money to do it by pressing existing Sciolons who have money very hard for it. They are expected to donate even beyond the crazy prices they pay for auditing and whatnot.
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

7th August 2012, 04:36 AM	#1685
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,260	Originally Posted by shuttlt I haven't seen any units for this. For all I know it could be 30 micrograms. It was poted earlier in the thread. I'll look for it when I get home, rather than being on my lunch hour. Quote: Also, I haven't seen it confirmed that Justinian believes this part. He's already explained that the disease part isn't really part of his beliefs, except through an "if you're happy, you will live a bit longer" kind of process. He hasn't confirmed he believes anything. But he hasn't said he disbelieves anything that the church teaches, only that he's against the way it's been run. But, again, I'd think that the first step would be to find his nearest sceptic's group and work from there.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

7th August 2012, 04:56 AM	#1686
Justinian2 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,804	Originally Posted by Krikkiter I totally agree. My understanding is that the E-Meter indicates muscle expansion and contraction and the results are logged (via the needle [then the interpretation of the Auditor]) as changes in resistance to the very small electrical current that is being pushed through the human body - but that it does this really badly. It probably registers activities in the brain but only indirectly through the minute expansion and contraction of muscle. I seriously doubt that there's any way anyone could recognise when the needle was indicating muscle contraction as a result of changes in brainwave patterns (or as Scientologists might say, the weight of a persons thoughts!), as opposed to say, gripping the cans tighter because you really want to go to the bathroom. In other words, the bloody thing does not and can not do what is claimed. Testing the E-meter (Anonymous): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YCoqYyQXqc In that video you can clearly see how erratic the needle movement is. Maybe that's because there are skeptics in the room ETA: If anyone can see where I'm wrong on this I'm more than happy to be corrected. Scientologists are taught to recognize the differences. Flexing a leg muscle while holding the cans will give a read, however only the reads taken at exactly the end of the question are used. It is very difficult to time the fake read (due to muscle contraction) with the question being asked so that the read looks authentic. Medical doctors are taught to differentiate between 'angry red' and just 'red' when making a determination of whether a wound is infected or just healing. In a similar fashion, Scientologists are taught to differentiate the nice clean fall of a real read and the ragged, mistimed, and inappropriately sized fall due to hand or muscle movement. A novice auditor can really make a mess of a session by confusing the two. An experienced auditor never makes a mistake.
Justinian2 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,804

7th August 2012, 05:12 AM	#1687
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,555	Originally Posted by Justinian2 An experienced auditor never makes a mistake. Except when a skeptic is around. Or when trying to use an analogy. Or when claiming the emeters are or aren't scientifically verifiable. Or when claiming self-cures of non-existent war wounds. Or when "helping" Lisa McPherson.
	__________________ My kids still love me. Last edited by Garrette; 7th August 2012 at 05:13 AM.

7th August 2012, 05:24 AM	#1688
Justinian2 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,804	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim I don't see why. The claim is that you can lose up to 30lbs, isn't it? So if you said, say, losing 10lbs was a hit, that'd be trivial for the auditing to accomplish but hard to fake. I agree, but I think it's got a built-in excuse for Justinian to not be able to do it, as he's already said that one sceptic briefly visiting one church would be enough to mess up everybody's auditing for the whole day. So you just make it so that all sceptics are an agreed distance away and have no contact with Justinian or the person he's auditing, so there's no reason for the auditing not to work. We know he can't say that auditing won't work under test conditions because he's not only explicitly said that you can test it in a lab, but he's even given his own protocols which involve sceptics viewing through cameras. So, much as I don't think we should be discussing protocol yet, we do know that he should agree to these two parts of the protocol as he suggested them himself. Auditing works in a lot of ways and for a lot of reasons. Sometimes a PC (patient) might - after session - stop obsessively thinking about something negative (like when the next panic attack is coming). However, if he is surrounded by people asking him about his panic attacks, it could negatively affect him and his recovery. Colds and other ailments have disappeared after auditing, but it isn't always what it seems. In the Dianetic auditing of a cold, for example, the auditor shouldn't run out the narrative of having a cold and go earlier similar. You might be running out a fond friend that died a year earlier when you contact something influencing the cold. I've had colds end abruptly after auditing. Most colds end more quickly and with milder symptoms after auditing. Now I just take flu shots and have no colds. Flu shots are cheaper. It's better to leave the auditing for more important stuff.
Justinian2 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,804	Last edited by Justinian2; 7th August 2012 at 05:26 AM.

7th August 2012, 05:31 AM	#1689
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,555	Originally Posted by Justinian2 Auditing works in a lot of ways and for a lot of reasons. Sometimes a PC (patient) might - after session - stop obsessively thinking about something negative (like when the next panic attack is coming). However, if he is surrounded by people asking him about his panic attacks, it could negatively affect him and his recovery. Colds and other ailments have disappeared after auditing, but it isn't always what it seems. In the Dianetic auditing of a cold, for example, the auditor shouldn't run out the narrative of having a cold and go earlier similar. You might be running out a fond friend that died a year earlier when you contact something influencing the cold. I've had colds end abruptly after auditing. Most colds end more quickly and with milder symptoms after auditing. Now I just take flu shots and have no colds. Flu shots are cheaper. It's better to leave the auditing for more important stuff. Auditing cures colds. More medical claims for the tin cans and cold readers.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

7th August 2012, 05:33 AM	#1690
Krikkiter Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,261	Originally Posted by Justinian2 Scientologists are taught to recognize the differences. Flexing a leg muscle while holding the cans will give a read, however only the reads taken at exactly the end of the question are used. It is very difficult to time the fake read (due to muscle contraction) with the question being asked so that the read looks authentic. Medical doctors are taught to differentiate between 'angry red' and just 'red' when making a determination of whether a wound is infected or just healing. In a similar fashion, Scientologists are taught to differentiate the nice clean fall of a real read and the ragged, mistimed, and inappropriately sized fall due to hand or muscle movement. A novice auditor can really make a mess of a session by confusing the two. An experienced auditor never makes a mistake. All this tells me is that you have no idea of the capabilities (or lack) of the E-meter.

7th August 2012, 05:36 AM	#1691
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,477	Originally Posted by Justinian2 . An experienced auditor never makes a mistake. Not even spelling mistakes?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

7th August 2012, 05:38 AM	#1692
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,477	Originally Posted by Justinian2 Auditing works in a lot of ways and for a lot of reasons. Sometimes a PC (patient) might - after session - stop obsessively thinking about something negative (like when the next panic attack is coming). However, if he is surrounded by people asking him about his panic attacks, it could negatively affect him and his recovery. Colds and other ailments have disappeared after auditing, but it isn't always what it seems. In the Dianetic auditing of a cold, for example, the auditor shouldn't run out the narrative of having a cold and go earlier similar. You might be running out a fond friend that died a year earlier when you contact something influencing the cold. I've had colds end abruptly after auditing. Most colds end more quickly and with milder symptoms after auditing. Now I just take flu shots and have no colds. Flu shots are cheaper. It's better to leave the auditing for more important stuff. Proof please. Have any double blind tests been done? Your stories don't cut it.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

7th August 2012, 05:40 AM	#1693
Krikkiter Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,261	Originally Posted by Justinian2 Auditing works in a lot of ways and for a lot of reasons. Sometimes a PC (patient) might - after session - stop obsessively thinking about something negative (like when the next panic attack is coming). However, if he is surrounded by people asking him about his panic attacks, it could negatively affect him and his recovery. Colds and other ailments have disappeared after auditing, but it isn't always what it seems. In the Dianetic auditing of a cold, for example, the auditor shouldn't run out the narrative of having a cold and go earlier similar. You might be running out a fond friend that died a year earlier when you contact something influencing the cold. I've had colds end abruptly after auditing. Most colds end more quickly and with milder symptoms after auditing. Now I just take flu shots and have no colds. Flu shots are cheaper. It's better to leave the auditing for more important stuff. Wait, when did we agree that the E-Meter works? Why are you trying to discuss Auditing with people? There's no way you're clear.

7th August 2012, 05:43 AM	#1694
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,028	Originally Posted by Justinian2 Now I just take flu shots and have no colds. Flu shots are cheaper. It's better to leave the auditing for more important stuff. More important stuff = Things that can't be measured or quantified
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

7th August 2012, 05:51 AM	#1695
Justinian2 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,804	Originally Posted by Garrette Except when a skeptic is around. Or when trying to use an analogy. Or when claiming the emeters are or aren't scientifically verifiable. Or when claiming self-cures of non-existent war wounds. Or when "helping" Lisa McPherson. There seem to be three main types of skeptic. 1) A scientific skeptic who tries to duplicate experiments EXACTLY in order to verify the results. This type of skeptic should not have biases that will effect his findings. 2) The negative person that is just negative at anything not endorsed by government and society. This person is not really a skeptic, just part of the peer pressure and brainwashing system indigenous to society. 3) The negative person that hides behind the word skeptic to bully people. He gets satisfaction and amusement out of destructive criticism. He precipitates destructive acts of violence in others.
Justinian2 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,804

7th August 2012, 05:58 AM	#1696
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420	Originally Posted by Justinian2 Scientologists are taught to differentiate the nice clean fall of a real read and the ragged, mistimed, and inappropriately sized fall due to hand or muscle movement. A novice auditor can really make a mess of a session by confusing the two. An experienced auditor never makes a mistake. I think I understand, but I have what might be a dumb question. How do you know when a mistake has been made?
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420

7th August 2012, 05:58 AM	#1697
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,641	Originally Posted by Justinian2 There seem to be three main types of skeptic. 1) A scientific skeptic who tries to duplicate experiments EXACTLY in order to verify the results. This type of skeptic should not have biases that will effect his findings. 2) The negative person that is just negative at anything not endorsed by government and society. This person is not really a skeptic, just part of the peer pressure and brainwashing system indigenous to society. 3) The negative person that hides behind the word skeptic to bully people. He gets satisfaction and amusement out of destructive criticism. He precipitates destructive acts of violence in others. No, a sceptic is someone who withholds belief until sufficient standards of evidence have been met. What is sufficient will vary with the kind of claim being made. As Sagan and others have put it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Being a skeptic does not necessitate doing experiments. A good skeptic should have a good grasp of how science works and why, leading to understandings of how various claims could be well tested or badly tested. Your other two categories could, among other things, be described as cynical rather than sceptical positions.
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

7th August 2012, 05:59 AM	#1698
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,028	Originally Posted by Justinian2 There seem to be three main types of skeptic. 1) A scientific skeptic who tries to duplicate experiments EXACTLY in order to verify the results. This type of skeptic should not have biases that will effect his findings. 2) The negative person that is just negative at anything not endorsed by government and society. This person is not really a skeptic, just part of the peer pressure and brainwashing system indigenous to society. 3) The negative person that hides behind the word skeptic to bully people. He gets satisfaction and amusement out of destructive criticism. He precipitates destructive acts of violence in others. So, in your mind, anyone who is not a scientist conducting experiments cannot be a real skeptic. How convenient for you. By the way, scientists do not necessarily duplicate experiments EXACTLY. They also replicate experiments using different protocols, or conduct entirely new experiments in attempts to replicate (or contradict) another scientist's result.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert Last edited by hgc; 7th August 2012 at 06:11 AM.

7th August 2012, 06:07 AM	#1699
Justinian2 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,804	Originally Posted by Krikkiter Wait, when did we agree that the E-Meter works? Why are you trying to discuss Auditing with people? There's no way you're clear. There are several discussions here. Some think the Emeter is an ohmmeter. An ohmmeter doesn't give reads. An ohmmeter would only tell the auditor that the PC was getting tired and going out of session or over-run or into something too heavy for the PC to confront. The Emeter doesn't cure anything - it is just a compass into the PC's case. It's like the sunstone that skillful Viking Navigators used as a compass. An ignorant person wouldn't know how to use either the sunstone or the Emeter, nor would he try to learn. An ignorant person just ignores things that disagree with his biases.
Justinian2 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,804

7th August 2012, 06:20 AM	#1700
Krikkiter Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,261	Originally Posted by Justinian2 There are several discussions here. Some think the Emeter is an ohmmeter. An ohmmeter doesn't give reads. An ohmmeter would only tell the auditor that the PC was getting tired and going out of session or over-run or into something too heavy for the PC to confront. The Emeter doesn't cure anything - it is just a compass into the PC's case. It's like the sunstone that skillful Viking Navigators used as a compass. An ignorant person wouldn't know how to use either the sunstone or the Emeter, nor would he try to learn. An ignorant person just ignores things that disagree with his biases. But you don't even understand what it actually does - you've shown that - so everything you've just said is redundant. It really amazes me. I have, in the past used some pretty (comparatively in this forum) complicated electronic gear in order to achieve an outcome for a client. I know what these things do and I know how they do it and why. If I didn't, I wouldn't pretend to. That would be dishonest wouldn't it? I've read the instructions and looked at the schematics (even though there's no real need to - it's just that I like to know what's going on inside them so I have a better understanding of how things are happening), and tested them by myself and in live situations. To not know what the piece of equipment actually does but to claim that you do is just a foreign concept to me.

7th August 2012, 06:27 AM	#1701
Evolved Wookie A rigidly defined area of doubt and uncertainty Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Two feet to the left, in accordance with the theory of indeterminacy Posts: 566	So - could we present an auditor with two externally identical pieces of equipment, on the inside one a 'genuine' e-meter and the other an equivalent representation, and see if they can be told apart? ...you wouldn't need a sceptic anywhere near the set-up then...
	__________________ W_hat W_ould T_he D_octor D_o? Some creative lies. "No. Liars aren't creative." - Justinian2

7th August 2012, 06:32 AM	#1702
Justinian2 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,804	Originally Posted by Krikkiter But you don't even understand what it actually does - you've shown that - so everything you've just said is redundant. It really amazes me. I have, in the past used some pretty (comparatively in this forum) complicated electronic gear in order to achieve an outcome for a client. I know what these things do and I know how they do it and why. If I didn't, I wouldn't pretend to. That would be dishonest wouldn't it? I've read the instructions and looked at the schematics (even though there's no real need to - it's just that I like to know what's going on inside them so I have a better understanding of how things are happening), and tested them by myself and in live situations. To not know what the piece of equipment actually does but to claim that you do is just a foreign concept to me. I'm an electrical engineer mate. I used electrical instruments long before you were born. A scientific skeptic would first try to duplicate an experiment EXACTLY. He might then do more research. Other research in this case might include other instrumentation. Others in the Freezone have invented new Emeters, some of which work with the PC (personal computer). Scientology 'skeptics' have validated that these new Emeters work correctly. How is it that other Scientologists can invent new Emeters and you can't even validate the old Emeter? That aside, if you insist on another instrument - try a digital oscilloscope set on the ten millivolt per division range with a sweep time of 100 milliseconds/division. Set the scope to give you the difference between channel #1 and channel #2. Put a can on either channel. Then have the subject hold a can in each hand. It is most likely you would still mess up because you don't know how the human body works. You need to take the course - it would save you weeks of research.
Justinian2 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,804	Last edited by Justinian2; 7th August 2012 at 06:34 AM.

7th August 2012, 06:40 AM	#1703
Krikkiter Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,261	Originally Posted by Justinian2 I'm an electrical engineer mate. I used electrical instruments long before you were born. A scientific skeptic would first try to duplicate an experiment EXACTLY. He might then do more research. Other research in this case might include other instrumentation. Others in the Freezone have invented new Emeters, some of which work with the PC (personal computer). Scientology 'skeptics' have validated that these new Emeters work correctly. How is it that other Scientologists can invent new Emeters and you can't even validate the old Emeter? That aside, if you insist on another instrument - try a digital oscilloscope set on the ten millivolt per division range with a sweep time of 100 milliseconds/division. Set the scope to give you the difference between channel #1 and channel #2. Put a can on either channel. Then have the subject hold a can in each hand. It is most likely you would still mess up because you don't know how the human body works. You need to take the course - it would save you weeks of research. Wow.

7th August 2012, 06:47 AM	#1704
Krikkiter Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,261	And in which case, would you be willing to have some scientific testing done as has been suggested?

7th August 2012, 07:00 AM	#1705
DuvalHMFIC Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 144	Originally Posted by Justinian2 There are several discussions here. Some think the Emeter is an ohmmeter. An ohmmeter doesn't give reads. An ohmmeter would only tell the auditor that the PC was getting tired and going out of session or over-run or into something too heavy for the PC to confront. The Emeter doesn't cure anything - it is just a compass into the PC's case. It's like the sunstone that skillful Viking Navigators used as a compass. An ignorant person wouldn't know how to use either the sunstone or the Emeter, nor would he try to learn. An ignorant person just ignores things that disagree with his biases. I don't know how to run the Mars Curiosity Rover, nor will I try to learn. However, people smarter than me can test it and make sure it works as claimed. Why isn't this true for the emeter?
	__________________ Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.

7th August 2012, 07:12 AM	#1706
Justinian2 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,804	Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC I don't know how to run the Mars Curiosity Rover, nor will I try to learn. However, people smarter than me can test it and make sure it works as claimed. Why isn't this true for the emeter? Probably because the term Emeter isn't a prestigious name. Call it "An Investigation into the Measurement of Elicited/Spontaneous Depolarizations of Skeletal Muscle fibers caused by Neurotransmitters binding to the Postsynaptic membrane in the Neuromuscular junction". Then you might get some medical student to do an investigation. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...x-Endspike.jpg
Justinian2 Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,804	Last edited by Justinian2; 7th August 2012 at 07:13 AM.

7th August 2012, 07:17 AM	#1707
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,477	Originally Posted by Krikkiter Wait, when did we agree that the E-Meter works? Why are you trying to discuss Auditing with people? There's no way you're clear. There is definitely some kind of a blockage.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

7th August 2012, 07:19 AM	#1708
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,477	Originally Posted by Justinian2 There seem to be three main types of skeptic. 1) A scientific skeptic who tries to duplicate experiments EXACTLY in order to verify the results. This type of skeptic should not have biases that will effect his findings. 2) The negative person that is just negative at anything not endorsed by government and society. This person is not really a skeptic, just part of the peer pressure and brainwashing system indigenous to society. 3) The negative person that hides behind the word skeptic to bully people. He gets satisfaction and amusement out of destructive criticism. He precipitates destructive acts of violence in others. 4) The skeptic who takes the time to educate himself/herself.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

7th August 2012, 07:20 AM	#1709
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,477	Originally Posted by Justinian2 It is most likely you would still mess up because you don't know how the human body works. You need to take the course - it would save you weeks of research. And you do? Please expound.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

7th August 2012, 07:22 AM	#1710
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,477	Originally Posted by Justinian2 Others in the Freezone have invented new Emeters, some of which work with the PC (personal computer). Scientology 'skeptics' have validated that these new Emeters work correctly. Links to the scientific studies please. You really must realize that just because you say something that does not mean that it is true. How far up the $cientology ladder do you have to be to twig that?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 7th August 2012 at 07:28 AM.

7th August 2012, 07:23 AM	#1711
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,477	Originally Posted by Justinian2 Probably because the term Emeter isn't a prestigious name. Call it "An Investigation into the Measurement of Elicited/Spontaneous Depolarizations of Skeletal Muscle fibers caused by Neurotransmitters binding to the Postsynaptic membrane in the Neuromuscular junction". Then you might get some medical student to do an investigation. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...x-Endspike.jpg Medical students are very busy people, they wouldn't waste time on investigating a load of junk.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

7th August 2012, 07:31 AM	#1712
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,477	Originally Posted by Justinian2 How is it that other Scientologists can invent new Emeters and you can't even validate the old Emeter? . Who's trying to vaidate it? We know it's useless http://askthescientologist.blogspot....y-e-meter.html ''That's the theory about the e-meter that is accepted by Scientologists. But when you get into actual practice, things start to fall apart. First, let's visit the Scientology course room again. When you are learning how to operate the e-meter, you must do the "Dating Drill". In this drill, one student thinks of a date and writes it down, the second student puts the first student on the e-meter and attempts to find out the date using only the e-meter. Now, if Hubbard's theory about the e-meter is correct, this drill would never work. There is no trauma (and therefore no charge) associated with that date. And the first student is fully aware of the date -- it isn't "just below his awareness". So why does the Dating Drill work? There is only one explanation: It works because they believe it should. Oops! That isn't part of the theory -- and that drill alone destroys the certainty about any read on the e-meter. If something reads only because someone believes it should, then how can anyone determine which reads are "real" and which are "belief"? In this same theme, let's look at a question asked at the beginning of every session about a person's "witholds" (things they have hidden and don't want found out). Why do they read on the meter? Where is the trauma? The meter may read even though no one was hurt at all. The person may have participated in some victimless, harmless activity that is nobody's business -- and the meter reads. Why? Because the person was afraid it would. All Scientology auditors know this happens but they don't question it. According to theory, the meter shouldn't read because the person is fully aware of what they did, there was no trauma and there was no harm. Well, what if a person doesn't believe the e-meter will react? What happens then? Well, apparently the meter doesn't react. You get the all too frequent situation where a Scientology criminal continues their criminal activities for years and years -- all while getting auditing. Apparently, they don't believe the meter will react to their crimes, and it doesn't. All these contradictions between theory and practice suggest a rather different theory than Hubbard's: The e-meter reacts not only to actual memories of actual "trauma", but also reacts because the person on the meter believes or fears that it will. Do you see what this means? This means that the e-meter is almost completely useless, since a reaction on the meter might indicate a real problem or it might not -- and the meter cannot detect the difference. One result of this is the incredibly bizarre "4 trillion year past track history" that is accepted as truth by Scientologists but is logically, obviously and scientifically proven to be false. Another result is that it seems there are thousands of Scientologists who were famous people. In fact, there are many who share being the same famous person -- and all these past identities were fully verified by the e-meter. But the worst result of these reads-just-because-they-believe is the entire Bridge. Scientologists, and their auditors, believed they were uncovering and "handling" vast amounts of past track incidents of trauma and upset -- 4 trillion years of it, no less -- but what is the truth? No one has become Clear. No one has become OT. Scientologists, even those high up The Bridge are struggling. Where are the miraculous gains and the incredible abilities that were promised and were supposedly delivered? They believed and the e-meter showed them what they expected to see.'' http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/E-Meter/biophysics.html ''The crux of my theory is that a scientologist learns through feedback during auditing and feedback from the E-meter to exert control over the semi-automatic mechanisms that control enough membrane bound ion channels to change their body resistance enough to provoke a measurable response in the E-meter. It is biofeedback in its most basic sense. The stimulus for the scientologist to develop this control is the "Wins" (warm fuzzy feelings) that they develop during auditing sessions when they obtain the approval of their auditor and when they obtain E-meter responses which Hubbard said were correct responses which move them closer towards god-hood. Hubbard's writings are laced with statements like: (From the OT III materials) I have lately been C/Sing a number of failed OT cases and have found them all running well on solo now. The errors are made as follows: (1) The solo auditor cannot audit, needs more training. (2) Cases are not well prepared with Dianetics. Here Hubbard states very clearly, if you can't produce the proper E-meter responses then you have to go back and work with an auditor to train yourself until you can. Now, scientologists have told me that it doesn't matter, that if the E-meter is reacting to their emotions then they don't care that they are controlling it. I respond: If you control the E-meter, then the E-meter can not tell you anything that you don't already know. Using an E-meter to tell how you feel is just silly, but the real self delusion comes in when you use the E-meter to "verify" the many bizarre statements Hubbard made about ancient evil space emperors, evil spirits crawling all over you and past lives where you spent all your time wandering around biting things (I'm not joking) or polishing bricks (again, no joke). Other scientologists have told me that if you connect any person off the street to an E-meter you can obtain reproducible meter responses. I respond: Yes, that is the basis of a police "lie detector", that if you provoke strong emotions within a person that body resistance is one of the physiological indicators that can be used to detect the stress. It is important to note that lie detectors which include galvanic skin response meters are not accepted as legal evidence in many (all?) courts because they are too unreliable. Also, this does not invalidate anything I have said, it simply demonstrates that untrained people change their body resistance due to stress. I would also add that my experiences with the "Pinch test" led me to conclude that at least this one test was not nearly as reproducible as scientologists would have me believe.''
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 7th August 2012 at 07:41 AM.

7th August 2012, 08:00 AM	#1713
devnull Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 4,533	Originally Posted by Justinian2 I'm an electrical engineer mate. I used electrical instruments long before you were born. A scientific skeptic would first try to duplicate an experiment EXACTLY. He might then do more research. Other research in this case might include other instrumentation. Others in the Freezone have invented new Emeters, some of which work with the PC (personal computer). Scientology 'skeptics' have validated that these new Emeters work correctly. How is it that other Scientologists can invent new Emeters and you can't even validate the old Emeter? That aside, if you insist on another instrument - try a digital oscilloscope set on the ten millivolt per division range with a sweep time of 100 milliseconds/division. Set the scope to give you the difference between channel #1 and channel #2. Put a can on either channel. Then have the subject hold a can in each hand. It is most likely you would still mess up because you don't know how the human body works. You need to take the course - it would save you weeks of research. I'm actually calling poe now. Ths is just too deluded to be real.
	__________________ no, i don't think i need to read naturalistic literature more accurately, to be convinced its true. - Gibhor

7th August 2012, 08:07 AM	#1714
Krikkiter Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,261	It appears the E-meter may well do "something" after all: http://www.lermanet.com/e-metershort.htm Measurement made by this author, (who spent some time while in Scientology actually involved in the building of E-Meters) , of a Mark Super VII [tm] model of Scientology's E-Meter yielded the following: The E-meter can expose the human body with a left hand to right hand current up to 300 Micro Amps. 1/3rd of the value that is generally considered noticeable by a person. In fact some members have reported to me, being able to feel the current go through their bodies. It has been long known that very low amounts of electricity, given over time, can be highly addictive in a certain percentage of the population. Also: The magnitude of charge provided to a human body in a 2.5 hour exposure to the E-meter is approximately 1 coulomb. The magnitude of charge provided to the human body by a set of three shocks used in a single treatment of Electro Convulsive Shock therapy, ECT, is only 1.2 coulombs. And: The actual amount of charge delivered to the body by many FDA approved medical devices is of the identical order of magnitude of the small current provided by the Scientology E-Meter. Thus, I conclude that the E-meter directly provides a pain killing adjunct to the implied result of Scientology auditing technology's release state. And: In the author's opinion, endogenous activation of BCEC systems, leading to unidirectional flow of current over long time periods, may lead to modification of cells and tissues. Strong currents will destroy cells and tissue. Weak currents, on the other hand, will gently create new internal and external environments for cells. The currents will also directly interfere with cellular metabolism and modify structural elements of cells, damage to structures e.g. the DNA molecule, is evidently one possible effect of such modifications. Cells subjected to the conditions described can be expected to show variable abilities to survive and adapt themselves to the new living conditions. http://www.lermanet.com/shock1.htm

7th August 2012, 08:13 AM	#1715
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,791	Originally Posted by dafydd There is definitely some kind of a blockage. There's a lot of freewheeling going on plus being enturbulated and low on the tone scale.