Las Vegas - some facts - some info
Ted Mayett
**ENTHETA ALERT ENTHETA ALERT**
If you need to believe, for your happiness, that the Emerson org has
closed then leave now and find something else to read.
Also, another reason to find another post to read...
I post accurate information, not dox.
This picture should have supplied the clue to anybody. Being clueless
is one thing, this picture tells us things are worse than we might
have imagined in several departments:
http://www.lasvegasanonymous.org/sets/20080817/ph2pt2_013_half.jpg
This information is ever so slightly incorrect:
http://www.alohavalley.com/directory/religion/new-hope-las-vegas/view-details.html
New Hope web page:
http://newhopelasvegas.org/home_index.html
New Hope Las Vegas Office:
(Mailing Address)
5536 S. Fort Apache Road, Suite 102
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
Phone: (702) 869-4450
Fax: (702) 933-9332
Email us: Newhope...@aol.com
They have changed the hours back to:
Sunday Services at 9 AM and 11:00 AM
They changed back because attendance was higher at 9 and 11 then it
was at 10 and 12.
Now then, down and dirty time... My understanding is that New Hope
uses the building on Sundays, and even other days, and I don't believe
they pay rent or compensation for this. Made calls to new hope and
scn both.
Both calls were lengthy, and never could I get words like 'rent' or
'lease', all I could get from both parties was that new hope
occasionally uses the building. I don't think any money changes hands
in this arrangement. But that's not really important anyway.
What is happening in Las Vegas as regards that Emerson location? How
do the words 'Ideal Org' come into play? Well this was tricky, hard
to get this kind of information from them. What I did get, and I
believe it is accurate, is that they do ~not~ call it an Ideal Org at
this time. But that they are waiting to apply that title when the
renovations are done.
How does it look, what is happening regarding these renovations? I
believe that at this time these renovations are a dream, or what they
call 'postulates'. I got the distinct impression that these
renovations have to be done, but that they won't be done any time
soon.
Bottom line. Scientology still owns the building. New Hope uses the
building on Sundays right now. The young chipper girl I spoke to at
new hope had glowing things to say of scn. Of how understanding and
nice they were to let them use the building for sunday services. It
was this as much as anything that makes me believe that no money is
changing hands here.
Again, this picture should have been the clue. But what else does
that picture tell us?
http://www.lasvegasanonymous.org/sets/20080817/ph2pt2_013_half.jpg
This picture gives me information I couldn't get for begging because
these anons are brain dead. They carry on about how the two temporary
signs are down, but they don't mention that this large and seems to be
'to standards' and permanent sign has been installed. It is hard to
tell from this picture the quality of that sign. But it looks like an
expensive properly mounted official sign saying 'CoS'. Overlaid with
a banner for the day, or a few days.
Working from memory, if that CoS sign is where I think it is, then the
wording from the Synagogue has finally been removed from the
buildings.
The picture tells me that they have still not trimmed the trees or the
bushes in front of the two connected buildings. I wouldn't even dream
of asking these anons what the condition of the grass in the
playgrounds is like. Because all they will supply are dox.
Regarding Celebrity Centre Las Vegas: It will return when Emerson
becomes an Ideal Org. And it will be where I thought it would be. On
the right hand building as you face the buildings from Emerson, it
will be the curved building.
So, Kitchener and Vegas are done. I think they are still claiming a
third org closed, Hamburg I think. Oh well, guess I'll be dialing
into Germany soon enough.
So no dancing Android, but the truth is, I never believed for a single
moment that they had surrendered the Emerson location. It simply does
not compute that they would have done that, vacated. And from what
I've gathered, and what the Assessors site shows, they still own the
building. That org is as open today as it ever was, which is not
really opened at all. It has never truly opened.
You recall my posts from back in the day, I would monitor the
dumpsters for signs of inside construction. These kids today don't
even notice a sign they are photographing.
I still don't understand why the CC closed in vegas in 2005. It made
no sense. I had them down to rubble at one point, that is a fact.
But they had already rebounded to newer heights than they had in the
last 20 years or so, and that is also a fact. It made no sense for
that org to go out of business, it just made no sense at all, I don't
understand that part.
But no way, wasn't happening, wasn't going to happen, no way they sell
off Emerson unless they were stepping up to something better. I'm
sorry, but they are far from being down to the point of closing.
--
Ted Mayett
Critical information regarding Scientology:
http://www.solitarytrees.net
Android Cat
> Again, this picture should have been the clue. But what else does
> that picture tell us?
> http://www.lasvegasanonymous.org/sets/20080817/ph2pt2_013_half.jpg
>
> This picture gives me information I couldn't get for begging because
> these anons are brain dead. They carry on about how the two temporary
> signs are down, but they don't mention that this large and seems to be
> 'to standards' and permanent sign has been installed. It is hard to
> tell from this picture the quality of that sign. But it looks like an
> expensive properly mounted official sign saying 'CoS'. Overlaid with
> a banner for the day, or a few days.
Mmmm, no. The Scientology sign looks like some sort of banner. (See the
curling by the cameras.)
--
Ron of that ilk.
Ted Mayett
<androi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.lasvegasanonymous.org/sets/20080817/ph2pt2_013_half.jpg
>Mmmm, no. The Scientology sign looks like some sort of banner. (See the
>curling by the cameras.)
Yeah, noticed that after I made the post. So good, still no official
sign. But we do know, from the move the cc made that one time, that
the sign was the last thing to go up. That cc opened with a banner.
Makes you wonder though, who went up to them and told them they were
the owner of the building, and that they were breaking the lease scn
had. You'd think it would be somebody versed enough in all of this to
tell them, the anons, what they wanted to hear. Or did the anons hear
only what they wanted to hear?
And I'm sorry, short on graciousness at the moment. What kind of
mentality believes some anonymous person in the street? Somebody they
didn't know came up and told these anons that they own the building
and would now, because of the raids, break the lease they had with
scn. And these kids ate this right up, got all excited and happy.
And with great fanfare and congratulating each other they announced
that they had closed an org with only .... two raids!
I don't suppose we will even know who came up to them and got them all
happy and excited. Maybe whoever did it is reading this NG and
waiting for news on Vegas. If so I'd like to congratulate that man or
women, you are a person after my own heart. Maybe you were walking
the dog or taking a stroll and saw a band of dancing clowns. And you
went up to them and listened for a while, and figured things out, and
then gave them something to be truly happy about. Nicely done :)
Of course it could have been some stone cold deluded idiot that came
up to them, and they could not recognize that. Whatever, they got all
happy because they had closed an org. And the facts, or dox to
support this claim were retarded. And there is no denying this, no
rationalizing this, it happened, it is real.
AnoNotAmused
<ars.to.tedmay...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
> And I'm sorry, short on graciousness at the moment. What kind of
> mentality believes some anonymous person in the street? Somebody they
> didn't know came up and told these anons that they own the building
> and would now, because of the raids, break the lease they had with
> scn. And these kids ate this right up, got all excited and happy.
> And with great fanfare and congratulating each other they announced
> that they had closed an org with only .... two raids!
> Ted Mayett
> My name is Ted, and sometimes I say the stupidest things!
Ummm psst Ted, WANNA BUY A BRIDGE INTO A UFO CULT??? Anonymous person
in street GIVING A STRESS TEST?? WHAT SORT OF PERSON BELIEVES A
STRANGER WHO COMES UP AND SAYS "THIS TEST CAN TELL YOU EVERYTHING
THAT'S WRONG IN YOUR LIFE." YOU ARE A PUNK BITCH IN A UFO CULT!!!
HYPOCRISY MUCH?? AHAHAHA YOU ARE A BITCH TO A SPACE ALIEN!!! AHAHAHAHA
WHAT A COMPLETELY WASTED FUCKING LIFE!!! AHAHAHAHAHA
Obscene Dog
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:50:33 -0400, "Android Cat"
> <androi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> http://www.lasvegasanonymous.org/sets/20080817/ph2pt2_013_half.jpg
>
>>Mmmm, no. The Scientology sign looks like some sort of banner. (See the
>>curling by the cameras.)
>
> Yeah, noticed that after I made the post.
Then you didn't post "accurate information" then, did you?
pompous fucking idiot.
k
"Obscene Dog" <obsce...@xenu.com> wrote in message
news:R5KdnUd5v8x...@bt.com...
You read my mind.
Except the needless insulting but whatever floats your boat.
anonym...@gmail.com
<ars.to.tedmay...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
tl;dr: BAAAWWW
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:21:37 -0400, Ted Mayett wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:50:33 -0400, "Android Cat"
>> <androi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> http://www.lasvegasanonymous.org/sets/20080817/ph2pt2_013_half.jpg
>>
>>>Mmmm, no. The Scientology sign looks like some sort of banner. (See the
>>>curling by the cameras.)
>>
>> Yeah, noticed that after I made the post.
>
>Then you didn't post "accurate information" then, did you?
>
>pompous fucking idiot.
Stop the whining and use a killfile. With proper use of a killfile
you could still believe that this vegas org was closed.
You are cruel. Quite cruel. And this does not seem to bother you.
Hartley and Patty, two good and effective critics. They have me
killfiled and so they would have been very happy and pleased believing
that this org was closed. But do you allow them their happiness? No
you do not!
You and a few others, others like you, cruel and insensitive,
Following up to my posts and now they know that the org is not closed.
Shame on you!
Ted Mayett
That's the truth of it, like I'm fond of saying, "I were a monkey."
But that was yesterday, today I are a critic on ars.
And what pray tell are you? An Anon perhaps, successfully closing
scientology orgs?
Android Cat
> **ENTHETA ALERT ENTHETA ALERT**
>
> If you need to believe, for your happiness, that the Emerson org has
> closed then leave now and find something else to read.
>
> Also, another reason to find another post to read...
> I post accurate information, not dox.
> Now then, down and dirty time... My understanding is that New Hope
> uses the building on Sundays, and even other days, and I don't believe
> they pay rent or compensation for this. Made calls to new hope and
> scn both.
And that's all you have. A tale of two phone calls that supposedly charmed
the people at the other end into giving you the complete and utter
truth--not just as they understand it and were told--but as it actually is.
That's not hard proof of anything. I don't know about the New Hope people,
but prying questions about ownership of the Ideal Org building aren't ones
that I'd expect a CoS staffer to answer truthfully to some clown on the
phone if they had lost it. Anyone with some practice at cold reading could
tell you exactly what you wanted to hear.
I'll wait for some hard information with accuracy that can be verified.
Android Cat
Doxdropper is an Anon in exactly the same way that TruthSeeker was the One
True Critic of Scientology.
david...@gmail.com
Crossposting avbb's post from http://forums.enturbulation.org:
"Well Ted is talking out of his ass.
Everything he has said was based on conjecture and speculation from
one photograph. Ted no longer lives in Vegas and hasn't laid eyes on
the building in a few years. As a matter of fact, he never even
bothered to contact any Anons from the group.
That building has been touted as the Ideal Org for 3 years, ever since
they moved from last location they couldn't afford.
The permanent signs that were buried in the ground at the entrances
were torn down and GONE. I saw those sign with my own eyes. The sign
on the building is a banner tired on with rope. All traces of the
Temple signs are gone. Even if New Hope was leasing space do you think
for one minute Co$ would allow their sign to be COVERED up like that?
Hell no!
We spoke directly to members of the congregation. I find it very
interesting he would dismiss them as some dude walking his dog and
watch some dancing clowns.
We are doing our own follow up.
Now I understand why several Anons have low opinions of OG. It's hard
to see their point of view, can't get my head that far up my ass."
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>Very little of what you posted is accurate, it's mostly conjecture.
>Too bad you didn't bother to contact the Anons or is it maybe your
>just a bit jealous of them
What you are supplying right now is called 'dox'. The Operation
Clambake Message Board was the birthplace of dox. In time this
concept of 'dox' spread to the enturbulation forums, and I can show
examples of this mind you.
However dox is just not good enough, dox is simply lame. If you want
to say I posted conjecture that is fine, but please do supply what is
called 'documentation' or 'docs'.
The documentation I have comes from the Clark County Assessors Office,
or whatever the hell it is called. Documentation showing who owns
that building. Is that information incorrect? I admit freely that
there is a chance that the online information is incorrect. But what
you have to do, is to do what I used to do. Which is to go to these
local County offices and look at the facts.
Then you get a print out and scan that in, and what you have is
documentation or docs, as compared to what you are selling, which is
childish dox.
You want me to check with the Anons? With the people that proudly and
happily announced that scientology lost the lease on a building that
they *own*?
The Emerson location is still a Monkey Temple, like it or not. Deal
with this as best you can. This org is not shut down. Kitchener is
not shut down. You kids will learn, as they learned on the clambake
message board... post only to yourselves in your own little world.
For when you open your mouth in the adult world, somebody is likely to
challenge you on the information.
Me jealous or not jealous is body english on a bowling ball. Who owns
the building? Is there a lease? Who are the parties concerned with
this lease? Somebody on the street told you something, well keep that
info in your own back yard. Because here, where it is not safe,
somebody might question this thing you call 'dox'.
Ted Mayett
to Jan 2006. I can answer questions about individual pictures. I've
put the two pictures I have of the orignal signs right at the top.
http://s463.photobucket.com/albums/qq359/zzteddy/IdealOrgVegas/
R. Hill
http://i463.photobucket.com/albums/qq359/zzteddy/IdealOrgVegas/dec2709.jpg
http://www.lasvegasanonymous.org/sets/20080817/ph2pt2_011_half.jpg
I see, New Hope put an banner over Scientology banner, which itself
cover the real sign: "Congregation Ner Tamid".
And from these picture:
http://i463.photobucket.com/albums/qq359/zzteddy/IdealOrgVegas/dec1807.jpg
http://www.lasvegasanonymous.org/sets/20080817/ph2pt2_011_half.jpg
It seems that a part of the flashing at the top of the wall is now gone.
The impression is that they didn't invest much into that building, it's
even losing parts.
--
Ray.
Ted Mayett
They weren't investing much in the building from the word 'go'. My
posts at the time covered the fact that the grass and shrubbery was
dying from lack of attention, they weren't even bothering to water the
grass and shrubbery.
Ted Mayett
<androi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>And that's all you have. A tale of two phone calls that supposedly charmed
>the people at the other end into giving you the complete and utter
>truth--not just as they understand it and were told--but as it actually is.
>That's not hard proof of anything. I don't know about the New Hope people,
>but prying questions about ownership of the Ideal Org building aren't ones
>that I'd expect a CoS staffer to answer truthfully to some clown on the
>phone if they had lost it. Anyone with some practice at cold reading could
>tell you exactly what you wanted to hear.
>
>I'll wait for some hard information with accuracy that can be verified.
I already made a long post in response to this, doesn't seem to have
shown up.
Why would this new hope lie? I called in and told them I saw their
new building and that it was really nice, this is the approach I took
with that phone call. I was told that they do not own the building,
that scientology owns the building and lets them use it on sundays and
sometimes other days.
Why would new hope lie and pretend they do not own a building? And a
really stupid lie at that since the purchase of a building is a matter
of the public record.
You need to believe that the membership is made up of the "Tory"
types, well good for you. The fact is that they don't lie readily,
and the mass membership is made, and has always been made of people
like me. And no way we go out there and open phony internet accounts,
steal garbage, plant drugs or anything like this.
If you ever bothered to pick up a phone a time or two you find that
they will not answer your questions, but they won't lie to you.
As I said in the other post, in effect anyway. In an org anybody
handy is likely to answer the phone. Your scenario has a sign by the
phone saying to lie and claim to own a building that has been sold
when some voice on the phone asks about the building.
And this is silly, when you think of it.
Scientology owns the building, and that is that.
Ted Mayett
>"Well Ted is talking out of his ass.
>
Who owns the building?
>Everything he has said was based on conjecture and speculation from
>one photograph. Ted no longer lives in Vegas and hasn't laid eyes on
>the building in a few years. As a matter of fact, he never even
>bothered to contact any Anons from the group.
>
Who owns the building?
>That building has been touted as the Ideal Org for 3 years, ever since
>they moved from last location they couldn't afford.
>
Conjecture. You don't know they couldn't afford that last location,
you don't know that. You wouldn't know that if you were a member in
good standing at the time.
>The permanent signs that were buried in the ground at the entrances
>were torn down and GONE. I saw those sign with my own eyes.
Were these different signs than the one I photographed in Dec 2005?
> The sign
>on the building is a banner tired on with rope. All traces of the
>Temple signs are gone. Even if New Hope was leasing space do you think
>for one minute Co$ would allow their sign to be COVERED up like that?
>Hell no!
>
Somebody else just said that the Temple signs are still there?
Which is it???
>We spoke directly to members of the congregation. I find it very
>interesting he would dismiss them as some dude walking his dog and
>watch some dancing clowns.
>
>We are doing our own follow up.
>
>Now I understand why several Anons have low opinions of OG. It's hard
>to see their point of view, can't get my head that far up my ass."
Who owns the building?
henri
<ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:42:20 -0400, "Android Cat"
><androi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>And that's all you have. A tale of two phone calls that supposedly charmed
>>the people at the other end into giving you the complete and utter
>>truth--not just as they understand it and were told--but as it actually is.
>>That's not hard proof of anything. I don't know about the New Hope people,
>>but prying questions about ownership of the Ideal Org building aren't ones
>>that I'd expect a CoS staffer to answer truthfully to some clown on the
>>phone if they had lost it. Anyone with some practice at cold reading could
>>tell you exactly what you wanted to hear.
>>I'll wait for some hard information with accuracy that can be verified.
>I already made a long post in response to this, doesn't seem to have
>shown up.
>Why would this new hope lie?
Why would anyone else lie? Who owns the building is an objective
fact, and one we should get to the bottom of.
Who really cares why anyone would lie, the only thing that's important
is what the actual facts are.
l.l.lipshitz
<17354247-55ad-472b...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
[...]
| Crossposting avbb's post from http://forums.enturbulation.org:
|
|
| "Well Ted is talking out of his ass.
as he frequently does.
| Everything he has said was based on conjecture and speculation from
| one photograph. Ted no longer lives in Vegas and hasn't laid eyes on
| the building in a few years. As a matter of fact, he never even
| bothered to contact any Anons from the group.
why should he? if he wanted confirmation that the
ideal org was closed or sold, i'd think he'd go to
the source at the city/county office that held the
appropriate records.
| That building has been touted as the Ideal Org for 3 years, ever since
| they moved from last location they couldn't afford.
|
| The permanent signs that were buried in the ground at the entrances
| were torn down and GONE. I saw those sign with my own eyes. The sign
| on the building is a banner tired on with rope. All traces of the
| Temple signs are gone. Even if New Hope was leasing space do you think
| for one minute Co$ would allow their sign to be COVERED up like that?
| Hell no!
if scn no longer owned the bldg, why didn't the new
hope church just take down scn's banner instead of
hanging theirs over it? did anyone return to the
site during the week to see if the new hope sign
was still up?
| We spoke directly to members of the congregation. I find it very
| interesting he would dismiss them as some dude walking his dog and
| watch some dancing clowns.
do these congregants really know the financial
status and real estate details of their church bldg?
maybe they do but i would guess that most congregants
in most churches don't.
| We are doing our own follow up.
excellent! i hope you prove that the ideal org
is truly closed!
| Now I understand why several Anons have low opinions of OG. It's hard
| to see their point of view, can't get my head that far up my ass."
given that the anons announced the closure without
confirmation and accepted props as if they were
personally responsible for it, it's easy to see why
some might consider them a bunch of grandstanders.
--
-elle
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
those are my principles and if you don't
like them...well, i have others. -gm
Ted Mayett
This is the best you can do? This is it? This is your salvo?
Well, I left you other inconsistencies, subtle ones, something you can
get excited about if you spot them. Unfortunately I had hit 'send'
before noticing that it was a banner reading 'scientology'.
Sad that this is what you are grabbing onto. It says you have no
other arguments, and certainly no supporting documentations.
Explain to us something please. Namely the obvious reason New Hope
left the scientology banner hanging, and put their own banner on top
of it. There is a logical explanation of course for why the
scientology banner was not removed. What is that logical explanation
please?
Android Cat
> As I said in the other post, in effect anyway. In an org anybody
> handy is likely to answer the phone. Your scenario has a sign by the
> phone saying to lie and claim to own a building that has been sold
> when some voice on the phone asks about the building.
> And this is silly, when you think of it.
I assume that someone reads ARS and Enturbulation. It wouldn't be DC-8
rocket science to know that calls would be coming and to instruct the people
answering the phone. Mind you, I've never seen CoS get their act together
on new net developments on a scale of less than years, but it's always a
possibly.
> Scientology owns the building, and that is that.
Perhaps. If so, then the Anons walked into disinformation told to them by
members of New Hope. In that case, in return for that "free" space, I
wouldn't be surprised if they later surface as one of CoS's tame church
allies of the type that use The Way to Happiness, spread Narconon's drug
misinformation or use Applied Scholastics.
Nobody rides for free.
Church tutors embrace methods May 20, 2007, Robert Farley, St. Petersburg
Times
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/20/Hillsborough/Church_tutors_embrace.shtml
Ted Mayett
<androi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ted Mayett wrote:
>
>> As I said in the other post, in effect anyway. In an org anybody
>> handy is likely to answer the phone. Your scenario has a sign by the
>> phone saying to lie and claim to own a building that has been sold
>> when some voice on the phone asks about the building.
>> And this is silly, when you think of it.
>
>I assume that someone reads ARS and Enturbulation. It wouldn't be DC-8
>rocket science to know that calls would be coming and to instruct the people
>answering the phone.
What you fail to mention, and what should be obvious, and once I have
to tell people how to find fault with my arguments, sigh.
It is very possible for two scenarios to occur here. One is the
secretive nature of scientology. IOW, the org is closed and not
widely announced at all to the membership, due to the secretive
nature. Another scenario is that the org is closed and it simply has
not been announced BECAUSE, duh, it is *not* a WIN. This is not
something they would clap and cheer about if it indeed happened.
Anybody answering the phone, except for a few of them, might actually
think that building is still scientology. IOW, they are not lying,
simply saying the truth as they know the truth.
I allowed for these scenarios before placing my calls, I was prepared
for these scenarios. Anticipated them, allowed for them, and planned
for them accordingly.
What will not happen though is that rank and file membership will
blatantly tell lies. This is not part of the equation at all. But
you need to believe that a local org is full of liars and monsters,
well do your thing and believe what you have to believe.
Nobody upon nobody stands in an org and instructs others to lie, it
doesn't happen. Especially for something like 'who owns a building'.
That would be a dumb lie as it is so easily exposed.
Beyond this you simply do not know local org life. You haven't been
there, you have no time in there, you have not been among them for any
length of time whatsoever. If you ever had, you would know what they
were. They are decent people, nothing special, temporarily under The
Spell to some degree, and making it down the road of life with all the
honor and justice possible.
Another argument I just thought of today, an argument that shows me to
be incorrect. Once again I have to be the one to think of these
things. I've got a few more calls to make, I'll post results.
Ted Mayett
<elk...@lycos.invalid> wrote:
> | Everything he has said was based on conjecture and speculation from
> | one photograph. Ted no longer lives in Vegas and hasn't laid eyes on
> | the building in a few years. As a matter of fact, he never even
> | bothered to contact any Anons from the group.
>
> why should he? if he wanted confirmation that the
> ideal org was closed or sold, i'd think he'd go to
> the source at the city/county office that held the
> appropriate records.
>
Hah! Just thought of something... I forgot to call the people who
said the org is closed, and ask them if the org is closed.
Hah! Isn't that something!
Ted Mayett
Called New Hope again, lengthy conversation this time. Couldn't get
hold of the Pastor. I spoke with a woman, not a young chipper girl.
Gave her my name, and honestly said what information I was looking
for. I said if new hope did own this building, would you be someone
who know about that? And she is the one that does all the dealings
with scientology, she would know Scientology owns the building, and
that is that. However, I did hit a wall, could not conclusively
determine if new hope uses the building for free. The fact that I
couldn't pin this down suggests that some money changes hands, but
that it might not be a large amount of money, but be this as it may.
Scientology is rarely in the building, they don't use it that often
according to what I just learned. Wednesday nights some type of choir
uses the building. Thursday evenings it is used by some 'barbershop
harmony society' for practice. The quartet I already knew about, it
is mentioned in the local newspaper.
Before I even started any posts I had of course went through the
archives of the 2 large Las Vegas newspapers for any information that
might be available.
I just called this quartet also, they are meeting there this Thursday
again. I said, "the scientology building?" He said yes, but they are
not affiliated with any religion, they are a barbershop harmony
society, or maybe quartet, it was a bad connection.
Some hard info. Las Vegas Review Journal:
http://www.lvrj.com/
type in scientology top right at this url and you will get the info on
the barbershop quartet, under 'AROUND THE VALLEY'
I can't say I bothered to look up 'choir', but nothing regarding this
choir on Wednesday showed up on a quick and easy search.
Now I have some heartbreaking news, this could bring tears to your
eyes for some of you...
From the New Hope web page. Those pictures are of the emerson org.
Notice that front main entrance seems to be cleaned up, restored so to
speak. And more than this, that auditorium in that picture is located
in this emerson org. That auditorium looks stunning, it looks good,
it makes you think that some renovations have already taken place.
http://newhopelasvegas.org/directions_index.html
I did not call into the org again, no reason for that.
The Emerson org is as much of an org, as it has always been an org.
Which is not very much of an org. The action is still out of the
Sahara building.
I'm done with this. The only thing that supports the claim of a sold
scientology property in Vegas are some reports of an org closed.
There is no hard info to support this claim. I've made four phone
calls now into three different entities, and all three of these groups
say the same exact thing. They all say scientology owns that
building. The only legal documentation available to us also says that
scientology owns the building.
This thread is done, unless hard info can be presented.
I would like to know about that "permanent" sign that was *ripped*
down. Ripped down as compared to removed or disassembled. I'd like
to know if the picture I put up is the "permanent" sign these anons
are referring to. If it is, oh my, these kids are more beguiled with
themselves than we ever thought.
Sorry kiddies. You can strut and carry on all day long, it don't mean
nothing. Your Postulates are weak, scientology owns that building.
Ted Mayett
>I just called this quartet also, they are meeting there this Thursday
>again. I said, "the scientology building?" He said yes, but they are
>not affiliated with any religion, they are a barbershop harmony
>society, or maybe quartet, it was a bad connection.
This could or would be a good way to get inside the building and look
the place over.
I've been in there once, while it was still a synagogue. Went to some
Synagogue Event. My wanderings were limited because I was not a
member there, but I did get into a few places close to that main
entrance. I had two goals for entering the building. One was to see
as much as possible, get into every room, area and office possible.
The other was to get to the Gift Shop.
I did get into the door of the Auditorium, opened that door and
looked. The lights were off though, so I really couldn't see
anything.
At the gift shop I wanted, was hoping for quality photographs of the
building(s). And specifically I was hoping for good aerial
photographs. Something to show the size and scope of this property.
They had nothing, or nothing left in the way of photo's of the
buildings.
Anyway, this Thursday thing could be a way to scope out the inside.