fw: NOTS VS EXCALIBUR: UNIFICATION

[timecops Max]

NOTS VS EXCALIBUR: UNIFICATION

I have been studying the Problem of NOTS VS Excalibur for the last year or
so.

BACKGROUND DATA:

1- I have studied the entirety of CBR materials, which I have obtained

through cooperation with RO.

2- I have studied the original NOTS (and Interned on it) in 1983. I have
done the New Revised NOTS course and Internship in 1991 when NOTS was
officially "Demayonnaized" (RTC's own wording). Considering how much RTC

despised David Mayo and is still broadly promoting that he is the WHY for
most Tech Troubles they are still having, it simply implausible that any
significant Mayo's contribution was left in that new course. I did the

Solo NOTS course in 1984 and attested the level in 1988 after over 1500
hours on the level. (I was Solo NOTS Completion Number 801). I have also
studied the 1996 revisons and also recent extensions released this year. (these more

recent development actually merely reword existing technology and provides
NO change in the theory or principles of the rundown. The 1991 release
included Crucial Witheld Vital data and an omitted core technique.

Same for 1996 and 2006. More is planned to be released at the end of the decade.

I now know the exact nature and details of the "Missing Materials"

3- LRH dictated (he was no longer writing, but using a dictaphone) and

conceived ALL CORE ASPECTS of NOTS. Some of the Apollo XIIs have indicated
to me they ran pilot versions and bits of NOTS Technology in the early
1970s. The Key Technique used on NOTS was developped by LRH long before he

left the Apollo. David Mayo wrote the early steps of NOTS which are based
directly on C/S Series 1-10. LRH left a large number of Dictaphones
disks/tapes on which he dictated NOTS. Mayo rearranged and wrote VERBATIM

all philosophical and general tech data on NOTS. ALL PHILOSOPHICAL,
PHENOMENA and PRINCIPLES are LRH and not Mayo. Mayo compiled the data and
organized the data which was haphazardly puts bits and pieces by
dictaphone.

He wrote some of the examples and explanations. In 1991 RTC rewrote and
reorganized the NOTS Bulletins.

At any rate, authorship is not the true point of Importance. Tech is
correct Tech IF IT 100% aligns with ALLTECH PRINCIPLES, has a solid theory

behind it and is tested to work uniformly on numerous cases, regardless of who
authored it.

4- Parts of the NOTS Technology has been deliberately witheld by the
Church so as to justify chronicallly recalling OT VII and VIIIs so they can

do the "Missing steps'. some of ROs tech directly delves in those areas that were
deliberately witheld. Mayo and other Tech people then become ideal
scapegoats to explain the "newly recovered tech".


5- I was trained on the Confidential EP of SOLO NOTS. That EP is not
on any course and is only written on an LRH handwritten issue that is for the
Eyes Only of the people directly involved on the solo NOTS attest line. Except

for the Snr C/S, Solo NOTS C/S and the Solo NOTS EP check auditor, nobody
see those issues. I did over 80% of Solo NOTS EP checks between 1986 and
1990 (close to 400 people). Therefore I doubt anyone is more familiar with

the actual EP of Solo NOTS both in or out of the Church than I am.

At Flag, a Solo NOTS completion is attested ONLY after the special "EP
check" is succesfully completed.

That check is absolutely crucial as it clearly either validates someone is

truly done with the level or detects if someone merely had a big win or
release.

When someone is genuinely done with the level and the check is correctly
done, a Floating TA is expected to appear. The person is then sent to

attest.

MY conclusion is that NOTS/Solo NOTS and EXCALIBUR/RO levels seeks to
HANDLE THE EXACT SAME THING.

A lot of verbal and false data is leading some people to believe that NOTS
is not meant to handle some of the core aspects of the case addressed by

EXCALIBUR, when in fact some of it does, but verbal Tech leads the bulk 
of people in the FZ to misapply NOTS and ignore key aspect of the case.

I have not found a single valid Solo NOTS completion made in the FZ.


Adding the fact that Technology has been deliberately witheld from
NOTS and the EP is Unknown in the FZ and one gets "NOTS COMPLETIONS" who are
actually seriously incomplete on the level. Hence they seek to complete

themselves on Excalibur. But those people could never have gotten completed with
currently released NOTS Technology because it has gaping holes in it.

The only Technical issues I have had with Excalibur are NOT what it

addresses and on this point I appear to have been widely
misunderstood. Per LRH (and all of the C/S Series) anything which seeks to discharge a
case is a valid attempt at auditing the case. The only issue I have with any tech

(wether by CBR or anyone else for that matter) is whether or not the
Techniques actually violates Core Tech principles (Auditor Code, Axioms,
Auditing Comm cycle, PTS Tech, etc...).

On any point in violation, whether it is in NOTS, Excalibur or any of the

other extensions, I have now found not merely what could be wrong
technically, but why and how to make the techniques fully align with the
Tech so that a FULL AND COMPLETE PRODUCT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY ALL.


After all, it is a proven fact that people do get results with
Excalibur or with NOTS. Why they actually get it has not always been fully known or
correctly understood.

I believe I have now found the answer which opens the door to a

UNIFICATION between CBR ideas and NOTS. The result should be increased results for
all, great stability and a true major step forward toward OT.

I have no idea if this idea will be popular, or even gain acceptance but I

consider it for me to be a significant step on the "Road to Truth". After
all the road has to be travelled "THE WHOLE WAY"

Pierre Ethier, class XII


-- 
Sincerely yours, Maxim Lebedev, Moscow,

http://www.galac-patra.org
http://www.lrh.narod.ru
---------------------------------------