ERRORS IN TIME
A lecture given on 18 July 1963

Well, glad to see you all here, dry. Summer‑summer's gone now, you know? I find out when summer is gone by watching the banyan tree. It's on the other side of the house there. And when its leaves start to turn brown, why, we know autumn is amongst us. So break out your boots and dogsleds.
This is what?
Audience: Eighteen July.
Eighteen July AD 13 Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, and another lecture on dating.
Now, I've already told you‑I've already told you that dating is a very high‑caliber activity, very important in auditing, and that the tone arm sticks only because of wrong dates. Got that? That's really the real reason tone arms stick. Frankly, it's the only reason tone arms stick.
And you might have asked yourself, some time or another, "If you do have this much track, why does everybody around believe so implicitly that they have lived only once?" See, it might seem rather odd to you that the insistence on this fact that people have lived only once; the near‑psychotic frenzy with which people go into, insisting they have lived only once. It must really take something to shut off somebody's memory to that degree. It really must take something. Actually a GPM doesn't account for it. The goal "to be dead" in the GPMs is not enough. Because that doesn't say you've lived only once, that just tells you to be dead.
So you might ask yourself, why is it that man is so wrong‑dated? Now, when I was able to run down the common denominator of people who can't run on the time track, I found out that the common denominator was not whether or not they got sonic and visio, but whether or not they got tone arm motion. Very good, we've just covered that in a lecture. And the reason they don't get tone arm motion is wrong time‑wrong dates. All right, so much for that.
Behind all aberration there must be a lie. And you can mark that down in letters of fire. Aberration cannot exist in the presence of truth. Aberration can only exist in the presence of a lie. If somebody is hung with lumbosis, you can make very sure that there is a lie connected with the lumbosis. Elementary, my dear Watson. That is one of the common denominators of Scientology.
That is one of the truisms, one of the maxims, something that weaves through everything. There are others of similar nature. For instance, don't talk to a pc or a person, or talk around a person, who is unconscious. You know, and it's that sort of thing. And want to know something about aberration, that's a better contribution than anything "Wuff Wuff" Pavlov ever dreamed up. Didn't you know that was his name? Later part of his life you know. His papers, as far as I'm concerned, go "Bark‑bark‑bark‑bark comma, bark‑bark‑bark comma, bark‑bark‑bark semicolon."
Reg was kind enough to dig me up some Pavlov. I wanted some Pavlov. I was studying how not to write up technical data. I didn't know that was why I wanted Pavlov; I just knew it must be important to do some study on this, and that's what I found. I didn't find that dogs were very informative; I know more about dogs than he does. But‑I mean just as dogs. Dogs are friends of mine, and he didn't like them. But, "Wuff Wuff" Pavlov gives us a marvelous example of how not to write up technical information. It's heroic, man. Try it sometime. He wanders all over the pastures and the fields and dales, and so forth, and he finally gets down to his something‑or‑other.
It's much more important to him that he used "surgery comparable to that applied to human beings" when operating on dogs. And he goes on at great length about the surgery precautions taken on his dogs. And he was taking perfectly healthy, happy dogs, and cutting out half their bladder or half their esophagus or half of something. He never could go all the way, you know? He ... And he admitted that this more or less damaged his laboratory animals, and therefore he had to take surgical precautions. And it isn't a textbook on surgery. He's giving, of course, the conditions of his experiment. He never gets around to the experiment.
But anyway, "Wuff Wuff" Pavlov is a marvelous example of a lot of things. He is a man who is totally dedicated to the dramatization of one engram: the Darwinian Theory‑man from mud. He's a physiologist turned psychologist. And he's in wild protest against the psychologists. Because remember, the psychologists of his day believed in the soul. Some of them were still around who did. After all, psychologist means "psyche" ‑"ologist." And he's the great physiologist. And you want to look at how you get aberrated because your neurons have turned into morons.
I was there trying to ask a question‑I'm not wandering afield from what I'm talking about here‑I was trying to ask‑I was asking a question. Why is it that the Russians know nothing about some of the basic laws of social behavior? Why is it that they overlook these laws? And I thought, they have Pavlov, and Pavlov stresses the salivation of the dog‑not his salvation, his salivation; that's all he was interested in‑the salivation of the dog when stimulated by beefsteak, and the whining of the dog when beaten with clubs. So they would‑he would mix these two stimulus‑response mechanisms up, and so on.
And I wanted to know if Pavlov had ever drawn the conclusion‑I haven't found this out yet; I can't wade through the stuff‑but if he'd ever drawn the conclusion that a reward was also part of existence. That was what I was trying to draw. Do the Russians know this? Is this part of the Russian mental technology? And apparently it is not. And apparently that fact reads through Pavlov without being punched up, as near as I can tell. He doesn't say "existence consists of reward and punishment." See? That is not the thesis.
Now, thee and me, knowing more about this, would immediately conceive that if somebody had a dog salivating or whining under punishment or reward that he would conclude that there were two stimuli, and one was reward and one was punishment. But this is far too simple, and Pavlov never made these comparisons, apparently, as far as I can tell, wading through the stuff. Isn't that interesting?
I consider that extremely fascinating, because the whole Russian system is caving in because they haven't got this little factor of reward. That is what is wrong with the Russian communist system. Frankly, thee and me could probably sit down and figure out a communist system that would be a gee-whizzer, that would probably work. The‑probably the fault is not with communism; the fault is the lie which lies behind communism, which is the physiological nature of man.
Now, with that lie back of communism, communism becomes a scourge. See, it becomes an aberration. There are probably many things about communism that aren't aberrative. You could probably do lots of things with the idea of the communal activity of man. You could probably do a lot of things with collectivism. We do things with collectivism. We try to make it work. The Russians are not interested in making it work because they've misunderstood the nature of man. And this is not a lecture on Russia; I'm just showing you the lie back of aberration.
So communism becomes fought, and communism becomes very disastrous when practiced. And the poor sods that are walking around with communism wonder where their next muzhik is coming from. They don't know. And that's because when Pavlov did his work, he never said that life consisted of reward and punishment. He does a total anatomy of punishment. And here's this drifting factor, reward, which is apparently on automatic. The reason capitalism works is because nobody has analyzed it, and people want pay and they give them pay.
I almost started a riot amongst Bantus by telling them that if communism came to South Africa‑this was real mean of me‑why, they wouldn't‑they wouldn't get paid, that communisms didn't pay you for your work. And they thought this was terrible. And they were spitting on the street and stamping and damning Khrushchev, see? I mean it was very upsetting to them. Because the one thing‑the very, very commercial little culture the Bantu has . . . And boy, you talk about the importance of debts! Some guy owes some money, why, that debt will be passed down, and next generation‑and next generation somebody's great‑great‑great‑great‑grandchildren are still worried about those two cows, you see, that Uncle Zidd, or something, is owed. They just‑the idea of commerce and money and that sort of thing is very deeply ingrained in these people.
And to tell them that communism was a system of getting them to work so they didn't have to be ‑so they wouldn't be paid, that just about finished it.
Now, if capitalism was earnest about fighting communism, and so forth, it would dig up a few salient truths and let them have it, see? Because that is the lie back of communism. The lie back of communism is man is a physiological animal going forward on the basis of a punishment stimulus‑response. And of course, man does not‑does not‑respond to punishment stimulus‑response. Very un‑uniform response.
You've had the experience yourself You take somebody and you say, "If you don't so‑and‑so and so‑and‑so, I'm going to raow‑rrf‑rrr‑rrhh‑rrrhhh!"
And A, that you told this to, cringed and said, "Oh yes! All right, all right. Don't beat me." And B, C and D said, "Why you s‑. Knock your block off, see?" You'd knock their heads in, and they'd get back up and they still wouldn't do it. And you knock their heads in, and they get back up and they still wouldn't do it. And it's not a constant, don't you see?
In other words, not all living beings succumb to the stimulus of promised punishment. The whole Roman Empire caved in because a sect, called the Christians, moved in, who didn't stimuli or who didn't "respo" when they got the stimuli of punishment. The court said, "We're going to burn you at the stake." And they said "Burn away! We will become martyrs." And the Roman Empire couldn't handle them! That was it! That was it. See, they'd met their‑they'd met their match. Very important. Extremely important.
Now, stimulus‑response, then, is half of the picture, don't you see? Man does not go as a total stimulus‑response mechanism. Down in various homely locales I've heard "Ya kin ketch more flies with honey then ya kin with vinegar!" You've heard that sort of thing. Well, they're talking about the reward part of existence, see? That's very important, the reward part of existence.
Now, the Christian had a greater reward promised him than the punishment. In the first place he had to die in order to go to heaven. And he simply considered this very accommodating on the part of the Roman Empire and its courts. It got him there that much quicker. And so the Roman Empire could do nothing with the Christian, the Christian overthrew the Roman Empire, and it became the Holy Roman Empire. Literally, factually, yes, you see?
Well, there was a lie. There was a lie involved, then, in the Roman Empire. So it didn't‑it didn't survive. And what was that lie? Well, they must have been subscribing to the same thing Pavlov was writing about: that man is a stimulus‑response creature who responds to punishment and threat of punishment; and that to get something done, you threaten or you punish; and if you threaten and punish enough, you will get things done.
Well, I will‑ give it to the Roman Empire, they got quite a ways. They got further than anybody else. But there was a lie involved there, in that there wasn't a whole statement of the proposition. There was also reward. And the funny part of it is that men will do more things for reward than they will for punishment. So they had just cut out three‑quarters of the pie, and then said that the remaining quarter of the pie was the totality of the pie, and tried to carry an empire along on that basis, and of course, it folded. And what do you know! After all these years‑you think things change‑ actually, in this very finite period of time since the Roman Empire, and the equally religious fervor of the communist Russian Empire, you get the same fault cropping up.
So you have the philosophy which they adopt is the one which assures them that punishment is all. They adopt this philosophy, and they have immediately adopted something which gives them a commercial upset, economic upset. And although they're very clever people and have a great deal on the ball on the subject of economics‑they say economics are nine‑tenths of life; life is only one‑tenth political. They've got a lot of things like this. They have a terrific propaganda machine. They have practically every newspaper editor in the world working for them. Khrushchev has more press agents than any other single ruler in the world. And yet, in spite of all this, on one of their collective farms, they go around and take a look at the tractor, and its wheels have fallen off. And they want to know where's the tractor driver, and they don't know where he is. Well, he's down in the woods. "Well, where's the woods? What's‑who else is in the woods," this manager will be saying. And, "Well, he's down there, and they're picking berries." "Oh, they're picking berries. Well, all right." And he goes down and he says to the guys down in the woods, "What are you doing picking berries?" And all the old women and everybody down there says, "Well, got to do something to make a living!" And they found out that they can pick berries, and put them in boxes and sell them in the local town, and they can make a couple of quick rubles. See? To hell with the collective farm. See?
Half‑a‑ruble reward for sweating it out in the woods picking berries is much better than a no‑ruble reward because they're going to get their heads blown off if they don't drive the tractors and plow the fields. See? You get the idea?
So they're running into this all the time. This causes them then to go into a terrific campaign of some kind or another, you know. They go into this terrific campaign, "What you want to be is the 'new man, ''the total communist,' " the this, the that, the ... Those guys are just sweating themselves to pieces all the time. And they're trying to compensate for this lie.
They think capitalism produces, in some peculiar and mysterious way, more goods than a communism. And they don't know why this is. They've never analyzed why this is because Pavlov didn't tell them. Capitalism has many‑many things wrong with it. But it hasn't clipped off totally‑not until they invented internal revenue, anyway‑the totality of award. So you can still‑you can still‑if you're very, very clever and so on, you can still keep some of your pay, if you're careful. But it's still a reward system.
Now, as that reward system dwindles, so dwindles the actual health of the society. And the more internal revenue and the less reward, and the more threat of punishment, and the more you can go to jail if you don't turn over all your pounds, shillings, dollars, francs or something, to the local income-tax people, you see‑the more that works, why, the more difficulty their society gets into. See, you're not spending any time to work out how to‑how do you go about making a healthy economic society? They never spend any time on that. They're just chipping away at this award and punishment. So actually they're starting to borrow Pavlov, too.
So, here is a lie. Here is a lie: The statement that man acts totally because of punishment and only because of punishment; that man is a driven animal. That lie, all by itself, is destroying the social structure of man. Because man doesn't go like that! You see? But we enter this lie upon the stage, and here we go. All you've got to do is have a great big lie floating around someplace and you have trouble.
Now, it is perfectly all right to have difficulty isolating the truth, as long as you are continuing to try to isolate the truth. That's the difference. You sit down hard on one lie, and say that now is the truth, and you've done the trick, you see? You say, "Pavlov has written all there is to know about the human mind," and at that moment you've had it. Because he hasn't. He hasn't even written about the human mind. And the reason I mentioned his prose is because it's obvious why nobody has ever read him; you can't. So a sort of a tradition has grown up as to what Pavlov's work is all about. See? And we have not even the work of Pavlov motivating this kind of thing. We've got a superstition about what the work of Pavlov is about. It's never been properly presented, you see?
We've got a lot of lies around, and so forth, but we're not betting on those lies to carry us through, see? That's perfectly all right. You can have a whole bunch of misconceptions and still not do your nut. But the second you settle completely on a lie, and say now that that is the truth, from that moment on you've had it. And you've had it to the degree that that truth can be pervasive in your life. You can say, "Joe is a good man" when YOU know‑when really the truth is he's a bad man, and this may cause you some inconvenience, but it won't destroy your sanity. It'll cause you some worry. But you say, "I have lived but ‑once," and then believe it, defend it and contest it, and of course, you're going to have trouble from there on out. It takes a lie of this magnitude to continue the aberration of man. It takes a magnitudinous one.
Now, to maintain such a lie must at the same time take a fantastic amount of duress. I mean you'd have to work at it to maintain that lie. And whenever you find a maintained lie, you'll find somebody is working at it. This guy has got a headache ... Well, I don't know that you could do an all‑therapy on this basis. This guy has got a headache; you find the lie connected with the headache, and you could probably resolve the headache. That very well might be an open sesame to all psychosomatic healing. You know, you could probably work a whole parade of stuff out: "Let's find the lie connected with..." See? "Recall a lie about a headache," see? Something like that. And bang, the guy's headache is gone. You see, you're working now with one of these first principles, when you're working with a lie. You got that?
Now let's carry this just a little bit further ... I didn't mean to get off into communism. I thought you might be amused. Now, carrying this off a little bit further, let's find a lie about what. See, now that we've found out a lie is this pervasive, see, now, what would be the most disastrous type of lie? And the most disastrous type of lie as a common denominator‑ although there are many disastrous types of lies‑would be about time.
So let's combine these two things, you see? You see what a lie can do, all by itself, that has nothing to do with time. All right, now let's combine it with something which has the power to freeze a tone arm on a pc, that no matter‑a big mid ruds on what bad things you've done to him in the session, no matter what horrible this‑a's and that‑a's, and what processes you were to run‑without paying any attention to lies or time, you see‑no matter what you do to correct this tone arm, if you do not pay attention to wrong time it will not correct. You got that? See? This is the only one capable of putting a total freeze on a tone arm.
Well, a total freeze on a tone arm is a total freeze on a case. So this gets fantastic. This gets very, very, very, very dreary indeed. So we must be looking here at something like a pervasive common denominator of aberration when we say "a lie about time."
This immediately brings to view processes by the ton. You start thinking up processes, you can just string them out by the hour. "Recall a lie about time," you see, "Recall a lie about time. Recall a lie about time. Recall a lie about time," see? This kind of a‑this kind of a process would just string on and on and on and on and on, don't you see?
Now, it's interesting that if you‑if you‑oh, you can think of others. You can think of others. Let's just date everything in somebody's life. That's an ordinary one. He believes he's lived but once, well, let's date everything in that life that has lived but once. Soon as we got that thing kind of dated up you're liable to find out that he'll fall through.
Now, just think of‑think of this approach, see? You might even apply this on an institutional level to just getting the whenness of things. The whenness of things, you know? For instance when is this E‑Meter? Guy would have to think for a long time. He'd finally decide it was now, see? Might be quite deaberrative; might straighten out his time track most interestingly. Of course, that's highly experimental ‑not advanced as something that is proven. But I'm just giving you an idea that you can extrapolate this idea of lie about time almost anyplace you want to look, and you will have some interesting results on a processing line.
See, because that combines then the single action that is the most aberrative action‑which is an alter‑isness of truth or a denial of truth‑with the one thing which if aberrated brings about, then, the greatest mess‑up from the viewpoint of a person. We won't call it anything technical, but it just messes him up most. Time messes him up the most. And we get these two things in combination, of course we get a lie about time, and we're off to the races.
Well, having recognized this situation, I looked it over very carefully. We have the GPMs, and we have things of this nature, and looked those over ' and then I said to myself, I said, "Well now," I said ' "Ronnie, if you've gotten this far, this sort of thing, let's just take a look at this now. You suppose some peculiarly and particularly brilliant blankety‑blank somewhere on the track has also discovered this and used it to aberrate? Ah well, if that's the case, then there must be such a thing as false time track, complete with times. Let's see if we can find some." And I found some.
Give somebody a false past. Implant him with a false past, complete with pictures, complete with times; and times in the order of magnitude of the thetan's actual existence ‑trillions and trillions of years. We could also give him some weird and incomprehensible dates. That'd be a little fillip on the thing, you know; that would be some way to throw a new curve into it. Give him one thousand and sixty‑nine times trillion to the tenth. Let him chew on that for a while. And he never can find out what date that is.
And you would effectually have blocked out the past by making it so confusing to be entered, and so dreary and so terrible and so awful that nobody would want to have anything to do with it. Now, nobody ever would spend any time enhancing the powers of the thetan, unless he was more diabolical than is believable. But they'd certainly‑ tend to make them derogatory. They'd make the life as a thetan seem very, very dangerous, very unpleasant. Because look! Look at the horrible things that can happen to you. And therefore, if all these horrible things can happen to you, why, then of course, you don't want to have anything to do with it.
And you could get a guy fixed up with sufficient number of false pasts, that he'd even dramatize a false past. He'd become a fiction writer or something like that. He'd even‑he'd even automatically give you a false story of his past, don't you see? He could get quite loopy on this subject, if he were driven in with enough explosion, enough bang, and so on. And if the incident itself were hung up with a double explosion, you know, left‑right bang‑bang, sort of a double ‑ RI of the thing, you see? Plus and minus RI of the thing; hang it up on the track real good. And just give him a good, long time track. Let's give him‑let's give him a few trillion years to chew on, or a few trillion trillion years to chew on. And let's give him some incident on that track. Let's give him a nice history that goes along with that track. Let's give him pictures. Let's even give him some times when he's been implanted.
Of course, we couldn't give him much of an implant, but we could give him a clue that he might have been implanted at this point. You know, let a couple of the pictures leak out‑looks like they're implant pictures. That'd sort of keep him tacking that point of the line, wouldn't it?
And by giving him enough false track, and maybe giving him four or five or six false tracks, he would rapidly get of the opinion that the one thing he shouldn't do is to return on the time track. Because if he does it is far too painful and confusing.
And you'd have him saying at last, in self‑defense, "I've only lived but once." Yes, that is one of the tricks that has been pulled. Now, you say, "a false past." That's good terminology, by the way. Find some auditors may trip it around on their tongue, but you can learn how to say it. "A false past" is better than "phony pictures," or something like that. In discussing this with a pc, you say "a false past." Well, he understands this.
And R3R is good enough to be able to find a moment when a false past was installed, date it and get its duration. Really takes some doing. Now, having dated it and gotten its duration, to actually run it out. Now the incident pretends, let us say, to be many trillions of years long. And the actual duration of it is seldom more than three or four hours. So you get the appearance of enormous durations, and you get the appearance of tiny durations. You know, two or three hour duration, or eighty billion trillion squillion, to the nth tex boonk, see‑years. You'll get two durations on the thing‑some vast duration and some little duration. And the incident can be run out. But don't get mad at the pc if he keeps stepping in the mud, you know, and finding himself going to the beginning of the incident, and wondering whether or not he's‑saw it.
Now, these incidents have as a common denominator ‑these incidents have as a common denominator‑and the very few of them I have‑the few I have seen. I expect there are other kinds. I have seen some of them and they are confused to this degree: The point where you approached and the moment when you approached is quite commonly repeated in the incident. So you walked up a set of steps to get there, so you now have a visio that looks like you're walking up a set of steps in the incident. Same set of steps. So you've got two walkings up the steps. One is in the incident, one is the actual one.
And there'll be two departures. There's the actual departure, in which one was usually anaten and didn't know whether he was going or coming, and the picture of his departure. And thetanwise, of course it'd be a picture of exteriorizing from the area; it's getting dim in the distance.
In other words, there are two beginnings and two endings on such an incident. Now, they also occasionally have a mechanism that shows troops marching away and troops marching to you. This is how they communicate the beginning and end of things. The beginning of things, of course, troops marching to you. The end of things, troops marching away from you. And these incidents usually start with the troops marching away from you and end with the troops marching to you. This was the common action‑I mean, that set of pictures was therapy, at one time, and is used consistently in therapy, so they copied this therapy device in this other action. Only in therapy they show you the beginning of something by, I think, the troops marching to you, and in the end, they show you the end of thing, about the troops marching away from you.
Sometimes they're sailors. Sometimes they're sailors in pompon hats. Sometimes they're people who look like West Point cadets. But, you'll see these two marchings connected with it sometimes in these incidents.
So knowing these things you actually can find beginnings and ends of it. But it's very confusing, of course, because the couple of hours there that aren't taken up give you a whole time track. They give you some catastrophic accident that happened to you, you see, and then you remained dormant for a long time, and things were very mean, and so forth.
Well, the way you can tell false track is it really doesn't move. You've got motion to such a limited degree that it doesn't make very much sense. Let me show you what I mean.
As you walk in this‑that door back there, you see the front of this room, don't you? When you turn around you see some more of the room, don't you? And when you sit down, you see some more of the room in front of you, but from a different viewpoint and level, right? And then when you look down, you have a scanned area of passing your eyes down, toward a book or a meter or something like that, you see? And you have the continuous sound channel that goes all the way along that accompanies this; any sound in the room is continuous. Well, that is a proper sequence‑very proper sequence.
Well, false track never looks like that. They've not got the time for it, don't you see? They're crowding all‑this thing. So you get a picture‑if the picture is in motion, and they can be‑you get a picture of the front door, then you get a picture of the front of the room, then you get a picture of the book in front of you, see? And they seldom add the sound that goes with it. Many a pc who doesn't think he has any sonic is simply running false‑track incidents where there is none. Diabolical, isn't it? Makes you go wog just to think about it.
Now, coupled with this is the fact that there is actual track. You have actual track. And this track, of course, is more sequitur, but again can be in segmental pictures if there's points of anaten. You'll get the pictures right up to the point where you knocked yourself out, see? And then you'll pick up pictures after this point. You don't have a complete series of pictures, but they don't go
chop, chop, chop. Let me give you a ‑let me give you an actual one.
Thetan is lying on the ground. Airplane comes overhead. Thetan sees airplane come overhead. It just sort of moves into view. Airplane falls apart. We stand up and take a look. But that's simply a picture of the parts of the
airplane falling, you see? And then airplane parts are all over the ground, only they're plastic parts. It's not a wrecked airplane, see? We just get jump
jump‑jump‑jump. See? It's something like the movie director would cut when he was making a ‑documentary. You know, typical modern documentary.
Children starving in Armenia. Children starving in Egypt. Children starving in Washington. Children starving. See? You know, cut‑cut‑cut‑cut‑cut‑cut. This is typical of one of these false incidents.
Now, why does the thetan look at the false incident? Why is he more likely to be on false incident than he is on true incident? Well, false incident is safe. There's no bite to the stuff. There's a hell of a bang‑now, don't think it isn't aberrative to get one of these bangs, at the beginnings and ends and the somatics that went with it. But once you've got those somatics under control, it's much easier to look at false track than it is‑just like you'd rather‑a lot of people would rather look at a movie of life than live, see? See,
it's safe, because one really never lived it.
They're usually a derogatory or unhappy state of affairs of some kind or another. And they're often quite‑they're not well plotted. There isn't anything very good about it. It's messy. But in running the incident out, of course the false track is part of the incident you're running out, right? So the pc in running
these two and a half hours gets the sensation of running several million trillion years of track, very often, except it doesn't take that long to do it.
Only he would gasp, if he thought he was having to scan through many trillions of years of track. This would just fill him with "Uhhhhh! Oh, no!" you see? The time factor is too great. When he really thinks of the number of pictures there could be on just one trillion years of track, you see? He'll say, "Well, am I going to be here the rest of the night?" You know? This is the idea he gets in session. Well, the longest it could take if it were one for one would be a couple of hours.
Anyway, the somatics being wrong, and the scenery being wrong, and
the character of the scenery being wrong, the whole thing is therefore a lie. This is a lie about time. It tells him where he has been, when. When he wasn't there. It puts trillions of years into two hours. There couldn't be a fancier lie about time.
Now they very often have wheels running over to the side with numbers on them. So you can get all the dates you want on the side of the picture. Sound familiar? But a thetan also can do this. He also can visualize numbers to give himself‑"years ago," and that sort of thing.
Now, the one thing you can be absolutely sure of‑one thing you can be absolutely sure of, with false‑with‑on a question of false track and dates on false track, and that sort of thing, is that there are no GPMs that I know of. There might be signs of them implanted on the false track, but no actual, runnable GPM could possibly be on a false‑track implant basis. That would just be totally pointless. In the first place, you can't, on a false‑track gag, get a guy to go over the top of the Ferris wheel several times with the full kinesthesia and motion, don't you see, and have him struck from both sides with all kinds of firings and that sort of thing. So you know‑you know that if you're running a GPM, that you're not on false track. Otherwise, beware.
Now, it would be adventurous to say that you know you are not on false track if you are running this lifetime. I'm afraid that'd be an adventurous statement, however, because I've seen some false track with brownstone houses on it that I could never account for in this lifetime.
Now, many a pc‑many a pc starts to recover his sanity by just getting him to run, entering the room. See, he can verify that that is the picture. He walks in the room and sits down in the chair, and then you have him close his eyes, and he walk‑he runs the incident of walking in the room and going and sitting down in the chair. Now he knows that's his picture, and he knows that is present time, and he knows it isn't an implant; makes him feel pretty comfortable. Kind of a weird‑a weird operation. But don't discount it as its value in this sort of thing. Because of course, a total swamp of a memory is the target of this, and a desire not to go back into the past‑these are the immediate fruits of it.
Now, let's look at actual track. What about actual track? Can you also find actual track? Oh yeah, that's pretty easy to find. It's pretty easy to find. GPMs are very easy to find. The dates of GPMs, this sort of thing. That's all perfectly accurate, don't you see? But you're always walking there with the possibility that you've got some false track may turn up on this pc. So there's two things you want to know when you're‑when you find an incident and date it. Two things you really want to know is one, does it contain opposite-firing items? Like‑that is to say, is it a GPM? And the other thing you want to know about it, does it contain false track?
Not, does it contain any pictures? This very often will not register. When I say, "false track" I'm using a term that we would use but not necessarily on a pc. Better to say, "false past." Does it contain any false past? Because all these picture implants have the ambition of teaching somebody a false past.
Now, you need all this data. You need all this data, as discouraging and as upsetting and as miserable and as disheartening as it is. And I know you will go home tonight and lie down and say, "God, that's terrible. Ooooo! Aaaah! Are my pictures real? Am I really real?" Remember the old lady that the robbers caught, and cut her clothes up, and when she finally got home her dog barked at her, and nobody knew her, and she finally decided when she sat down, "Can this really be me?" you know? She herself didn't know her after a while. Well, there's no particular reason to get in that state, and it's ‑perfectly all right if you do, because it's simply a restimulated state. And the cure of the state is, when dating, just make sure that you don't have any GPMs in it, or if you do, maybe you're looking for GPMs.
That's‑none of the‑neither of these things debar you from running the engram. But let's just make sure we know what we're running. You scan somebody through a GPM, and you're going to go blang‑bang‑bang, and he's going to stir it all up, but he can't see the pictures, and you don't know what's going on. It's much easier to just‑not move him to the beginning of the incident but move him to the first pair of items. And you don't move anybody anyhow. You just say, "Give me the first pair of items in that GPM," see, after you've‑if you want to establish what it is, you haven't got a pattern, it's off‑date, and that sort of thing, just what are the first pair of items? He'll give you something. Work it out. Muddle through.
When you've got it all straight, why, you can scan him through the whole incident. It's perfectly all right if you do that, also. But on false track, what it tells you is be very, very alert to getting a wrong date for the incident, and a wrong duration. Because any incident which contains false track is of very short duration.
How long does it take to give somebody a feature‑length picture in 3‑D, with complete somatics hitting him in the breadbasket, of several trillion years? If you only give him a few pictures of each? See? Doesn't take very long. Well, that's the criteria.
Now the Darwinian theory‑now, I'll give you some idea of the influence of false track upon this society. The Darwinian theory, which probably influenced Pavlov to the greatest degree, is just an implant. That is an implant from man to mud. And it starts out oddly enough with the goal, "to persist." Starts with the goal "to persist," which I consider very, very interesting, because there's not another item in it. There isn't even, "not persist." There, you see, they didn't have the word, you know? They didn't have a double-firing item.
And then they show you your arrival, which you ... See, actually they have you in a cell for a while, so they show you being in the cell, and then show you arriving in the room to be implanted. Got that? So you've actually‑if you were conscious when you went in the room, it‑you've got now two arrivals in the same room, see? And then they show you‑complete with pictures, not unlike a modern motion‑picture screen‑they show you all that has happened to you, very briefly; they give you background on how mean you are, and then they show you getting implanted.
And actually the implantation takes place‑the picture never touches the pc‑I mean, never touches the person being implanted, but simply stacks mass around his body. All the time he's looking at the picture he's having hell knocked out of him many feet away from the picture by electronic mass stacking around his body. See, he's being hit with waves around his body, you see? So he‑this mass gets associated with the‑you know, it holds it in the picture, and so forth. And there isn't another thing said. There's not one word said.
And one of the things you've got to be careful of in running false past is getting the pc all mixed up with giving you a fantastic number of items, or something like this. You understand? But in this particular Darwinian one, nothing is said. You occasionally do get something said in one of these things; you do sometimes get sonic in these false past lives, or you get conversation or you get this, or you get that.
But beware‑beware of running things in incidents which aren't there. It's almost more deadly than missing things which are there. Don't overrun these incidents. You know, you can take a GPM and you could just pull conversation out of it by the hour. Did you know that? And every item is wrong.
Did you realize that? The guy is sitting there in the middle of the GPM and you don't know what the goal is, and you don't even know that it's this type of GPM‑you might have landed by accident in the middle of the Helatrobus Implants, or something of the sort. Maybe the goal is "to leave." And he just gives you item after item of goodbye, farewell, adios, you know? And you know, he just gives you item after item of goodbyes and farewells‑it's just the goal "to leave."
It's just "leave," "nix leave," "absolutably," see, "left," "not left" or "nix left," "absolutably." You know? He's giving you wrong items. And you'll pay the penalty for getting wrong items sooner or later‑the whole incident tends to fold up. If you want to see an incident get crunchy, get a wrong date, a wrong duration, or run things out of it that aren't in it. So this is a point that you have to watch.
Now, this incident‑this incident, now with a wheel dating device which gives you a series of numbers that gives you‑gives you the time of these events, shows you being implanted, shows you finished implanting, shows you leaving‑being pushed out of the implant room, even shows you a couple of your fellow crew members, or something like that, there, who are tied up ready to be put into the room, shows you being put aboard a spaceship, shows you being taken to another planet, shows you being dumped in the sea, and shows you start from the sea and become seaweed and become this‑and to work up stage by stage‑giving the millions of years which elapse on each step, see? And you go on and on up the line, each step ‑ each step ‑ each step on an evolutionary channel, and you run all the way through on these evolutionary channels. A lot of this stuff starts looking awfully 3‑D after you've been looking at them for a while, and shows you eventually arriving at the state of being a man. See? Gives you a bit more louse‑up in the way of pictures ending‑pictures beginning, something of this sort.
And then they push you out through that exact corridor, past the exact two dummies that are tied up, to the exact spaceship, put you in the exact capsule, drop you into that exact sea, and expect you to make some seaweed and go on up the beach. We were fooled only to the degree of some of the incidents of What to Audit are actually out of that. Some of the incidents of What to Audit are actual, some are out of that Darwinian implant, see?
Now, that's very interesting, to recognize how they can make you live your life twice. Because that one pretends to go into the future, not into the past. Gorgeous louse‑up, see? I know, I caught this with myself, but after they dumped me down at the bottom of the sea, I said "Ho‑hum, skip it!" And went over and picked up a young fisherman's baby, and so forth, and hung around there for a while, catching my breath. Didn't bother to go through all this, seemed pointless.
But, the idea‑that's very finite. That's a very short time ago. That's only a couple of hundred million years ago. A lot of characters around here got this, most of them become scientists. That actually is the sole foundation of the Darwinian theory. That's the lot. Evolution: there's no such thing. Bodies don't evolve. They deteriorate, but they don't evolve. You can trace all kinds of reasons how they evolve, and why they evolve, and you can figure it all out, but the truth of the matter is when you get horses on a planet, somebody came along and mocked up some horses! Now, they also mocked up these horses with the capability of growing hair or not growing hair. You've got adjustment factors, but not evolution factors. So you confuse the adjustment factors and prove the whole theory of evolution. And now you know man came from mud, and you can write a book like Pavlov and get the whole world poisoned. You see how this one goes?
All of this is based on what? It's based on errors in time. Errors in time. Because an individual has this incident: It's a wrong time, wrong place, going wrong the whole way, and it took up two hours and actually looks like it takes up seven million, see? There are such incidents.
Just before the Helatrobus Implants they were practicing these. Just before the Helatrobus Implants, you're liable to pick one up on a pc, within the few hundred billion years earlier than the Helatrobus Implants, or perhaps even after the Helatrobus Implants, you're liable to pick up one of these false‑track incidents. So they last‑they're liable to be found almost any place.
Now, if you know that these things exist you can whip it. See, it's all in what you‑what you know exists. When you first collide with one, you're going to be "Gee‑whiz!" you know, and you're going to be much more nervous than you need to be. If you know there is such a thing as a false‑past incident and you check up for these things‑at the risk of invalidating the pc's actual track‑you get yourself sailing along there, and you got this incident, and it's at forty‑four trillion years ago, perfectly valid date, you see?
The reason I'm talking to you so strenuously about this is you're just about to be correcting somebody's dates. As a matter of fact you were at it today. You start correcting the dates of incidents and you're going to run into this other phenomenon. It's going to drive you mad, man, if you don't know it exists. You can't correct dates on a case unless you know this other phenomena exists, because it's full of false dates, see?
Pc and you could work at it, correcting false dates‑I don't know, another couple of hundred hours, all out of one two‑and‑a‑half‑hour incidents. The thing to do is to, when you start correcting dates of incidents the first thing you should look for is an incident that contains a false past. Not an incident contains false dates. Don't worry about false dates so much. You just want false past.
But, remember that it can also contain a false future. So that mustn't be totally dismissed as a possibility. Fortunetellers practice that to this day; it's very popular‑false futures. They get you sitting over the crystal ball, you know, and they say, "I see a dark man coming into your life. And he'll be six feet tall if you give me two bucks, and he'll only be five foot eight, if you don't give me... " They're tailor making future. And most fortunes depend on the fact that pcs have future implants that they dramatize, and tend to dramatize. They want to always know about the future. They're really not nervous, they're just dramatizing an implant.
You must ask for false past. That'll give you the most loused‑up, because future doesn't, too often, contain dates. But also check for false futures‑an incident about false futures. And between the two of these things, why, you're all set. False present, well, everybody knows it's false anyway.
The task is not a very difficult one, providing you know this information. As far as GPMs are concerned, you go back on the track on GPMs, and you got GPMs at eighteen trillion, trillion years ago, and ha‑ha, they start banging you in the head and firing left and right, and you're going over the rolly coaster, and you're doing this and you're doing that. Yes, there's always the possibility there could be an implant that also refers to this GPM, but that cannot be done.
What type of equipment is used now, in order to implant false dates, and so on? It's usually quite‑it's quite varied, but it really never moves off the basis of something you look into or something you look at, attended by electronic blasts. And that's the common denominator of all such equipment.
In other words, you can have a room, and the person is put on a bed, and the screen and so on, is at a diagonal up in front of them or at the other end of the room, and it shows a three‑dimensional view of events or something like that. Meantime the person is being hit with this and that. It could be as simple as some kind of a scope that has a movie running in the back of it, you put your face or your face is put up to this scope and anchored there with some electric blasts, and at this close range, why, the thing runs off at a mad rate, and there it goes, with appropriate jolts in the right places.
It could also be‑it could also be a full set which is lugubriously and‑this is earlier track when they didn't mind mass so much. If you find any back there they probably have full sets connected with them. They move them like a stage set. One of the trick ways of building these things, you take these two crayons here, you notice that it‑that they are not a consecutive line if I hold them like this. And if you pull them down like this, they look like they're a consecutive line, don't you see? But there's a hole between the two of them. So the set moves up and then goes this way around the person. You understand? If a person is anchored there on a stake, or something like this you see, when they‑when the set moves then, why, they just jog the set. And he passes through this slit, which he can't see.
Looks very mysterious to him. He's in one environment, total 3‑D environment, he's in the next environment, total 3‑D environment. After his sonic and visio picks up a little bit, however, he can hear the scene shift. They really make a lot of noise. And that type of thing, by the way, is used in some very early implant serieses types of pictures of this kind.
The Helatrobus, the Bear and Gorilla and Glade Implants, none of them use pictures. They sometimes ‑there's only‑the only picture I know of used in the Helatrobus Implants is on a railroad on which you travel sideways at a vast rate of speed. And when you meet the railroad, when you come down to the railroad, you'll see that there's a section house right at the point where you're put on the track. There's a house there, see? And then as you move down the track, just before you move down the track, a board goes up in front of you, and it's the same section house. So actually you're moved at sixty miles an hour sideways with the same section house sitting in front of you. And this is supposed to confuse you enormously. But almost any thetan, no matter how anaten he is, can see that it's just a board shoved up in front of him.
In the Gorilla and Bear GPMs, and so on, they do put a figure on the cart with the thetan. They've‑there's a guy in a pink shirt with a monkey peeking out from behind him, put on the ride carts. A guy in a pink‑striped shirt‑very, very interesting. That's their‑that was their badge, the hoi pol‑loi. And you'll see this bird with a pink‑striped shirt. Sometimes you have a gorilla in front of you. Sometimes it's the gorilla who is spitting things at you, and that sort of thing.
They use figures. But this is not the same thing I'm talking about. Don't think you're mixed up in one of these things just because in an implant, why, somebody jumps up with a picture, see, or something like that that's just a momentary picture. This is not the same intention. That's just to get you to make pictures, or louse up your pictures, or something like that. No, we're talking about another type of incident, another type of incident entirely, where you're hit with electronic blasts, at the same time you're hit with a series of pictures, which purport to be a past or a future for the individual.
And when you run into that one ‑ when you run into that one, why, if you don't recognize that these things can exist, why, you've had it. Now, this also gets in the road of running an actual incident. You've got an actual planet‑builder incident, and it looks pretty wild to you. And it doesn't look like the pc could possibly have done it, and so forth. And you date it, and it's got a perfectly right date, and so on. And you've got no read of any kind on false pasts or anything of this character, and yet there's that picture and it seems very incredible to you that the pc could be running this at that particular level or line, and that sort of thing. You can get tangled up on this, but just don't forget to run the incident. Get tangled up all you please, but run the incident. If it's a right incident, it's a right incident. If it's a wrong incident, you'll never be able to find the beginning of it.
About the most maddening activity you can get into is get into one of these false‑past things, and go whirring along at a mad rate trying to find the beginning of the incident. Of course, you never make it. You eventually will find a beginning of an incident, but it'll be an incident of such fantastic magnitude that you've got yourself‑Aw! The hell with it! You know? It could take you four, five, six sessions, just to try to find the beginning of that sequence of events. Well, there's no sense in beating your brains out. If you can't find easily the beginning of an incident, you better get interested in whether or not this thing has got a false past or a false future in it.
That all depends of course on having your date right. Now, how do you clean up somebody‑how do you clean up somebody with something like this? Your approved technology at the present moment is clean up his wrong dates.
I'm giving you this material because right now some of you are engaged in running a Prepcheck on wrong dates. And it's a very good thing you are. You're getting tremendous tone arm action, you're getting results on this sort of thing, and this is all a very happy thing. Remember this: When you start correcting dates, the first thing you're going to run into is any false‑past or false‑future incident that you have triggered on the pc. And you're going to run into it head‑on. So you beware of redating. Don't redate incidents endlessly.
The first order of business is get in there and pitch on the subject of an incident containing a false past. And when you've got that found‑because it'll be there‑when you've got that found, and when you've got it run ... Don't just find it and date it and walk off, because look, you're not going to date anything else from there on except the track, that is in it! You can date endlessly. You could run a pc maybe thousands of hours, cleaning up this false track which didn't exist. They can see it and so forth.
So, look, if you got your hands on an incident, now, here's one of your rules of the game, when you've got your hands on an incident‑even though it's hell to run and upsets the pc, and everything else, and so on‑when you've got your hands on an incident which contains a false past or a false future, you finish that incident. You understand? Finish it from one end to the other. Do anything necessary to get it the hell off the track.
The best way to handle it, of course, is with R3R. You just do standard R3R on the thing. And remember that its pretended duration will be in the millions or billions or trillions or quadrillions. And its actual duration is probably in the matter of hours ‑at the most a day or two.
So I have to give you all this data now, and it's a good thing that it's turned ‑up, because you just start correcting dates on a pc and about the first thing you're going to trip into is the phenomena of false past with all its attendant false dates. And the moment you get collided with one of those things you've had it. You want to do a pc an awful lot of good, however, get rid of one of them. Don't mistake me, they're hell to get rid of. You take the pc to the beginning of the incident, and he goes to the beginning of the incident. Only the beginning of the incident is also inside the incident, as well as at the beginning of the incident. You get the idea?
He finishes up‑he finishes up the incident, he leaves the incident at the point where it says he left the incident, but that's a picture of his leaving the incident, and you haven't run out his leaving the incident, you got the idea? These things usually have a minimum of two beginnings, identical, and two ends, identical. If you know that, why, you can sometimes pull the fat out of the fire. This thing‑you don't do anything with it, unless it starts running badly. If it runs badly, why re‑duration the actual incident itself, and square it around, and just do a routine, workmanlike auditing job. It doesn't need anything extraordinary about this thing. The pc will eventually plow on through it. All you need is very standard auditing. Very standard MR, just its usual steps.
You get into a fight with the pc about the thing, however, it's always perfectly kosher to tip him off and say, "Well, are there two beginnings?" Ask on the meter, "Are there two beginnings to this incident?" Pang! Pang! Well, you know you got a false past incident, see? "There are two endings? The reason you're having trouble with reaching the end of the incident, are there two endings to this incident?" Pang! Pang! "Yeah, you got your two endings on the end of the incident."
Pc says, "Huh! There are!" As well as another beginning and ending of the incident that merely says it begins and ends at this point, which is inside the point when it really begins and ends. Talk about confusion.
These things are confusing to handle. But standard processing, right as of this minute, handles them. And you're going to run into them head‑on, the instant that you start correcting anybody's dates. It's one of the first things that'll raise its hand, and elect to fall in your lap as an auditor, is one of these incidents.
Well, what if you're ‑what if you're in X Unit, and you've been ordered to do a Prepcheck on wrong dates on the pc, and so forth, and the pc starts sliding all over the track, and you're not supposed to do anything but correct that? Let me tell you the wrong thing to do. Let me tell you the wrong thing to do: Get your hands on one of these false‑past or false‑future incidents that's full of dates, get it dated precisely and then walk off and leave it and try to do something else. You're not going to get anything else done. I can tell you that's wrong. I won't tell you what else to do, because I'll probably contradict the orders your Instructors will be giving you. But I can tell you what not to do. Don't walk off and leave it.
Because you have run into, restimulated and excited thousands of dates. Hundreds or thousands of dates have been excited, just like that. And if somebody didn't have that pc's auditor's report, and that pc ceased to be audited in some way, somebody would be wading through that for a long time trying to find the actual incident again.
One of the rules of auditing, one of the little rules that goes along with: don't talk to people who are unconscious, you know‑around people who are unconscious, and don't‑and all aberration is at the bottom of the aberration a lie; a lie causes aberration‑ along with that is the fact that when you got your paws on something, you handle it. That's a maxim that I go by in my own auditing. When I find that lying under the needle of my E‑Meter is something that's bothering the living daylights out of the pc‑not because he put it there, but because it arrived there in the course of auditing‑I handle it.
I don't expect the pc to go on struggling with this thing as a PTP while I do something else because "I'm supposed to." When I get my hands on something in a case, I handle it. You understand? It makes for a little‑much less trouble with a case. You get your hands on something, your‑this thing is going crash! on wrong dates, crash! on wrong dates. Well, rrrr! What the hell! You got the pc right there on wrong dates; what are you going to do now? Are you going to skip that? You see? Walk off and leave it? Well, you know it's top‑level stuff. How come wrong dates? What are these wrong dates all about? Let's deal up a few of these wrong dates. Let's find out what this wrong date thing is. You're unfortunately liable to find yourself in a process you're not permitted to run.
Just remember this. If you louse up your pc‑well, I always make sure that you get two thousand words! And remember this: I never ask how it was done. That's good enough, see? Somebody loused up a pc, why, bang. I'm very interested at that point. He loused up the pc. I'm not interested if he loused up the pc because the Instructor said, or because he did, or because the bulletin said, or the this said or the that said, or something else said; I'm just interested in that he loused up the pc, see? I have a very short‑circuited view of the whole thing. Because auditing is auditing. You're supposed to do auditing. I can lay you down thousands of rules on the subject of auditing. I can guide your footsteps very directly. I can give you information on the subject of auditing. I can do everything else. But I can't sit in that chair and audit your pc. You understand?
And auditing, from my point of view, is supposed to produce beneficial results on a pc. That's my narrow‑minded attitude. You understand? So that here's the‑here's the pc‑here's the pc, and we're supposed to produce good results on the pc. Well, if you don't know how to do this or how to do that or something else, I can show you how to do this or how to do that. Well, you can't ever tell what is going to come up in this case. When it's going to come up. You're not‑you can't tell.
Now, when you're auditing a pc‑when you're auditing a pc, very often a pc comes into session in no fit shape to go on with what you're running on the pc. It's very heroic of you to try to keep on running what he's on, but remember that you can sometimes not accomplish anything by doing just this. You sometimes have to handle the pc, right there in front of you.
Now, similarly, you innocently set forward to do a fundamental action on a case, like straighten out his dates. And you suddenly see yourself staring down the barrel of the incident responsible for the wrong dates.
Now, remember, there's your big auditing cycle. Your big auditing cycle is to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish with the case. And you better figure out what you're trying to accomplish with the case that you're auditing. In this case you're trying to straighten out the pc's dates, right? All right, that's your big auditing cycle, right? All right. So, you're trying to straighten out the pc's dates. Now, if you go ahead and handle his lumbosis, God help you, see. I mean that has nothing to do with it. You're trying to straighten out his dates. That's a Q and A or a mess‑up, see?
You're trying to straighten out the big auditing cycle on this pc‑we're going to get the wrong dates off this case‑and suddenly you are presented with something which is outside the perimeter of the permitted process, or something like that. What do you do with it? I can tell you what not to do with it. Neglect it. Now that's what you must not do with it. Because you very often can't get your paws on it again. You've made a big problem for somebody else. You can't straight‑when you‑listen: When you've found the source of the pc's upset, what other source is there to find? See? You got that? So if you're supposed to be running, "Which ruddy rod have you stuck between your ears?" and you all of a sudden find yourself staring at the source of his upset about ruddy rods, I can tell you how not to help the pc: Ignore the fact that you have found the source of it. This results in an invalidation of the source, and nothing happens. You understand?
You have to ask yourself, why are you running this thing about ruddy rods between the ears? That's the big auditing cycle. Don't ever subordinate your big auditing cycle to the minor auditing cycle. You understand? See, there's your big auditing cycle, and then there's your process auditing cycle
you're supposed to flatten this process, see? But your big one is what you're trying to‑intend with the pc. And then you're‑what process you're running on the pc, and then you've got your other auditing cycle, which is your repetitive give and take of auditing commands, don't you see?
All right, the second that you‑some auditors can just get on this give and take of auditing commands and neglect even the process they're trying to flatten, see? And some, running the process they're supposed to flatten, actually can run into the denouement of the big auditing cycle. That's the end, see? The big auditing cycle‑they've collided with the thing.
This person ‑has been terrified of ghosts. This person has been terrified of this particular subject. Every time they go to bed at night, why, they won't turn out the lights. You see? They've been this way since childhood, or something of this character. And all of a sudden, you're running this process of some kind or another, you're straightening out something, and the big auditing cycle turns up and drops into your paws. See? They say, "No! Not really! Tm a ghost! Ha‑ha! Me! Ha‑ha‑ha! What do you know! I've always been afraid of myself." Now, what are you going to do from this on? What, are you going to be a complete knucklehead? Going to be a complete jackass? Having found the source, now you're going to try to do what? I'm just bringing it to your attention, what else is there left to do? There isn't anything else left to do.
Somebody cognites his chain level‑his level item assessment out. "Say! What do you know! It's a so‑and‑so and it's a th‑lul, and it's a du‑du‑ddl, and fa‑dt‑d‑d‑dt! And, ha, well, ha‑ha! What do you know! That's in the bag! That's why that level operated!"
And you say, the level. You say the level, "be leery of cats." Tone arm is down. Now, what are you going to do? Flatten the chain? You have to ask yourself this question. What chain? What chain are you going to flatten? Where? It now isn't! That is known as your big auditing cycle. That's what you're intending to do with the person.
If you don't know that, I can see you someday auditing a person up to OT, and they arrive at the point of OT. And you get very upset, because you haven't completed your auditing cycle! You understand? So that's present in all auditing. Having found the source of the aberration in wrong dates, what you going to do? Look for another source?
What you haven't got in your mind, then, is the big auditing cycle: What were you intending to do with the pc? What does this process intend to do with this pc? Wrong dates? Well, it's supposed to straighten out the pc's wrong dates, what else? And all of a sudden‑you didn't even ask for it, and you possibly in a lot of cases won't get it right away, unless you're running R3R work‑all of a sudden you've got your paws on the source of the pc's wrong dates! What you going to do? Run the process, of course. What nonsense.
You're going to go on and say, "Give me another source for wrong dates. Give me another source for wrong dates. Give me another. . . " He's just given you the source for a wrong date, see? What‑the second that you say, "Give me another source for wrong dates," what are you looking at? You're looking at invalidation of the source for wrong dates and from that point on you have thereafter defeated your auditing. See that? So there's where it'd go. So all of a sudden this guy suddenly says, "Hey! Hey, hey, hey! There's a bup‑ut‑ut‑it and a zu‑zuz‑up and all that track I thought I‑uh‑mmmulp!" You speak about wrong dates, well, there it is, see? What are you going to do?
Now, you make your peace with the Instructors, but remember I count on you to handle the pc.
Thank you very much!