Alterations to THE PHILADELPHIA DOCTORATE COURSE 22 Feb 01
I am now starting a project to compare both sets of PDC tapes, older, and newer, that I have.

Earlier I had found an important deletion to PDC tape 20, and as a result, I decided to compare ALL the tapes.

Introduction:

Starting with Volume 1 of the PDC, both sets contain six tapes.

The 1986 set says copyright 1978,1986 by L. Ron Hubbard First Printing 1982 Second Printing 1984 Third Printing 1986 The Following acknowledgement is deleted from my 1991 set.

"The author gratefully acknowledges the editorial assistance of Ken Delderfield, Denise Delderfield, Jim Goding, Rosemary Delderfield Goding, John Reynolds, Shawn Linderman, Marty Kasowitz, Anne Geiberger, Gary Miller, Dave Caccavella, Jason Kwong."
The 1991 set is copyright 1991 L. Ron Hubbard Library.

It is of interest to note that the 1991 set shows no prior copyrights listed, like is done in most other cases that I have seen. Such as the 1986 set has c 1978, 1986, so theoretically the 1991 set should say c 1978,1986 L. Ron Hubbard, then c1991 L. Ron Hubbard Library.

I wonder why that is, or if it means anything-perhaps someone with copyright knowledge would care to comment.

Did they lose these earlier copyrights so can't list them?

There is a note in the 1991 transcript book, that is not in the 1986 set.

As follows:

"These transcripts have been prepared from the recorded lectures and written materials of L. Ron Hubbard in accordance with his specific directions for the publication of his recorded lecture materials."

Why is this in this set and not the other? Is this a pre-justification for what I may come to find?

We shall see..

There is also another note, in the 1991 version, and not in the 1986 version.

"Any outness found in these transcripts should be reported to:

LRH Book Compilations Tape Transcripts editor 6331 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 106 Los Angeles, Ca 90028-6313 "

So, anyone wants to send in a report as we go along, with what is found, feel free!

:)
The list of tapes for the 1991 version are as follows:

1. Opening: What is to be done in course
2. E-Meter: Demo
3. Creative processing:demo of E-Meter auditing
4. Locks, Secondaries, Engrams-How to Handle Them
5. Gradient Scales of Handling Space, Energy and Objects.
6. The "Q": Highest Level of Knowledge
It is interesting to note that although the transcript book has only c1991 L.Ron Hubbard Library, the tapes themselves have c1952, 1978 L. Ron Hubbard, c1986 L.Ron. Hubbard Library and P1986 L. Ron Hubbard library.

Anyone know what "P" means here?

The list of tapes for the 1986 version are the same as above.

However the notices on the tapes read differently. They read c 1952,1978 L.

Ron Hubbard (USA and UK) and "P" 1986 L. Ron Hubbard (USA and UK) Ok End of Introduction.

Virginia




From: "Virginia" <vmcc@icehouse.net>
Subject: PDC TAPE ONE
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:28:00 -0800
Message-ID: <3a958478.0@news2.lightlink.com>
Alterations to the PDC Tape ONE Opening: What is to be done in Course.

22 Feb 01 This is a comparison of two different versions of The Philadelphia Doctorate Course Tapes, 1986 and 1991 versions, comparing the tapes to the transcripts, and vice versa, in order to find out what has been altered in the '91 tapes by RTC/CST. (CST is actually L.Ron Hubbard Library-that's their DBA)


Although I did find minor changes in the text, due to the number of tapes in the full PDC, I will not be taking the time to document minor changes that don't alter the meaning, or are obviously corrections from a master tape.

For example, where LRH starts to say something, and then decides to word it differently, one recording may have snipped the false start, and the other, may not have.

Or one recording has a mumbled part which one transcript has as "I", and the other transcript has as "and I" or something.

I would also like to comment, that the transcribor's basic misunderstoods on grammar, etc, seems to contribute to sometimes editing/altering something in error, because they didn't understand that it wasn't a false start. Where this is the case, I will quote the error.

Tape One has no significant alterations.

Virginia


From: "Virginia" <vmcc@icehouse.net>
Subject: PDC TAPE TWO
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:59:49 -0800
Message-ID: <3a958beb.0@news2.lightlink.com>
Alterations to the PDC Tape TWO E-Meter: DEMO 1 December 1952 22 Feb 01 This is a comparison of two different versions of The Philadelphia Doctorate Course Tapes, 1986 and 1991 versions, comparing the tapes to the transcripts, and vice versa, in order to find out what has been altered in the '91 tapes by RTC/CST. (CST is actually L.Ron Hubbard Library-that's their DBA) I would like to show an example, found in this tape, of how obviously from a MASTER TAPE, one transcriber chooses to edit one way, and one the other.

The 1986 version has this:

Para starting with "An individual has in suspension...."

"That's because it varies the current trickling through the preclear by the varying ridge."

The 1991 version has this:

"That's because it caries these-the current trickling through the precelar is varied by the varying ridge."

The reason I say it is obvious that the master is edited differently is because when actually listening to BOTH tapes, the 1986 version actually has LRH saying it as written above, and the 1991 version actually has LRH saying it as above.

So therefore, the statement as worded in the 1991 version has to have been edited by whoever did the 1986 version, so in this case the 1991 transcriber/editor undid the deletion the 1986 transcriber did.

What is odd to me, is why can't these guys just leave the master alone and reproduce it exactly, fixing any sound problems only?

A third grader could see how simple that is, what's the big problem?

Moving on..

THIS is an actual deletion in the 1991 version.

Para starting with "You say "beans" to him...."

1986 version "But if you say "He rode a horse"-you could say "He r-o-w-e-d a horse..."

1991 version "But if you say-you could say, "He r-o-w-e-d a horse,"


Para starting with "So you have mathematics..."

1986 version "The supposition-It doesn't make that mistake very often."

1991 version "It doesn't make that mistake very often."

The above is an example of the transcriber/editor thinking that "The supposition.." was a false start. It wasn't, LRH was referring to his statements just prior.
WARNING: The following is a significant, although small alteration, similar to Scientology axiom 3, ie: "or not" taken out as in agree OR NOT.

Para starting with "He's got a mountain out there..."

1986 version "He's learned that if you're agreeing if you're going to do anything physically with the Mest universe...."

1991 version "He's learned that if you're going to do anything physically with the MEST universe..."
Pun intended, that's a big IF....taken out.

Also, it is hard to get across conceptually in this form of communication (email) that in this above example, the absolutely PERFECTNESS of the deletion, as in an editing job. It is SO perfect it is amazing, you would NEVER KNOW that this big IF was EVER there.

I remember in the data series the omitted datum is the hardest outpoint to spot, and boy, does listening to these two tapes side by side show this to be glaringly true.

That's all the alterations/editing errors found in TAPE TWO.

However I found something else interesting that deserves it's own seperate post.

Virginia






From: "Virginia" <vmcc@icehouse.net>
Subject: Re: PDC TAPE TWO
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:09:33 -0800
Message-ID: <3a958e33.0@news2.lightlink.com>
Correction...typo
The 1991 version has this:

"That's because it varies these-the current trickling through the preclear is varied by the varying ridge."

Also, when I say transcriber, I actually am meaning transcriber/editor, or whoever is actually EDITING the tapes, and as I don't know if that's single or double hatted, I will try in future to put the term as transcriber/editor.

Virginia





From: "Virginia" <vmcc@icehouse.net>
Subject: FOR LURKERS-PDC TAPE TWO-definition of first dynamic
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:59:24 -0800
Message-ID: <3a9599e2.0@news2.lightlink.com>
I found the following interesting explanation/definition of the first dynamic in PDC TAPE TWO.

Interestingly enough, unlike other words in the tech dictionary, which list all possible references as to meaning found, and their source, for EACH word, THIS particular one was not in EITHER tech dictionary I have, under dynamic one.

I have a 1975 printing of the tech dictionary, and a 1987 REPRINT, so I believe that means they are the same.

I heard there was a new dictionary, but I am not sure about that, or whether it has this definition either.

LRH is auditing a pc, and also talking to the audience in this excerpt.
"[to PC] Now let's talk about-in terms of creation. If you could, let us say that you could create things which would just appear and so forth, and if you were doing that sort of thing would you-could you create your own body again?

PC: Hm-hm [yes].

LRH: You can create your own body. How about creating a whole set of memories for yourself?

PC: yeah.

LRH: [to audience] These are the four parts of the body.

[to PC] How about creating something that would control the body for you?

[to audience] The GE PC: Hm-hm [yes].

LRH: How about creating an energy unit which would spark and bop and take care of all of that and do your thinking for you? How about creating that?

PC: Hm-hm [yes].

LRH: [to audience] There's the four component parts of the first dynamic: (1) the standard memory banks, (2) the-pardon me, first the thetan (most important), then your standard memory banks, then your GE (genetic entity), and the genetic entity's reactive mind. But the genetic entity's reactive mind is a series of ridges we know as the body, the greater and lesser complexity of the reactive mind.

Well, there's the thetan. And what the thetan is using is standard banks which consist of a lot of ridges, and more or less automatic stuff, and a lot of stuff. And then there's your GE, and what your GE is using, and actually what your GE is using is a body; and the body is matter made out of ridges, according to theory here. And therefore the reactive mind is the body and does behave that way as we learned in the first book. And that first book still works. okay?"

This is a pretty interesting definition, isn't it.

Explains things a lot better, actually..

:) Now what I don't understand, is WHY this is not used anywhere that I could find, in an educational aspect. Such as, anywhere the dynamics are defined.

I have never SEEN this before.

I imagine there might be some of you lurkers out there that haven't either.

I also checked under "genetic entity" in the tech dictionary as well, and even though there are quite a few references with varying sources (tapes etc) listed, this one isn't there either.

Virginia

Go Back