What word did you misunderstand?

Much appreciated Cindy. Hope you’re doing well.

It was Sinatra’s “Fly Me to the Moon.”

I will post this simply out of respect for the amount of time you must have invested in putting it together.

But no more on this subject. Debating whether some other book Russell Miller wrote is accurate is about as off-topic as you can get.

I would NOT agree with you either:

1) That Russell Miller’s book has no scholarly value. To the contrary. He includes a LOT of INDISPUTABLE facts and documented evidence. He also interviewed LRH family members that nobody else has published.

2) Fletcher Prouty cannot be held out as an unbiased source — he may or may not have been “sensation seeking” but he WAS PAID. A “paid expert” will generally say what the person that is paying them wants to say, otherwise they are no longer paid and no longer offer their opinions.

Fletcher Prouty as some sort of “DA” on Russell Miller isn’t very effective. In my opinion. But he is ALL there is.

The trail of abandoned, upset and downright hostile family members is what is covered in greatest detail in the Miller book, not LRH’s war record, which was after all only 5 years of his life whether you believe everything the church and Prouty says or whether you believe what Miller and others say. Fletcher Prouty does not dispute or even address most of the Miller book. But even you cannot deny that LRH’s first two wives were extremely bitter and felt he abandoned them, and his first three children Nibs, Kate and Alexis were all disowned by him.

Because those things were written about by Miller doesn’t make his book a “hatchet job” and frankly you come across looking pretty foolish to say so. You want to pick out the war record and focus on this as if it is all there is to the book and to prove your point, rely on Prouty.

Russell Miller didn’t prove anything other than the fact that he was nothing but a hack and had an agenda.

Here’s what Hayden B. Peake says about another one of his biographical efforts of someone he actually admired:

(begin fair use)

Russell Miller. Codename TRICYCLE: The True Story of the Second World War’s Most Extraordinary Double Agent. London: Secker & Warburg, 2004. 290 pages, endnotes, appendices, photos, index.

The World War II British double-agent operation run by MI5—first made public in John Masterman’s book, The Double Cross System—was one of the most successful undertakings of its kind for two principal reasons: First, the agent-handling tradecraft was excellent; second, the British had broken the Abwehr—the German Security Service—codes used to send instructions and comments to their “agents” so that London had nearly perfect feedback, a genuine basis for trusting the more than 20 double agents. One of the early recruits, Dusko Popov, was a multilingual Yugoslav lawyer solicited by the Abwehr in Belgrade in mid-1940 to work against Britain and eventually America. Popov reported the approach to MI6, which handled overseas operations, and, after careful screening, was given the codename TRICYCLE. In 1974, he published his autobiography, Spy Counterspy, which made several controversial claims. Foremost among them was that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had known about the planned attack on Pearl Harbor beforehand but had failed to warn the country. Only marginally less outrageous were Popov’s claims to have been the model for James Bond.

Journalist Russell Miller adds new details to the TRICYCLE story based on recently released documents in British and US national archives and papers provided by the Popov family. He provides many interesting new facts about the Double Cross System and TRICYCLE’s handing by MI5, although analysis of their significance in some cases is open to challenge. An example concerns the claim, made by Popov in his book and Miller in his, that TRICYCLE was “the inspiration for” or “rather in the mould of” James Bond (5). Yet the quotations from British intelligence files that Miller cites as evidence raise their own doubts. Miller’s assessments that Popov had a greater attraction for women “than might be expected from his personal appearance,” had the facial characteristics of a “Mongolian Slav,” was “a careless dresser,” and was “short, and not handsome” (6) are not suggestive of the James Bonds known to movie goers.[13]

There are also some inaccuracies about the British intelligence players that he mentions. For example, his comment that “Kim Philby . . . ran MI6 operations on the Iberian peninsula” (50) is untrue; Philby was a counterespionage officer and he studied, but did not run, operations.

Miller’s difficulties increase when he turns to the American side of the TRICYCLE story. Tasked by the Germans to go to the United States and establish agent networks and find answers to a questionnaire provide by the Abwehr, Popov, in coordination with British intelligence, arrived in New York on 10 August 1941 where he contacted the MI6 station and the FBI. The questionnaire was in the form of a microdot, the first that the Bureau had ever seen. It contained several questions about the naval base at Pearl Harbor. According to Miller, “until the end of his life, Popov was convinced that Hoover, motivated by personal animosity [toward Popov], was responsible for ignoring the clear warning that he had brought with him to the United States that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor” (115). The “personal animosity” charge followed from Hoover’s disapproval of the “Balkan playboy” cover persona that Popov executed with skill and persistence.[14] In his book, Popov claims that Hoover did not even send the questionnaire to the White House, the War Department, or the Navy Department. In his well-documented study of these questions, intelligence scholar Thomas F. Troy shows beyond any doubt that Popov is wrong: The questionnaire was sent to the principal agencies involved, although they did nothing.[15] Troy also suggests that if the Pearl Harbor message was as clear as Popov and some historians later claimed, the British would not have relied on a low-level double agent to be the messenger. Miller cites MI5 comments that the Pearl Harbor data should have been transmitted separately, but “no one ever dreamed Hoover would be such a bloody fool” (254–55). He suggests another interpretation might be that the British did not want the Americans to take preventive action that might keep them out of the war and, thus, used TRICYCLE as a courier knowing he was unlikely to get much attention. Miller does not resolve this issue, although he lays out the various sides well.

Codename TRICYCLE adds much new material about Popov’s personal life before World War II and in the European business world after the war, but it neglects to mention the prison term he served for financial irregularities. And although Popv was unquestionably a valuable double agent for four years, nothing in the book or his file supports the author’s contention that TRICYCLE was the “most extraordinary double agent” in the Second World War. Most experts would give that accolade to Juan Pujo, codenamed GARBO. Finally, the careless errors and many undocumented comments place the book in the easy-to-read-but-of-limited-scholarly-value category.

(end fair use)

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/bookshelf_10.html

Though I’d say that Bare Faced Messiah had no scholarly value at all. Limited or otherwise. And was nothing but a hatchet job as the late Fletcher Prouty suggests:

http://web.ncf.ca/cj871/prouty.html

Someone I find much more credible because he’s walked the walk and not some sensation seeking “journalist”.

As you can see by his CV:

http://www.prouty.org

Ron – no argument with what you say here. I agree.

Those statements have been proven to be false. Russell Miller proved them to be false when he got the original documentation through FOIA requests. Or is he just a purveyor of falsehoods and an entheta being whose work is invalidated because it doesn’t fit into some preconception of the hagiography the cult has pushed?

Before DM, people were moving up the Bridge, and training and applying the tech successfully, without going deep into debt. And, nobody was attacked or ostracized for opting out. There was no time or interest to get caught up in that low toned activity. I suppose it’s a matter of perspective regarding the “trap”. Virtually every lifestyle is a trap of one kind or another, but what is the outcome? What is being produced, whatis being helped? …is oone’s self determinism being increased, or are they only towing the group think? In the “church” today, OTs are redoing the Student Hat and loing their ability to spell. And going broke and broker.

When the real stats are going out the bottom
I forget ev’ry truth I’ve ever seen,
So they call me a cockeyed optimist
Gullible and forever a sheep.

I have heard Davey rant and rave and bellow
That we owe everything to IAS
So I’m only a cockeyed optimist
And I can’t get it out of my head.

I hear the human race
Just laughs behind my face
And wants to stay away in droves,
But regges at Saint Hill
Are sellin’ me a bill,
And tellin’ me it just ain’t so.

I could say life is granting lots of beingness
Not to hide like some skulker in the dark,
But I’m stuck like a dope
With a ton of false hope,
And I can’t get it out of my heart!
Not this heart…

If I vomit do I get a discount?