PDC Tape 2
Virginia McClaughry email@example.com published on the 22 Feb 2001 at [COSinvestigations] this message:
Alterations to the PDC Tape TWO E-Meter: DEMO 1 December 1952
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 varies these-the current trickling through the preclear 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?
THIS is an actual deletion in the 1991 version.
Para starting with "You say "beans" to him...."
"But if you say "He rode a horse"-you could say "He r-o-w-e-d a horse..."
"But if you say-you could say, "He r-o-w-e-d a horse,"
Para starting with "So you have mathematics..."
"The supposition-It doesn't make that mistake very often."
"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..."
"He's learned that if you're agreeing if you're going to do anything physically with the Mest universe...."
"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.
Änderungsstand: 18. Mai 2001 - Copyright ©
2001 by Andreas Groß, Schweiz
Bitte Informieren Sie uns über Änderungen oder Fehler