L'ANTI - SCIENTOLOGIE antisectes.net

"Scientology- Dianetics: war armed cult - chronics of a pseudo religion - a trade with illimited irresponsability".

Subject: OCA test criticized.

see too: the posting of ars participant Klaudia Kasch on alt.binaries.scientology, sept 2000, 21st.

Sorry if the translation from french to english does not sound very good... amateurs to help are wellcome!

As far, I did not find the style of critics I did in my book on the OCA
test; so, i'll translate it for use, at least the main parts. The images
linked can be copied from my page in (image better readable when printed)


(if you don't want to get into more details).

I've found a new faster method to show the real tricks done on the tes by Hubbard.

While correcting (estimating, scoring) a test, you have  correction's grids. They are very complicated on the OCA test (showing many figures while few would have been enough).

We have 200 points scale range on each line of the OCA Hubbard's test: this is the range of each specific line.

To get the figure showing as the "result" on a specific line, you have to get the results from 20 questions.

Each question has three possible answers, yes, perhaps or more or less, and no.

Each answer gives a certain umber of points (positively or negatively, to summarize).

Then, you have to add the figures of each 20 questions for that specific line, and then, the correction's grid of that line gives you a mark, a score for the line.

Take by instance the line A (stable, unstable): if you get the average score between mini and maxi possible scores, you should get a mark in the middle of the line , that is, on the zero point (neither good, neither bad).

But for scientology OCA testing, it's there that lies the trick:  for the line A, by instance,  if you have the average score, you're hitting the MINUS 64 if you are a woman, and the MINUS 74 if you are a man, instead of getting the zero mark ( the middle between minus 100 and plus 100).

Now, if you want more on this, you can read the following study, because you'll get more , especially on the lines whose scores are ABOVE the zero, contrary to those whose scores are behind the zero (alays , they should have gotten a zero mark!). There is an explanation behind:

Sorry, because  it needs much attention to be understandable, as there are
many interrelations between numbers/figures: I could well add the various
correction grids, but this would probably just add complexities for
those who do not saw the test system of corrections before the system was passed on computer by the cult.


Regarding Oxford's test, here are some critics. This test is composed
of 10 lines ranging 200 points, from minus 100 to plus 100. But what you
don't see here are the traffics done by the computer while calculating
your graphic results. This trick is ignored from scientologist testers.
Some inklings: (This applies to the version I have; there are
possibilities of discrepancies in other versions; I do not think so, but
the results and calculations are the same, if the order is not)

Question n° 1 : (re-translated from french to english) : Do you make
remarks or do you accuse before thinking for things you regret
thereafter? . The answer YES gives 2 points, the middle - more or less- perhaps answer gives 4 points, the NO gives 6 points.

Those points will be accounted for in the total of one of the test lines - each
line showing a personnality's characterization, either postive (quality) either.
negative (lack of that quality, or reversed: a default)

Each of those lines fits to 20 questions. In this question n°1, it is
the line "Stable/unstable" which is concerned.

When the computer totalizes the points gotten for the 20 questions of
each line, one gets an interval between a minimum number and a maximum
one; in the line A exemple, for this question n°1 and the 19 others
concerned by line A, the interval between is 60 points. Then, the computer's
program does a calculation to establish where on the minus 100 - plus 100
line it'll mark the result.

Each line has its own different scale: some lines have a maximum
interval of 50 points, some of 71 , etc. Each result is converted by the
computer on a definite level on the line.

Sorry for all the figures: there is no other method to be checked out if

Take by exemple the Line A, stable/unstable. Computer does know the
figures; it has 60 points interval, that is, 60 intervals, in fact,
between the disclosed results ranging from less 100 to plus 100. (that
explains why you cannot have certain resulting figures showing on the lines
themselves: in line A, you can never get a "+1", neither a "+2", neither
"+3", neither "+4" or "+5" result: those do not exist for the machine;
it has a "0" and a "+6", but not the interval figures on that line.

Would you score the minimum of points possible on this line, you'd have
the minus 100 result. Would you get 1, or 2, or 3 or,4,5,6,7,8,9... of
the 60 intervals, your score would still be MINUS 100, though you would
have gotten "9 positive intervals". Though you'd have given in this
case 15 % positive, the score would yet be - 100!

Do you see the trick here? Your "good answers" do not affect the result;
you are considered total zero though you could have been, would the test
be honest, considered as getting - 70 in this case, rather than - 100.
(prorata ratio 15 % good from 200 points should give 30 points on the
climbing line).

At 19 intervals on the 60 possible, your result is yet very very low: it hits the
- 90 on the line, though you have now 25 % positive answers, while you should
get - 50 instead.

Would the test be normally calculated, you'd have - 50 instead of - 90.
20 % discrepancy is quite a lot here.

Before you can hit the ZERO point - average, you need here to get a 60 %
"good points",  a mere 50% would not be  enough. Who could suppose that average is not 50%, in scientology?

Now the next lines, with less details: It's far worse for line B,
(Happy/Depressed.) There, you must get 77% good intervals-replies, instead
of 50 %, before getting onto average zero point. This shows a trick in the
54% range of treachery...quite a lot.

Line C, Composed/Nervous, you'd need 65% good to get the zero.

Line D.... (Personable/undependable)... oh oh, 50 % are enough here!

Line E and F... yet stranger, really... this time, you only need 33 %
(E) and 26 %(F) to get the zero mark! Quite surpising, is'nt it? But
this will get some explanation later... as you'll see, those lines
D,E,F, are most of time the higher ones of your resulting graphic.

But for line G, responsible/irresponsible, the machine will extort a 74
% good intervals before getting you on the zero median... You'd be
better to answer very very good here if you want to be neither
responsible, neither irresponsible!
Because, the machines knows you cannot be responsible before doing some (irresponsible) "church's" processes.

You need 74 % positive in G line, 80 % in H (logical resaoning) -
the record-line, in fact, 65 % good in I line, and 72 % in J line, before hitting
the zero.

The champion line is a treachery reaching 60%! LRH did know
he was logical, but others could'nt possibly. His own figures
show the reverse.

His logical reasoning was to pervert anything.

He could not bear any logic. He did prefer illogism. His own.

All these 4 last lines will show very bad results - not surprisingly.


The average score to get the median / average result, it's a 60 %
positive responses. And even this zero response is not too good; it's
just a neutral... between default and quality. As shown on the graph,
you would still be under the white positive part of the test, which is
ranging from + 32 to + 100. (meaning that you have to be far better than average to be into wgat Hubbard calls the acceptable range!)

As shown hereabove, the test shows essentially 'unbalances', by adding the
second perverted calculation on lines D, E, F, (those lines showing
better than normal results), when compared with the other 7 lines, showing
lesser results than normal calculation should get.

Therefore, it shows false good against false bad, or wrong betters
versus wrong worses, if you prefer.

The comical thing is that Hubbard designed himself what he named the
"RANDOM TEST".(see image above: the line should "logically" be on the central average 0 line, while the results shown to the person are the down-and-up lines.)

That's not owing anything to random, do you see? That was the
complete intent of the whole test to just get you into thinking you
as being far worse and unbalanced psychologically than you thought of you
before; adding it a ferocious trick, by the fact that as it
shows a "good" result on ACTIVE LINE, and a bad on "RESPONSIBLE LINE",
therefore saying that while you are active and irresponsible at the same time, you are really very very dangerous a man, boy, or girl!

Without scientology, you are lost ( and if you are very very gentle,
polite, we'll allow you paying hundreds  of bucks - we'll see tomorrow if
we can get you into thinking you'd need hundreds of thousands instead. Or deserve it by slave  working years along for nothing for us.

Go away from the cult if you do'nt have, or we can perhaps get you into slave's work job, as we are totally uninterested by the fact that your OCA's tricked test showed you as a beast, actively destroying everything around.

ADDED TO: IQ test.

This one I used much also. I'll translate the other passage of my book
soon on it, but, for the moment, take a look at the graph : the last
line is named IQ. What does it show? that you can get results from 0 to 200 plus.

Impossible. The Hubbard IQ test, I tested also. It has a mere 80
interval scores; would some cow answer it, that cow could not possibly
mark zero, because the results extend from + 75 to + 155, in this one.

You cannot hit a 67, or a 45, and you cannot get either, a + 156 or a + 200,
even if you have finished the test in 24 minutes instead of 30 and you
did a zero fault... (I saw this happening).

Added to: I saw some months ago a confirmation of the results gotten by
some psychologists having passed the test under some conditions they had
determined: it gave those results, but did not explain nor knew the why.


[ Article reposted from alt.clearing.technology ]
[ Author was Claudia Kasch ]
[ Posted on Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:33:21 +0200 ]

Hash: SHA1

I made a study on available material on the Oxford Capacity Analysis
Test and would like to share my insights with you:

There are two versions of the test, which is used by Scientology for
three different purposes (regging, recruitment and C/Sing):

First an US-version called American Personality Analysis (APA) and
created and originally copywrited by Julia Lewis in 1955.

Second a British version based on APA, called Oxford Capacity
Analysis (OCA) and created and copyrighted by Ray Kemp in 1959, who
recently wrote an article on this in IVy 22.

The APA copyright was bought in 1990 by CoS-Member Tom Voltz and
offered to the Church, that they may use it free for their religious
practices. Tom just wanted to use the copyright for business
purposes. WISE was offended by this and the church was willing to SP
declare Tom due to this conflict "he created". This story was told in
Tom Voltz' book "Tom Voltz- Scientology - Without an End", he is now
a critic of Scientology.

Ray Kemp recognized, that the Church squirreld his test in the 70ies
and he tried to handle this by writing to LRH and got a reply, that
he should write a book and consolide the data on the OCA. He and his
junior Tom Morgon did so: "Scientometric Testing". But this book was
defeated by the orgs and so he found out, that LRH was not any more
in control of his church and left this corrupt organization. (See at
for the posting of Safe ... www.fza.org <Safe@xenu.net> on 1st Aug.
1999 to alt.religion.scientology with the title: "How the CofS stole
the OCA test".)

As I have only access to the testing material of the church from the
80ies and the seminar data from Tom Morgan (he still works for the
church, as far as I know), I can not speak for the currently used
test nor can I compare it to the original version.

The current version of the 90ies consists of 200 questions, which are
a bit similar but not identical to the version of the 80ies. About 10
% of the questions are formulated in the opposite of the "original",
which I think is a big alter-is. Of course they will switched the
values from NO to YES and vice versa, but this is not correct, as the
questions alway relate to a gradient scale and not to a

I will give some examples of this alter-is (I retranslated these
quotes from the german 1988 version back to english):

1988: Does life seem to you worth living? -
1999: Is your life a constant struggle for survival?

1988: Are you always happy, even without any reason?
1999: Are you rarely happy unless you have a special reason?

1988: Is it difficult to please you?
1999: Are you easily pleased?

1988: Do you find it easy to express your feelings?
1999: Do you tent to hide your feelings?

Some questions arose in 1999, which you can not at all find in the
1988-version. This alter-is is due to the fact, that the CoS was not
willing to find an agreement with the APA-copyright-holder Tom Voltz.
They prefered to start a conflict with him, than to correct their
former criminal Copyright violations! (Although the former copyright
owner and test author Julia Lewis asked for royalties, the church
never paid any).

I assume, that at least this newest computer based version of the
CoS-TEST (in the 90ies) has nothing any more to do with the original
APA or OCA due to the alter is. As it is computer based, we will
rarely be able to check it out, as we can't access the value-table,
on which the test is based. But as the questions are altered in such
a extreme way, I don't see a chance for a valid test. Yes, it may
still solve the former purpose of INVALIDATING the case of new
customers enough, so that one can sell any intro services. But
whether the test gives today a CORRECT indication of the case of the
PC is very questionable. So: I would not use the current test for any
C/Sing any more.

What about the test of the 80ies?

As I can not compare it to the original version, which I do not have
PLEASE!!!) , I can just tell you something about the obviously
criminal alter-is which can be seen, by analysis from a technical

But before this, I would like to tell you, that the outpoint of the
test is NOT that, what the critics of the tests told you about it.
For example there was a british investigation in 1971 on the OCA and
the psychologists found out, that it is nothing worth: Because it is
not known to them, not sold and offered on the official Psychometric
lines and not created by one of their acclaimed institutes.

Further they critizise, that the test does not give a Zero-Graph, if
one answers the questions in random, as it should!!! They tried one
very valid test on the OCA: They answered every question "correctly",
but put the answer to the following question. At least this should
end up with a graph line on the ZERO level of the test. What a

Also they critizes, that the test is not NORMALIZED. That means, that
the medium aberree should show a graph on a ZERO level. - So the OCA
is not valid in their eyes.

But actually this is no outpoint, as the OCA/APA did not had the
purpose to tell you, whether someone is under or over the "normal" or
statistically level of the medium aberree. Its purpose was to tell,
how much of the potential of the aberree can be won with auditing. So
really the usual aberree (raw meat from the street) will usually show
a very bad and low graph. But you should not invalidate him with
this, but you should tell him, that this shows all the potential of
him (above his line), which can be recovered with auditing!

So far to the critics.


Actually the CoS-test of the 80ies has been tampered with. If you are
clear and in a jolly good state and you answer the test, you will get
a graph, which will be up north in the area between 70 and 100! With
one exception: You will not be able to come to a good position with
your column H: Logical Reasoning (Appreciation) / Capacity for Error
(Hypercritical). There your clear will show usually a very low

Why is this? I investigated which questions should he answer better
to solve this problem ;-)

I found the following questions, which your Clear answered "WRONG":

YES to 38 (new 37): Do you consider there are other people who are
definitely unfriendly toward you and work against you?
NO to138 (new 152). Do you rarely express your grievances?
YES to 158 (no similar in the new test): Do you consider, that
someone does not like you and criticize you in your absent?
YES to 198. (no similar in the new test): Are you often dismayed by
the actions of others and are not able to grasp their double-dealing?

With these and other answers you get a horrible -38 % on the H column
and result as very critical!

If you change your mind and switch the above answers, you will jump
up to +78 % and qualify as a Pre-OT or for any exec post!!!

So don't think, that there may be any enemies in any one of your
dynamic. Don't believe in SPs, in 3rd Party, 1.1er or at least never
write any KRs on these people and you will have a chance!!!

With this fake of the OCA, they gave every one of us a false
indication: you are critical!!! - Now you understand, why some tech
terminals, C/Ses are agreeing with all these sec checks and 6 months
checks: All their PCs and Prae OTs must be very out-ethical, have a
look at these horrible OCA-graphs, especially column H!

And this fake has another advantage: You keep good guys away from
important exec posts. Because for finding an exec, one has to look at
the tests of the staffs. You will either just take very naive guys
(who never studied anything on the PTS SP course) or you will take
the guys, who know about this test and are willing to behave, as it
is expected from you!

I always wondered, why in the CoS some of the very intelligent and
without doubt good-guy execs or high tech terminals had one stable
datum: There are no enemies within our church, especially not on
their senior lines! There is no evil purpose behind all the dev-t,
the downstats etc. This I could not understand, why such intelligent
and well trained execs and friends of mine could talk such a
bullshit. Why do they ignore the obvious and all the related
LRH-data. Every second HCO PL on SPs (per the index of the
1991-OEC-Volumes) is about SPs on org lines, on exec lines.

This is the solution on this found out-point: They once pondered
about, why they did not got their OCA up. So - once they had the
chance to read and evaluate the evaluation data on testing, they did
to find out, which questions did they answer "wrong". When they found
out, they had to decide: Keep your integrity and stay at the bottom
of the orgboard or make a career by answering like it was expected
from them and to ignore the contradicting data on SPs and

By faking this test, it was also possible to put a lot of
"black-scientologists" on to important exec posts, as they can be
briefed, how to answer the OCA correctly. Instead of keeping your
integrity, one just has to adjust to the power and always agree to
your seniors.

But let us come back to your public Scientologist, whether clear or
not. He ALWAYS gets this indication of being to critical! - So when
he runs into any injustice or any outpoint, he has to remember: This
is YOUR CASE, that you recognize this "outpoint". YOU ARE CRITICAL,
there is nothing to be changed in this Org.

So this OCA-fake is very valuable for the status quo.

THAT is the reason, why the church rather let the test-author Ray
Kemp become ARC-broken and even leaving the church, as to stop this
valuable fake.

Behind a small outpoint (some alter-is in some test material) you
will find a big reason and nearly unconfrontable WHY: This church was
in progress to be taken over by the enemy. This fake was just one
projekt, which served as a tool.



Version: PGP 6.5.1


Rod Keller / rkeller@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher / Black Hat #1
Expert of the Toilet / CWPD Mouthpiece / Shelly Thompson in Drag
The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Vision of Destruction
Bigot of Mystery / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully / Killer Rod

Last: see here what scientologists use as a banner to click to go your OCA test: symbolically, it shows that they have already your grimacing face before you do the test

(c) 1997 by Roger Gonnet

Back  homepage --


Retour index général