|
<img style="HEIGHT: 208px; WIDTH: 178px"
border=0 hspace=15
alt="Source: http://www.ronthepoet.org/poet/p77_0.jpg"
vspace=15 align=left src="p77_0.jpg" width=309 height=351
>
L. Ron
Hubbard, the Navy & World War II:
Revisited
by Margaret Lake
Perhaps the most
oft-disputed period of L. Ron Hubbard's life is
his military career in the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Navy during World War
II. Over the years, several authors and researchers have
attempted to outline and describe it, invariably coming
face-to-face with discrepancies which have proven difficult to
explain or ignore.
In the
1980s, Hubbard's World War II service record became public for
the first time largely as a result of court cases during this
period. The Church of Scientology and their military
researcher, Army Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, pointed out gaps and
missing records in Hubbard's service file, and also claimed
that because Hubbard was in Naval Intelligence during the war,
his service records may have been altered, possibly explaining
some discrepancies.
For other researchers, such as Hubbard biographers Russell
Miller ("Barefaced Messiah", 1987) [1]
and Jon Atack ("A Piece of Blue Sky", 1990) [2]
, the gaps and missing and conflicting records were largely
ignored (or unnoticed), and all discrepancies, to
them, must have been due to exaggerations or
dishonesty.
-
In the late 1990s, web author Chris Owen
researched Hubbard's military years and published his own
findings at his website "Ron the 'War Hero'". [3] Ostensibly taking into
account arguments from all sides, and using a version of
Hubbard's service file that was available to him at the
time, Owen largely positioned his arguments in lineThe military type of organization form whereby there is a definite ascending and descending chain of command. Orders pass from top management down the line of command and compliances and data pass on up without by-passing the chain of command. (Modern Management Defined (c) L. Ron Hubbard, 1976) with
Miller and Atack, which overall had an anti-Hubbard
slant. Owen briefly acknowledged gaps in Hubbard's service
record, but generally ignored the significance of
missing and conflicting records in Hubbard's service
file. Owen also made some important errors of fact.
In 2011, author Lawrence Wright attempted
to address the issues. Writing for "New Yorker" magazine,
[4]
Wright and his fact-checkers focused primarily on the dueling
"Notice of Separation" documents: one from the Navy, and
the other from the Church. They both differed in
important ways, per Wright, yet both purported to be an
accurate summary of Hubbard's Navy service record. Wright
examined the Church version critically (which implied Hubbard
may have been injured in combat), but examined the Navy
version less so (which made no reference to injury
or combat). Wright then expanded on his research in his 2013
Scientology book "Going Clear3. a Clear is not an all-knowing being. A Clear is somebody who has lost the mass, energy, space and time connected with the thing called mind . ( SH Spec 80, 6609C08) ...more". [5]
In preparation for putting these pages
together, a critical examination was made of the evidence
provided by all of the above sources. Further, Hubbard's
service records were obtained and examined (provided by the
National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, MOAbbreviation for 1. medical officer, 2. mission order. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).),
and extensive research was made into the relevant
travel and military records publicly available in the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).
National Archives. Based on this research, it is now
possible to more accurately answer the following questions:
-
<a href="#Navy2" >ACCURACY. Has the Navy,
or Hubbard's service file, always given accurate
information with regard to Hubbard's World War II
service?</a>
As one inspects Hubbard's service
file, and various responses (in the file) by the Navy
regarding Hubbard's service record, the amount of
inaccurate information and number of faulty responses is
surprising. Aside from the inaccurate
information provided in the Navy's version of
Hubbard's "Notice of Separation from the U.S. Naval
Service" document (covered later in these pages), the Navy
has gone as far as officially stating that
Hubbard was not an officer in the Navy at all,
to leaving out his promotion to Lt. Commander in ALL
official summaries of service, to leaving out whole
portions of overseas assignments and awards won in other
summaries. This section delves into the details
and implications of some of these
errors.
-
<a href="#Gaps2" >GAPS. Are there gaps and
"intelligence cover" in Hubbard's service records?</a>
One theory which has been forwarded
by some over the years is that gaps
and perhaps "intelligence cover" have been at
the root of discrepancies surrounding Hubbard's
service record. This section critically examines
this observation and
theory.
-
<a href="#Return2" >SHIP OR
PLANE. Was Hubbard sent home on a ship from the South Pacific in
the Spring of 1942, or was he flown home on the Secretary
of the Navy's plane, as he claimed? What are the
ramifications?</a>
Hubbard was in fact flown home on one
of the planes used by the Navy Department and
the Secretary of the Navy's office during World War
II. Yet his service record implies that he was sent
home on a ship. This section delves into the
documentation and minutiae behind this discovery. It
also examines the ramifications of this
finding.
- <a href="#Combat2" >COMBAT. Did Hubbard see
combat at any time during World War II?</a>
New documentation has been discovered
which shows that Hubbard was in fact sent into a combat
zone while in the South Pacific. This section
discusses the new documentation and related
findings.
-
<a href="#Injured2" >INJURED. Was Hubbard ever
injured during World War II?</a>
This section examines the evidence
behind the question of whether Hubbard was injured during
World War II. Earlier researchers have apparently
been confused by the term "actinic conjunctivitis".
Hint: It refers to an eye injury and doesn't mean
"pink eye".
-
<a href="#Separation2" >NOTICE OF SEPARATION.
What does a fair analysis of the dueling "Notice of
Separation from the U.S. Naval Service" documents
reveal?</a> </div></li></ul>
The Church's version of Hubbard's
"Notice of Separation from the U.S. Naval Service"
document has been critically examined over the
years. Yet the Navy's version has been examined
less critically. This section provides a
critical examination of both, and points out how both have
inaccuracies. </font>
-
<a href="#ServiceRecords2" >SOUTH PACIFIC RECORDS.
What happened to Hubbard's service records for the period
that he was in the South Pacific?</a>
In light of new findings, a fresh look
is taken at the question: what (if anything)
happened to the rest of Hubbard's
service records covering the period that he was in
the South Pacific?
-
<a href="#PurpleHeart2" > PURPLE HEART. Is there
evidence that Hubbard received a Purple
Heart award during World War
II?</a>
An examination is made of the history
of the Purple Heart award, and whether Hubbard may
have been awarded it by the U.S. Army (to which he was
attached in the early part of World War
II).
The research in these pages is being
conducted independently and is not being supported by
anyone (or any organization) other than the author.
Though additional research is still underway, it has been
requested by several people that the existing research
and documentation be published for others to examine.
Thus, these pages are being provided for that purpose.
As time allows, and as research continues, these pages will be
updated and augmented. [6]
(Last
updated: <a href="updates-page.htm" >6-Sep-2013</a>)
<p>
<a name="Navy2"
></a>
ACCURACY
Has the Navy, or Hubbard's service file,
always given accurate information with regard to Hubbard's
World War II service?
Over the years, the Navy has in fact had a
difficult time giving a clear and accurate picture of
Hubbard's Navy service. Many examples exist,
but the following few should illustrate the
point.
In March 1978, an informal <a href="hess-letter.htm" >hand-written letter</a><a
name=ref007a></a>[7]
was sent to the Navy by a Mr. Hess of Portland, Oregon,
requesting verification that Hubbard had
been a "Lieutenant Commander" in the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Navy.
In all likelihood, Mr. Hess had seen some Scientology
literature which described Hubbard as a former "Lt.
Commander" in the Navy, and he was trying to verify
this. In response to the letter, the Navy provided a
brief one-page summary of Hubbard's Navy service record
which indicated that Hubbard had only reached the rank of
"Lieutenant" (not the higher rank of "Lieutenant
Commander"): [8]
<a href="navy-letter-to-hess-78.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 23px; WIDTH: 730px" border="0" hspace="0" src="highest-rank-78.png" width="729" height="31" ></a>
(Please
Note: Most document images on this website, including
this one, are clickable and open up the full copy of the
document.)
Over the ensuing year, Mr.
Hess must have apparently been persistent and requested
additional details of Hubbard's Navy service during World War
II. And though Hess' followup communication1. the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source point across a distance to receipt point with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt point a duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the source point. (HCOB 5 Apr 73)...more is not
preserved in Hubbard's Navy file, the Navy did finally, a
year later, send a 3-page letter to Hess which provided a
fairly detailed summary of Hubbard's service
record. This time, it even provided the full
Promotion History, giving the exact ranks and dates that
Hubbard had achieved. This letter, too, clearly
stated that Hubbard's highest rank was "Lieutenant", and
not "Lieutenant Commander". [9]
<a href="navy-letter-to-hess-79.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 155px; WIDTH: 731px" border="0" hspace="0" src="promot-history-79.png" width="0" height="0" ></a>
No doubt, Mr. Hess probably concluded
that Hubbard and/or the Scientologists were lying. After
all, Hess had in his possession two very formal
letters from the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Navy, which clearly stated that Hubbard
had only reached the rank of "Lieutenant".
The problema problem is postulate-counter-postulate, terminal-counter-terminal, force-counter-force. It’s one thing versus another thing. You’ve got two forces or two ideas which are interlocked of comparable magnitude and the thing stops right there. All right, now with these two things one stuck against the other you get a sort of a timelessness, it floats in time. (SH Spec 82, 6111C21) 2 . a problem is a postulate-counter-postulate resulting in indecision. That is the first manifestation of problems, and the first consequence of a problem is indecision. (SH Spec 27, 6107C11) 3 . a multiple confusion. (SH Spec 26X, 6107C03) 4 . an intention counter-intention that worries the preclear. (HCOB 23 Feb 61) 5 . a problem is the conflict arising from two opposing intentions. A present time problem is one that exists in present time, in a real universe. (HCOB 3 Jul 59) 6 . something which is persisting, the as-is-ness of which cannot be attained easily. (PRO 16, 5408CM20), however, is that the Navy
responses in 1978 and 1979 contained a rather colossal
mistake: Hubbard had in
fact been permanently appointed to Lieutenant
Commander in 1948, effective 3-Oct-1945, based on the
following Promotion History card now available in Hubbard's
service record. [10]
<a href="promo-history.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 160px; WIDTH: 712px" border="0" hspace="0" src="promot-history-card.png" width="0" height="0" ></a>
This document shows that Hubbard was first
permanently appointed to Lieutenant (junior grade) on
25-Jun-1941, was then temporarily promoted to full
Lieutenant effective 15-Jun-1942, then temporarily
promoted to Lt. Commander effective 3-Oct-1945, and then
permanently appointed to Lt. Commander by authority of a
Secretary of the Navy letter dated 3-Jun-1948. (The Secretary
of the Navy letter, by the way, was not preserved in
Hubbard's service file.)[10a]
Now, the inaccuracies in the above Navy
letters may have just been an administrative oversight.
Perhaps the Navy personnel who wrote the above 1978 and
1979 summary letters simply overlooked the Promotion History
card which established that Hubbard had been
permanently promoted to Lieutenant Commander in
1948. Or perhaps the card wasn't located and
added to the master file until years later. But
this was by far not the only blunder. In one casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63) in
1978, an Army Colonel wrote to the Secretary of the Navy and
requested verification as to whether Hubbard was ever an
officer in the Navy at all. The Navy
responded: "Mr. Hubbard cannot be identified as serving or
having served as an officer of the naval service." [11]
The Colonel (and Hubbard) were fortunate in this casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63),
as a month later, a second letter was sent (not mentioning
the error in the first letter), which stated that
Hubbard was in fact in the U.S. Navy during World War II
and that when he resigned in 1950, that he had reached
the rank of Lieutenant (not Lt. Commander). [12]</p>
<p class=" sf_first_nav_item" style="DISPLAY: block"
align=left>In addition to the missing
"Lt. Commander" rank from the Navy's summary documents, even
the "Medals and Awards" list has not been
consistent. Upon separation from Naval service
after World War II, veterans were given a "Notice of
Separation from the U.S. Naval Service" document.
The version that the Navy now distributes for Hubbard includes
an "Expert Rifle & Pistol" award. [13]
<a href="nprc-sep.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 84px; WIDTH: 429px" border="0" hspace="0" src="sep_doc_from_nprc-awards-clip.jpg" width="475" height="104" ></a>
Yet, if one looks through Hubbard's
service file, there are no records of where, how, or when
Hubbard would have received this award, anywhere in Hubbard's
service file. And this "Expert Rifle &
Pistol" award also does not show up on the above
summary of Hubbard's Naval service to Hess or the Army
Colonel: [14]
<a href="navy-letter-to-hess-79.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 114px; WIDTH: 340px" border="0" hspace="0" src="79-letter-to-hess-awards-clip.jpg" width="445" height="163" ></a>
As it turns out, these types
of discrepancies were not just confined to individual
inquiries from the late 1970s. They went as far
back as the 1960s, and even included formal requests from
none other than the U.S. Department of Justice. When the DOJ,
in 1966, wrote to the Navy requesting a summary of
Hubbard's military service, the Navy responded as follows
regarding Hubbard's promotion history: [15]
<a href="1966-navy-summary-to-doj.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 111px; WIDTH: 679px" border="0" hspace="0" src="promot-history-66.png" width="888" height="264" ></a>
No mention of Hubbard's having achieved
the rank of "Lieutenant Commander" was made in the
letter. Nor any mention of an "Expert Rifle &
Pistol" award.
<a href="1966-navy-summary-to-doj.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 113px; WIDTH: 286px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1966-navy-to-DOJ-awards-clip.jpg" width="397" height="164" ></a>
In other words, the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Department of
Justice now had in their hands very formal "proof" (if they
had needed it) that Hubbard was "lying" about any promotion to
"Lt. Commander" or receiving of the "Expert Rifle &
Pistol" award. But of course it would have been false
proof.
In fact, there is not a single summary of
Hubbard's Navy service which the Navy has provided over
the years, which has ever mentioned the rather important fact
that Hubbard had reached the rank of Lieutenant Commander
while in the Navy. This is in addition to the
fact that no summary letters have mentioned that he had
been awarded the "Expert Rifle & Pistol" award (even
though the latter was listed on the Navy's
official "Notice of Separation from the U.S. Naval
Service" document.)
Interestingly, in a 1976 letter from
the Navy to the Church of Scientology, in response to the
Church's request for details on Hubbard's military
service, not only were Hubbard's promotion to Lieutenant
Commander and the "Expert Rifle & Pistol" award not
mentioned, but all traces of Hubbard's Naval intelligence
training and assignment to the South Pacific in 1941-1942
(while Hubbard was working in Naval Intelligence) were
removed: [16]
</p>
<p class=" sf_first_nav_item" style="DISPLAY: block"
align=center><a href="1976-navy-response-to-cos.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 332px; WIDTH: 667px" border="0" hspace="0" src="summary-1976.png" width="888" height="264" ></a>
This missing South Pacific period (between
the above Camp Pollard, VA and New York, NY), of
course, contradicts both the above summary letter to the
Department of Justice from 1966 and the 1979 letter from
the Navy to the above-mentioned Mr. Hess, which summarizes the
same period of Hubbard's service as follows: [17]
<img border="0" hspace="0" src="summary-79-pg1.png" width="0" height="0" >
<a href="navy-letter-to-hess-79.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 447px; WIDTH: 644px" border="0" hspace="0" src="79-summary-partial.jpg" width="1034" height="694" ></a><img border="0" hspace="0" src="summary-79-pg1.png" width="0" height="0" ><img
border=0 hspace=0 align=middle src="summary-1976.png" width=0
height=0><img border="0" hspace="0" src="summary-79-pg1.png" width="0" height="0" >
Notice that in this latter casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63), Hubbard's
assignment as an "Intelligence Officer" in the South Pacific
(Australia) was mentioned, but in the letter to the Church of
Scientology three years earlier, no mention was made of any
overseas or "Intelligence Officer" assignment or
training. This was all in addition to the fact that
Hubbard's promotion history and list of awards was incorrect
and inconsistent.
If these types of
inaccuracies/inconsistencies had been limited to only later
"summary letters" as mentioned above, then this might not be
much of a concern. But in fact, it is the missing
elements in and around the official "Notice of Separation from
the U.S. Naval Service" document that are the most alarming.
This is a central and critical document, used throughout a
veteran's life, which is supposed to summarize a veteran's
military service. Yet the official document for Hubbard,
issued in 1946, which the Navy distributes today and claims is
a complete and accurate summary of Hubbard's Naval service
record, is filled with anomalous, missing and inaccurate
information. In addition to the above-mentioned inexplicable
"Expert Rifle & Pistol" award, the Navy's Separation
Document for Hubbard also has an inaccurate "Entry Date into
Active Service", several missing Navy schools which Hubbard
attended, and other anomolies (taken up in some detail in the
<a href="#Separation2" >"Separation Document" section</a>
below).
The above-mentioned mistakes do
seem to have caused some journalists and Hubbard
biographers trouble over the years. For example,
let's examine the promotion-related mistake.
In
Russell Miller's 1987 biography of Hubbard, no indication was
given that Hubbard was promoted to Lt. Commander.<a name="ref018a"
></a>[18] In fact, no
promotions were mentioned at all by Miller (though this
should not be too surprising, as Miller's
goal does not seem to be as much to provide an
accurate and balanced account of Hubbard's life, as it
was a response to the
hagiography surrounding Hubbard).
In a 1990 Los Angeles Times article,
journalists Joel Sappell and Robert Welkos described Hubbard
as a "former Navy lieutenant"[18a], and in Jon Atack's 1990
biography of Hubbard, Atack mentioned Hubbard's promotion
to full Lieutenant, but specifically claimed that this
was the highest rank that Hubbard had achieved. No
mention of Hubbard's promotion to the next higher rank of Lt.
Commander was made.<a name="ref019a"
></a>[19]
In Lawrence Wright's 2013 book "Going Clear3. a Clear is not an all-knowing being. A Clear is somebody who has lost the mass, energy, space and time connected with the thing called mind . ( SH Spec 80, 6609C08) ...more",
Wright seemed somewhat confused by Hubbard's promotion
history, apparently not aware that Hubbard had even been
promoted to full Lieutenant in mid-1942. As a result,
Wright inaccurately stated that in 1943 Hubbard was
"actually not yet a full lieutenant".<a name="ref020a"
></a>[20]
Wright made no mention of Hubbard's later promotion to
Lieutenant Commander.</p>
<p class=" sf_first_nav_item" style="DISPLAY: block"
align=left>Of all the non-Scientology accounts of
Hubbard's World War II service over the years, only Chris
Owen seems to have gotten the promotion detail
right. In his 1999 "Ron the 'War Hero'" website, Owen
accurately pointed out that Hubbard had
been promoted to Lt.
Commander. While Owen did make several other
important errors (which are detailed elsewhere in these
pages) about Hubbard's World War II years, this was not one of
them.
In the larger picture, of course, the
"Lt. Commander" issue doesn't matter a great deal at this
point. The records have been found which confirm that
Hubbard was promoted to Lt. Commander, and though
"official statements" by the Navy of the past have now been
found to be inaccurate, we can take solace in the fact
that the record has been set straight by other
documents.
The records for the "Expert Rifle &
Pistol" award, however, are still missing from
Hubbard's service file. And the Navy's official
"Notice of Separation from the U.S. Naval Service"
document for Hubbard can also be shown to
be surprisingly incomplete.
As a result, a fair question can be
raised: were these the only inaccurate or
now-missing records in Hubbard's Navy service
file? In the casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63) of the Promotion History, we got
lucky. A confirmatory document (the Promotion History
card) was apparently eventually found which cleared up the
discrepancy. But what would have been the result if the
Promotion History card had not been preserved in Hubbard's
service record (as was the casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63) with the Secretary of the Navy
letter mentioned above or records indicating an "Expert Rifle
& Pistol" award)? Wouldn't Hubbard have been branded
a liar regarding his ultimate rank in the Navy?
And there still are of course more central
outstanding discrepancies surrounding Hubbard's service
record. The most glaring of
these discrepancies center around Hubbard's service
in the South Pacific (and Australia) at the beginning of the
war. These discrepancies involve the issues of whether
Hubbard ever saw <a href="#Combat2" >combat</a> or was <a href="#Injured2" >injured</a>
there. Or how he returned to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).: by <a href="#Return2" >ship or by
plane</a>? There is also the matter of the dueling "<a href="#Separation2" >Notice of Separation</a> from the
U.S. Naval Service" documents, and which awards were given
to Hubbard, including the <a href="#PurpleHeart2" >Purple
Heart</a> . All of these issues are taken up in other
sections of this website.
The above discrepancy regarding Hubbard's
final promotion to Lieutenant Commander is not likely a result
of any intelligence activity or related issue. It
probably has much more to do with simple clerical errors and
oversights. But the issues of large gaps and missing and
conflicting records in Hubbard's service file --
specifically the records surrounding his time in the South
Pacific/Australia at the outset of the war when he was in
intelligence -- are not so easily explained by
simple clerical errors.
<a name="Gaps2"
><a name="Gaps" Cover?
Intel and></a>
GAPS
Are there gaps
and/or "intelligence cover" in Hubbard's service
record?
As one examines Hubbard's service file
closely, it becomes very apparent that at least one
very relevant gap exists in the record for the
time that Hubbard was an intelligence officer,
especially after he was sent to the Philippines
(and ended up in Australia) for the period from December
1941 - March 1942. And as it turns out, this period also
sits at the center of the question of whether Hubbard saw
combat, was injured and may have been awarded the
Purple Heart during World War II.
Here are some examples of the missing
records from this period:
-
Officer
Fitness Report. There is no Officer Fitness
Report for this period in Hubbard's service record.
This is unusual, as there are Officer Fitness Reports for
nearly all other periods. As a result, we don't
know (from the service records alone):
-
Who Hubbard's commanding officer
was.
-
How/whyThat basic outness found which will lead to a recovery of stats. (HCO PL 13 Oct 70 II) Hubbard ended up getting
attached to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Army while in Australia.
-
What Hubbard's activities were while
there.
-
Where he might have gone.
-
What Hubbard's official "performance"
was.
-
Travel
Receipts. There are no travel receipts for
this period (and related documents are
contradictory).
-
Modified
Orders. There are no copies of Hubbard's
modified orders from senior Navy commanders while in
Australia (though there is evidence that he
received them).
-
Machine
Gun. There is no record of where or how
Hubbard was issued a machine gun (though later evidence
suggests that he was issued one).
-
"Expert
Rifle & Pistol" Award. There is no
record of how, when or where Hubbard was awarded the "Expert
Rifle & Pistol" award (though evidence suggests that he
was awarded it while in the South Pacific).
-
"Vickers"
(weapon). There is no record
of how he became proficient in the use of a Vickers in
the South Pacific (though later records suggest he
did). (Note: The .50 Vickers were used extensively as
ship-mounted anti-aircraft machine guns in this region
during the early war).[114]
-
Medical
Record. There is no medical record/log of this
period. Nevertheless, later notations in Hubbard's
medical file and elsewhere suggest that while in the
South Pacific, Hubbard:
-
Return by
Ship vs. Plane. There is no definitive record
of how Hubbard returned to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). from the South Pacific, in
Hubbard's service file. The few records in his file
which seem to imply that Hubbard returned by ship are
contradictory: some imply that he returned on the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).
Navy ship the USS CHAUMONT, while others imply that
Hubbard returned on the ship the M/S PENNANT.
Hubbard himself claimed to have been flown home, which it
turns out, is supported
by travel records in the National Archives.[21]
-
Swearing-in
Document. When Hubbard was promoted to full
Lieutenant three months after his return from the South
Pacific, he was sworn-in. This rather important
document is missing from Hubbard's service records (yet it
is referenced elsewhere in later records in his service
file).
Responses by other researchers who have
encountered this gap and these discrepancies over
the years, have been varied. Gerry Armstrong and
his lawyer were of course trying to win a court casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63) in
1984 against Hubbard and the Church of Scientology,<a
name=ref022a></a>[22]
and so when they came across these discrepancies, this worked
in their favor: it implied that Hubbard had made
things up. And so they didn't bother to research too
deeply, especially if it might have hurt their
casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63).
This too worked in Russell Miller's favor,
in his effort to over-compensate for the
hagiography. When Hubbard's service record implied that
he lied about how he returned from the South Pacific
in the Spring of 1942, Miller failed to research
this fully, and worked this into his headline for the chapter
titled "The Hero That Never Was". For Jon Atack, he
appears to have noticed some of the discrepancies
but didn't quite know what to make of them, and by and
large ignored them. Chris Owen attempted to address some
of the discrepancies, but overall didn't dig very
deeply into them. Other errors in his research gave
him enough confidence, apparently, to conclude that all
discrepancies must be due to lies. Lawrence Wright
seemed fairly flippant when it came to this
period, and though he seems to have spent a good deal of
time doing his own independent research
into the dueling "Notice of Separation from the U.S.
Naval Service" documents, he doesn't seem to have spent much
time independently researching much else regarding Hubbard's
World War II years.
The late Army Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, the
Church's one-time military expert, made some interesting
observations. In his <a href="prouty-affidavit.htm" >1985
Affidavit</a>, Prouty noticed that most records for Hubbard's
Australia/South Pacific period were missing from Hubbard's
service file.[23]
Prouty also noticed that Hubbard had made
reference to being a "combat intelligence officer for the
Asiatic fleet" while in the South Pacific, as in
this medical record a month and a half after
his return:[24]
<a href="1942-05-11-medreport.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 388px; WIDTH: 405px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-05-11-med-record-NY.png" width="800" height="510" ></a>
Prouty would also develop a theory that
Hubbard's service records were "sheep dipped" -- meaning
purposely falsified for "intelligence cover" reasons.[25] But
frankly, Prouty's evidence for this theory
was weak -- at least as it applied to more than the
first year of Hubbard's service during
which Hubbard was in Naval Intelligence.
Prouty's implication was that markings for "intelligence"
(i.e. the series "16xx") could be seen "throughout
Hubbard's service file". It is true that the typed
"16xx" is used to designate Naval Intelligence
departments[26]
and they can be found in the early part of
Hubbard's service file (when he was an intelligence
officer).[27]
<a href="1941-11-19-ordered-to-philippines.htm" ><img border="0" hspace="0" src="1941-11-19-orders-to-philippines-clip.jpg" width="599" height="193" ></a>
But these same typed 16xx's could not be
found in document routings in later periods.
Interestingly, though, the above medical
record wasn't the only place in Hubbard's service file
where "combat intelligence officer" was mentioned, in
reference to Hubbard's time in the South Pacific. It can
also be found as the erased
text behind the typed "Investigation Department"
on the following "Report on the Fitness of
Officers":[28]
<a href="1942-06-24-fitness-report.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 464px; WIDTH: 804px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-06-24-off-fit-report-cable-sens.png" width="800" height="510" ></a>
As can be seen, this Fitness Report was
ultimately for the period "May 11, 1942 to June 24, 1942",
after Hubbard had returned from the South Pacific and
apparently began working in the Cable Censor's office in New
York. But if one looks very carefully, the erased text
behind "May 11, 1942" was originally: Nov. 24,
1941 (the date that Hubbard
was ordered to the Philippines.)
And the text behind "Investigation
Department " originally read:
NY, 3ND, instruction (1/2 mo.); Asiatic Fleet, combat intel. (2
1/2);
12 ND
unassigned (3/4 mo); Censor, New York (1
mo.).
("ND" stands for "Naval
District".)
In other words, this "Report on the
Fitness of Officers" was originally going to cover the
full period from Hubbard's assignment to the Asiatic
Fleet in the South Pacific in November 1941 to the period
including New York in June 1942, and then was changed
(inexplicably) so that it only covered the
period May-June 1942 -- the Cable Censor period in New
York.
It is unknown whyThat basic outness found which will lead to a recovery of stats. (HCO PL 13 Oct 70 II) a "Report on the Fitness
of Officers" was not written on Hubbard for the period when he
may have been a "combat intelligence officer" in the South
Pacific. A link to "intelligence cover" may exist, as
will be explained at the end of the next section.
Another possibility may have less to
do with "intelligence cover" and more
to due with the following reason: Hubbard was
reporting to the "USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Army Forces in Australia" during (nearly)
the entire time that he was there. The first clue
that this was the casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63) can be found in the "Compliance Report"
for this period:[29]
<a href="1942-03-23-compreport.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 326px; WIDTH: 803px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-01-16-comp-report-AUS.png" width="800" height="510" ></a>
The fact that Hubbard was reporting to the
Army, and not (just) the Navy, during his time in the South
Pacific, was the first clue which opened the door to helping
fill in the gaps caused by the missing
records for this period. And it also helped to
begin to answer the questions of whether Hubbard saw combat,
was injured, and several other discrepancies that have
surfaced as a result of these missing records. One of
those discrepancies revolves around the following
question: did Hubbard return by ship from the South
Pacific, or by plane (as he claimed)?
<a name="Return2"
><a name="Return" plane?
or ship on></a>
SHIP OR
PLANE
Did Hubbard
Return from the South Pacific on a Ship or a Plane?
Hubbard did in fact return to the United
States in March 1942 on one of the planes that was being used
by the Navy Department and Secretary of the Navy's
office, as Hubbard claimed several times. Because
Hubbard's service records imply that he took a ship, Hubbard's
critics have claimed, since the mid-1980s, that this was a
blatant fabrication by Hubbard. Records in the National
Archives, however, provide evidence that he was
telling the truth. Let's examine the background and the
specifics.
All sides to the debate seemed to agree
that Hubbard was sent to the South Pacific in late 1941, and
that he returned to the United States in the Spring of 1942.
Everyone also seemed to agree that Hubbard was a Naval
Intelligence Officer during this period. But that's about
where the agreements ended with regard to Hubbard's time in
the South Pacific.
Hubbard's supporters sometimes contended
that he saw combat and was injured while in the South Pacific.
Hubbard's detractors on the other hand contended that he
merely got into a quarrel with the American Naval Attache
in Australia, and was immediately sent home by ship. Hubbard
himself claimed to have been flown home on the Secretary of
the Navy's plane -- a claim that Hubbard's critics long held
onto as a prime example of Hubbard's lying about his military
record, going all the way back to the Gerry Armstrong vs.
Church of Scientology trial in 1984.[30] Mentioned in
Miller's and Atack's books, this supposed "directly
disprovable" lie was also offered as the
centerpiece of the concluding remarks of Chris Owen's web
pages ("Ron the 'War Hero'") since 1999.[31]
So what is the truth of the
matter?
As it turned out, this was likely a
difficult period to come to an agreement on for the
above-mentioned reason: nearly all the records in Hubbard's
service file for this period are missing. The few
scraps of documentation that remain in Hubbard's service file
for this period do indeed imply that Hubbard was sent home by
ship. And though no travel receipts are present, and there is
contradictory information in his service record as to which
ship he supposedly returned on, there is a clear implication
from his service record that Hubbard returned to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). on
either the USS CHAUMONT or the M/S PENNANT in the Spring of
1942. For example, there is this 14-Feb-1942 memo
from the Naval Attache in Melbourne, Australia to the
Commandant of the Naval District in San Francisco,
which states (regarding Hubbard):[32]
<a href="causey-letter.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 78px; WIDTH: 713px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-02-14-causey-letter.png" width="800" height="510" ></a>
And there is this 9-Apr-1942 memo
from the Naval Observer in Brisbane, Australia to the Bureau
of Navigation in Washington:[33]
<a href="pennant-letter.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 94px; WIDTH: 703px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-04-09--ms-pennant-letter.png" width="800" height="510" ></a>
There is a fundamental problema problem is postulate-counter-postulate, terminal-counter-terminal, force-counter-force. It’s one thing versus another thing. You’ve got two forces or two ideas which are interlocked of comparable magnitude and the thing stops right there. All right, now with these two things one stuck against the other you get a sort of a timelessness, it floats in time. (SH Spec 82, 6111C21) 2 . a problem is a postulate-counter-postulate resulting in indecision. That is the first manifestation of problems, and the first consequence of a problem is indecision. (SH Spec 27, 6107C11) 3 . a multiple confusion. (SH Spec 26X, 6107C03) 4 . an intention counter-intention that worries the preclear. (HCOB 23 Feb 61) 5 . a problem is the conflict arising from two opposing intentions. A present time problem is one that exists in present time, in a real universe. (HCOB 3 Jul 59) 6 . something which is persisting, the as-is-ness of which cannot be attained easily. (PRO 16, 5408CM20),
however, with the implication from these memos. Not
only is Hubbard not on
the passenger lists for either the CHAUMONT or the PENNANT
upon their arrival into San Francisco in the Spring of 1942,
but given what we know of the arrival and departure dates of
those ships and the known time frame in which Hubbard returned
to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976)., it would have been physically impossible for
Hubbard to have been on either of those ships on his return to
the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).. Further, the short time frame in which Hubbard
must have returned (within a 16 day period) makes his return
by any ship nearly
impossible in early 1942 (even the fast ships, not in convoy
and not making any stops, were taking 19-21+ days to travel
from Australia to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).)[34]
. Nevertheless, thorough research was done of all other
passenger lists for the ships which arrived into the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). in
early 1942, and Hubbard could not be found aboard any of them.
When plane records were consulted in the
National Archives, however, a plane arrival record matching
Hubbard's known route, arrival date and arrival location was
found. And it turned out that it was a plane which was among
those used by the Secretary of the Navy's office and the Navy
Department during the early part of World War II in which
senior officers - and the occasional intelligence officer -
were sent on trans-oceanic trips.
Let's examine the documentation behind these
findings.
Here's what we know with some certainty,
about Hubbard's departure from Australia/South Pacific and his
arrival into the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976)..
We know that he left Australia AFTER
8-Mar-1942. We know this because he is recorded as being
personally present in a ship captain's War Diary/daily log,
specifically the USS NEW ORLEANS, as it was moored in
Brisbane, Australia in early March 1942. The following is from
the war diary:[35]
<a href="1942-03-USSNewOrleansWarDiary.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 58px; WIDTH: 757px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-03-08--USS New Orleans.png" width="800" height="510" ></a>
In addition to showing that Hubbard held
the relatively senior position of Naval Observer
and was involved to one degree or another with
counter-espionage for the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Navy (a fact previously disputed
by Miller,[36] Atack[37]
and Owen[38]), it also shows
that Hubbard was present in Australia as late as
8-Mar-1942. One can find this ship's log in the National
Archives in "Record Group 38: Records of the Office of the
Chief of Naval Operations, 1875-2006", in the "World War II
War Diaries" section. It can also be found online at the
National Archives' partner site, fold3.com, at <a
href="http://www.fold3.com/image/#267903716"
>http://www.fold3.com/image/#267903716</a>.
We know with certainty that Hubbard was
back in San Francisco on 23-Mar-1942 -- this is confirmed
in several places in his Navy service record, including his
Report of Compliance:[39]
<a href="1942-03-23-compreport.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 149px; WIDTH: 761px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-03-23--compliance.png" width="800" height="510" ></a>
The 12th Endorsement of the same Report of
Compliance:[40]
<a href="10th-12th-endorsements.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 265px; WIDTH: 761px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-03-23--endorsements-12th.png" width="800" height="510" ></a>
And in Hubbard's Medical History
log on his return to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).:[41]
<a href="1942-03-23-medreport.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 305px; WIDTH: 405px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-03-23--Med-admission.png" width="800" height="510" ></a>
That leaves a period of 16 days -- at
the very high end -- for Hubbard to have made his way
from Australia to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).. As mentioned, even the fast ships in
early 1942, when they were not in convoy and were rushing,
were taking just under three weeks to cross the Pacific. And
that's with no stops.[42]
It is noted in Hubbard's service/medical record that he
arrived via Honolulu.[43]
<a href="1942-03-23-medreport.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 171px; WIDTH: 405px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-03-23--Med-honolulu.png" width="800" height="510" ></a>
Using just these dates alone, it is nearly
impossible that Hubbard could have crossed the Pacific on a
ship in the Spring of 1942.
Nevertheless, Hubbard's service file
implies that he took one of two ships (the CHAUMONT or the
PENNANT), so research into these ships was
conducted.
We know from National Archives records
that the USS CHAUMONT left Australia in mid-February 1942[44]
...
<a href="1942-02-13-chaumont-pass.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 146px; WIDTH: 745px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-02-13--Chaumont.png" width="800" height="510" ></a>
... and arrived in San Francisco in late
March 1942.[45]
<a href="1942-03-31-chaumont-pass.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 213px; WIDTH: 809px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-03-31-USSCHAUMONT-in-SF.jpg" width="1106" height="312" ></a></p>
<p class=" sf_first_nav_item" style="DISPLAY: block"
align=left>We know from the previously
mentioned "USS NEW ORLEANS War Diary" that Hubbard was still
in Australia as late as 8-Mar-1942. Further, the
passenger list of the CHAUMONT, on its arrival into San
Francisco, shows that he was not aboard.[46] Therefore, we can
safely conclude that Hubbard did not depart or arrive on the
CHAUMONT.
With regard to the M/S PENNANT (not to be
confused with the M/S ALCOA PENNANT), we know from National
Archives records that the M/S PENNANT left Brisbane, Australia
on or around 7-Mar-1942. It then had a few stops in and
around Australia[47]
...
<img border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-03-06--pennant-in-aus.png" width="0" height="0" ></p>
<p class=" sf_first_nav_item" style="DISPLAY: block"
align=center><a href="1942-03-06-pennant.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 92px; WIDTH: 721px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-03-06--pennant-in-aus.png" width="800" height="510" ></a>
... then went to Chile, South America and
arrived in San Francisco at the end of April 1942.[48]
<a href="1942-04-31-pennant.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 129px; WIDTH: 702px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-04-30--pennant-sf.png" width="726" height="537" ></a>
By the end of April, Hubbard had been back
in the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). for over a month; further, he was not onboard,
according to the passenger lists.[49]
We can conclude that Hubbard did not use the M/S PENNANT on
his trip across the Pacific. (The ALCOA PENNANT never went to
Australia in early 1942; further, Hubbard does not show up on
any passenger lists.[50])
The above ship arrival records can all be
found in the National Archives on microfilm roll "Passenger
Lists of Vessels Arriving at San Francisco, CA, 1893-1953",
Publication number M1410. They can also be found online at
another National Archives partner site, ancestry.com, in the
"Immigration and Travel" section. They were microfilmed
in the early 1980s and apparently have been publicly
available since then at various National Archives research
locations, or for purchase by mail. (It is unknown whether
Armstrong, Miller, Atack and/or Owen discovered these facts,
and purposely chose not to disclose them; minimally, they did
not mention any efforts to solve the clear contradiction
in Hubbard's service record.)
To be thorough, a careful search was made
of all available ship passenger lists of ships which arrived
into the United States in February, March and April 1942,
in the various ports of the United States
(including Honolulu, San Francisco, and all other ports on the
West and East coasts).
Hubbard could not be found aboard any
ship.
Research was then conducted into the plane
arrival records for early 1942 at the National Archives. On an
"Index" (a list) of all the planes and ships that arrived into
San Francisco during World War II, a specific plane was
located which matched Hubbard's known route (via
Honolulu), exact arrival date (23-Mar-1942) and exact arrival
location (San Francisco). Though the passenger list for this
flight was not preserved, no other vessel - plane or
ship - was found which matched the known facts of
Hubbard's return to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). on 23-Mar-1942.
The plane located was PanAm's "Philippine
Clipper 41759", and it can be found on microfilm roll "Index
to Vessels Arriving in San Francisco, 1882-1957", Publication
Number M1437. The following is a scanned version of
the record.[51]
<a href="1942-03-23-philippine-clipper.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 251px; WIDTH: 434px" border="0" hspace="0" src="M1437-Philippine Clipper-41759.png" width="1600" height="1200" ></a>
Additional research confirmed that this
plane was part of the PanAm Clipper fleet that the Secretary
of the Navy's office was using in early 1942 to fly senior
officers[52][53]
and the occasional intelligence officer[54][55]
on trans-oceanic trips and missions.
Additionally, a record of personal
correspondence between Hubbard and the Secretary of the Navy
(Frank Knox) was located in the declassified office
correspondence files of Knox in the National
Archives.[56]
<a href="frank-knox-corresp.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 282px; WIDTH: 477px" border="0" hspace="0" src="knox-corresp.png" width="726" height="537" ></a>
There is no specific date on the
correspondence, other than that it took place between
1940-1944 (based on the archival records box title).[57]
Only a record of the correspondence appears to exist (not the
correspondence itself) but it was noted to be in relation to
the Explorer's Club, and so probably took place in either 1940
or 1941.
Additionally, Hubbard had used John F.
"Jack" O'Keefe as a personal reference when he applied to the
Navy in 1941 (this is in Hubbard's Navy service records).[58]
<a href="app-for-navy.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 163px; WIDTH: 713px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1941-04-18--char-refs.png" width="726" height="537" ></a>
O'Keefe was a Special Assistant
to the Secretary of the Navy from 1938-1941.[59]
Combined with Hubbard's known friendships
with Congressmen Magnuson and Ford in 1941 (a widely
acknowledged fact and evidenced in Hubbard's service
records),[60][61][62]
it's within the realm of documentable possibility that Hubbard
had the connections to "make a call" to the Secretary of the
Navy's office (if not the Secretary himself), to be flown home
from Australia, as Hubbard claimed.[63]
Why was
Hubbard flown home?
Once the above was discovered -- that
Hubbard was flown home on one of the planes used by the
Secretary of the Navy's office on Hubbard's return from the
South Pacific (as he had claimed on numerous occasions)
-- the next question became: whyThat basic outness found which will lead to a recovery of stats. (HCO PL 13 Oct 70 II)? <img
style="HEIGHT: 259px; WIDTH: 342px" border=0 hspace=0
alt="Source: http://www.sfmuseum.net/photos11/clipper3.jpg"
align=right src="clipper-hubbard.jpg" width=601 height=423
>
Why was Hubbard sent home on a
plane?
In general, the Navy was only sending
officers with very senior rank (Admirals, etc. and their
staffs) or on very urgent missions (such as intelligence
officers) on trans-oceanic airplanes in early
1942. Sometimes they would send lower-ranked
officers on a plane, as a reward for extremely heroic
action.[64] These
facts can be confirmed in military records of the
time,[65]
and by looking at the existing passenger lists of planes and
ships of this period.
Sending a
relatively entry-level Lieutenant (jg) -- Hubbard's
rank at the time -- on a trans-Pacific flight would have
been unusual. So whyThat basic outness found which will lead to a recovery of stats. (HCO PL 13 Oct 70 II) was he sent?
Because Hubbard's service record for this
period is so sparse, we need to look at other
clues both outside and inside his service record to
better determine the reasons.
Hubbard biographers have pointed to
the fact that he got into a quarrel with the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Naval
Attache in Australia shortly after he arrived, and the records
in Hubbard's service file do indeed show that the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).
Naval Attache tried to send Hubbard home on a ship. But
other records (both inside and outside of Hubbard's
service record) suggest that there's more to the story than
had previously been realized:
When Hubbard was flown home from the
South Pacific, his Navy service file shows that he
was
promoted to full Lieutenant about three months
later.[66] His first
commanding officer in the Cable Censor's office (upon his
return) did seem to be negatively pursuaded by the
less-than-flattering description of Hubbard from the Naval
Attache, but immediately after the Cable Censor assignment, in
the subsequent months, Hubbard was given command of
two ships, with the second being
larger and carrying more responsibility than the
first.
<p>
If the Navy higher command had a
low opinion of Hubbard as a result of the Naval Attache's
criticisms of him, whyThat basic outness found which will lead to a recovery of stats. (HCO PL 13 Oct 70 II) would they give him two
subsequent independent commands over the following year
after his return? It appears that the Naval
Attache's opinions and order must have been
largely disregarded -- at least at the higher
echelons of the Navy in Washington.
Based on the above, it seems that Hubbard
was held in high regard by the senior Navy command on his
return from the South Pacific. While "heroism" can't be
ruled out completely as a reason for his being flown
home, other records seem to indicate that Hubbard
was being sent home on a plane due to "urgency" related
reasons having to do with intelligence activities.
Is there an
"intelligence link" to Hubbard's flight
home?
Based on what we know of historical events
in this period and Hubbard's known (and possible) activities
in the region, the following scenario seems to make the most
sense as to whyThat basic outness found which will lead to a recovery of stats. (HCO PL 13 Oct 70 II) he was flown home. As mentioned
in an earlier section, Hubbard described himself as
a "combat intelligence officer" shortly after his return from
the South Pacific on at least two occasions as recorded
in his service record (see <a href="#Gaps2" >"Gaps" section</a>
above). To understand how this might have related to
historical events, let's look at a bit of history.
At this early stage of America's
involvement in the war (and prior), Washington was extremely
interested in gathering as much intelligence on the Japanese
as possible -- especially their military strengths in various
quarters.[67] The
War Department (Army) and Navy Department recognized
that this was a weakness on their own part, i.e. not having
enough intelligence (information) on the Japanese.
Though we don't know what Hubbard's specific role was going to
be in the Philippines as an intelligence officer (where he had
been ordered prior to Pearl Harbor), it seems possible that
his role might have been in relation to this overall effort of
gathering intelligence on the Japanese. There is
evidence in his service record (and elsewhere) that he was
being trained in various intelligence courses in the weeks
prior to Pearl Harbor.
In Hubbard's service record, it indicates
that in preparation for his assignment to the Philippines, he
was being trained in intelligence in New York:[68]
<a href="1941-11-24-intel-training.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 198px; WIDTH: 650px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1941-11-24--intell-instr.jpg" width="1020" height="321" ></a>
This training is also mentioned elsewhere
in various summaries in Hubbard's service record.
Though his service record implies
that he was on "inactive duty" from 7-Oct to
23-Nov-1941[69]
(and also apparently taking a correspondence [home study]
course in Naval Regulations and Customs in late October
1941)[70], a declassified record
from the offices of the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) and the
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) was recently discovered which
shows that Hubbard had been nominated for an "Intelligence
Course" from 21-Oct to 11-Nov-1941, i.e. overlapping with
the above "inactive duty" dates. Oddly, all other
training periods are considered "active duty" in Hubbard's
service file. Further, no mention of this particular
course shows up in Hubbard's service record. Here is the
record from the SECNAV/CNO office files:[71]
<a href="1941-09-30-intel-course.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 207px; WIDTH: 730px" border="0" hspace="0" src="intel-course1.png" width="1212" height="27" ></a>
We don't know the nature of the
intelligence material taught in this particular course, but
the fact that it was not mentioned in his service record (and
somewhat hidden behind an "inactive duty" period, and
required nomination to attend), suggests that there may
have been a higher level of confidentiality surrounding
it.
When Hubbard was in Australia, he also
received "secret orders" from the senior Navy command
(COMANZAC) in the region:[72]
<a href="10th-12th-endorsements.htm" ><img
style="HEIGHT: 83px; WIDTH: 741px" border=0 hspace=0
align=middle src="secret-orders.jpg" width=1009 height=117
></a>
(These are discussed in more detail in
the <a href="#Combat2" >"Combat" section</a>
below.)
As mentioned earlier, we also
now know that Hubbard was recorded as
having been involved in counter-espionage work
towards the end of his time in the Australian/South Pacific
region, based on this entry in a March 1942 War Diary
of the USS NEW ORLEANS moored in Brisbane, Australia
at the time:[73]
<a href="1942-03-USSNewOrleansWarDiary.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 146px; WIDTH: 741px" border="0" hspace="0" src="USSNewOrleans-Hubbard-entry.jpg" width="868" height="161" ></a>
Hubbard also referred to himself as
an "Intelligence Officer" in a 3-Feb-1942 report (a
report which does not exist in Hubbard's service record)
to his Army Commanding OfficerThe org is commanded by the Commanding Officer (SO orgs). (HCO PL 7 Mar 72) ''Abbr.'' CO in Brisbane,
Australia.[89]
Given all of the above, Hubbard's public
statement (albeit made somewhat jokingly) from 1956 is worth
reviewing:
"I picked up a telephone, called the
Secretary of [the] Navy. See, and I said, 'I'm tired of this
place. I'd like to leave.' And he said, 'Yeah.' I said,
'Yeah, I've got some important despatches. As a matter of
fact, we've got enough despatches here to practically sink
the Japanese Navy if they had to carry them. There's a lot
of traffic and stuff like that, and so forth.' So he sent
his plane down and picked me up and flew me home."[74]
In retrospect, Hubbard would
not have likely felt at too much liberty, in 1956 and in
front of an audience, to openly start describing the details
of a 1942 Naval intelligence
activity. Nevertheless, the component of being
flown home on one of the planes that the Secretary of the
Navy's office was using, we now know is true. And the
component of Hubbard's having had enough personal
connections at that level of government to be able
to call into the Secretary of the Navy's office (if not
the Secretary himself), also is true.
With regard to Hubbard's having "some
important despatches", that's the interesting one. And
that's the clue which may link Hubbard's flight home to
an intelligence matter. If Hubbard had in fact managed
to get "some important despatches" while in the region
that were of interest to Washington in their desire to
gather more intelligence on the Japanese, this would have
likely been seen as a high-priority matter
to Washington. And that may have been the
reason that Hubbard was flown home.
In an earlier 1956 lecture, Hubbard
had described the situation like this:
"I was flown in from the South Pacific
as the first casualty to be
shipped
out of the South Pacific war back to the States. The war had
been started in Pearl Harbor, and
I'd been down in the South Pacific and
- a lot of things happened down there.
And the outfits down there were
pretty well wiped out, as you can
remember before the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). and Great
Britain started to fight and go back in.
All right.
"Most of the guys that were shipped out
of there who had been wounded,
were
shipped out by slow boat. And I didn't, I wasn't that
seriously
done in. I hooked a ride
on the Secretary of Navy's plane; produced the
right set of orders (I hope nobody ever
kept them on file) and got flown
home. And when I got home, they turned
me in to the hospital."[75]
It seems that an integration of both of
these accounts provides the most accurate picture. Let's
look at what Hubbard might have meant by "the first casualty"
and "a lot of things happened down there" and "I wasn't
that seriously done in".
<a
name=Combat2></a>
COMBAT
Did Hubbard
see combat at any time while in the South
Pacific?
Documentary evidence has recently been
found in the military records of the National Archives
(records which do not exist in Hubbard's service file), which
confirms that Hubbard was sent in to a combat area in
northern Australia in early March 1942 on a day that the
Japanese attacked the area. There is also circumstantial
evidence which suggests that Hubbard may have been
sent in to the combat heavy islands north of Australia during
the month of February 1942. Before we get into
the specifics, let's look at a bit of background.
By 1984, Gerry Armstrong
(a former Church of Scientology "Hubbard
archivist") and his lawyer were convinced that Hubbard
was lying about being flown home from the South Pacific in the
Spring of 1942. They had in their hands, from
Hubbard's official Naval service record, a clear implication
that Hubbard was sent home on a ship -- and this
contradicted Hubbard's multiple statements in later
years about being flown home. As such, Armstrong's
lawyer, Michael Flynn, used this evidence as part of his
argument to prove that Hubbard had lied about his
military record.[76] It was fairly
convincing at the time, as apparently no one had yet gone into
the passenger list records to discover that Hubbard had not
taken a ship, but in fact returned on a
plane. (The judge in this casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63) would ultimately brand
Hubbard "virtually a pathological liar" with regard to his
past, relying in part on this faulty evidence that
Hubbard "lied" about being flown home instead of taking a
ship.)
In this court casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63), in an effort to
bolster Hubbard's defense, retired Navy Lt. Commander
Thomas S. Moulton was called to the stand by the Church's
defense team. Moulton had been Hubbard's first officer, in
early 1943, on a ship that Hubbard was commanding for a few
months during World War II. Under oath, in
1984, Moulton recounted Hubbard telling him that he
(Hubbard; paraphrased):[77]
(a) was landed on the island
of Java from a Navy destroyer, possibly
the USS EDSALL;
(b) had been involved in machine gun
combat with the Japanese in the jungles of Java;
(c) was injured in various ways,
including injuring his eyes;
(d) had escaped the island on a life
raft (with another man) for multiple days, before
being picked up by an Allied ship out at
sea.
In 1984, Moulton was in his sixties and
was recalling events that he was told forty years
earlier. He said in the testimony that he was bad with dates.
He originally put the above events at around the time of Pearl
Harbor (7-Dec-1941), but he then clarified himself, and said
that the events took place during "the time they occupied
Surabaya" in "the Dutch East Indies". This would have been
late February to early March 1942. Here are some relevant
portions of the testimony where he clarifies the timeframe
(the "Q" is Armstrong's attorney, and the "A" is
Moulton):[78]
<a href="moulton-full-testimony.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 348px; WIDTH: 685px" border="0" hspace="0" src="moulton-testimony-dates1.png" width="683" height="506" ></a>
The date that the Japanese landed on the
northern shores of Java in the Dutch East
Indies (including Surabaya) was 1-Mar- 1942. They
had been conducting air raids on the island all through
February, and by March 9 the Dutch surrendered the island
to the Japanese.
In order to understand the above in better
context, let's review the geography and some known historical
events of this period. Note that "Surabaya" is spelled
as "Soerabaja" in the map below (on the island of
Java):
<a
href="http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/BBBO/maps/BBBO-p14.jpg"
><img border="0" hspace="0" alt="Southwest Pacific Region, 1942 (Source: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/BBBO/BBBO-3.html)" src="BBBO-p14.jpg" width="800" height="510" ></a>
Southwest Pacific
Region, 1942.[78a]
Brief Timeline
of the Southwest Pacific and Fall of Java after
Pearl Harbor[79]
-
The Southwest Pacific (also sometimes
called the "South Pacific") during the first few months
after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (7-Dec-1941 -
Mar-1942) was the center of heavy air, land and sea combat
between the Japanese and the Allies (the Americans, British,
Dutch and Australians).
The area currently known as Indonesia
(roughly making up Java, Sumatra, Borneo, Timor, parts of
New Guinea, and the islands in and around Celebes,
in the above map) were collectively called the Netherlands
East Indies (NEI) or Dutch East Indies during World War
II.
-
The Japanese had attacked the
Philippines on the same day that they bombed Pearl Harbor on
7-Dec-1941.
-
The USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Navy moved their base from the
Philippines to Java in December 1941, shortly after Pearl
Harbor.
-
Over the ensuing three months,
the Japanese methodically fought their way south from the
Philippines, occupying island after island, before
finally occupying Java in early March 1942.
-
Northern Australia, too, had been
under Japanese air attacks with one port town in particular,
Darwin, experiencing its own "Pearl Harbor of Australia"
on 19-Feb-1942 with hundreds of men killed and several
ships and planes destroyed. Several lesser air attacks
followed on Darwin and other northern Australian areas in
the subsequent weeks and
months.
-
On 1-Mar-1942, weeks after the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).
and Allies had sent in thousands of soldiers from
Australia to Java using Darwin as a jumping off point via
both air and sea, the Japanese landed on the northern shores
of Java for their final assault.
-
Many thousands of lives were
lost, planes destroyed, ships sunk (including the USS
EDSALL on
1-Mar-1942 off the south coast of
Java).
-
Within a few days (9-Mar-1942), Java
fell. The Dutch had surrendered the island to the
Japanese.
-
Nearly all of the Dutch, many of the
British and some of the Americans had stayed behind on
Java to fight; many became prisoners of
war.
-
On the orders of senior military
officials, however, most of the Americans, Australians and
British had evacuated Java and returned to
Australia during the final week of February and first few
days of March 1942, largely on planes, ships and
submarines.
-
Some had just arrived a week or
two earlier from Australia to help in the defense of
Java.</div></li></ul>
In other words, Moulton was telling the
court that Hubbard had told him that he (Hubbard) had
been involved in the latter stage of these events to one
degree or another, in late February or early March 1942.
Because very few documents existed
(or exist) in Hubbard's service records for this period,
and because Moulton got his dates wrong (before correcting
them), in 1984 it was fairly easy for Armstrong's attorney to
discredit Moulton's testimony by focusing on the "Pearl
Harbor" date instead of the "fall of Java" date. And
make it look like Hubbard had simply lied to
Moulton.
What's surprising however, is
that Moulton's corrected dates of the events got past
Miller and Atack. Clearly, Moulton had
been referring to February or March 1942, but in
their biographies of Hubbard, Miller and Atack made it appear
that Moulton was referring to 7-Dec-1942 ("Pearl
Harbor"). And thus they handily avoided discussing this
aspect of the testimony in any detail in their
books.
For Chris Owen, on the other hand, he
seemed to use whichever date suited his argument at the
time. When Owen wanted to make it look like Moulton
was saying that the events took place on the day of Pearl
Harbor, he said the following:[80]
<img style="HEIGHT: 74px; WIDTH: 842px" border="0" hspace="0" alt="Source: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/warhero/navalint.htm" src="owen-edsall2.jpg" width="1240" height="94" >
Or this...[81]
<img style="HEIGHT: 78px; WIDTH: 847px" border="0" hspace="0" alt="Source: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/warhero/crippled.htm" src="owen-on-moulton1.png" width="309" height="351" >
But when he felt forced to admit that
Moulton was talking about the Spring of 1942, Owen would
contradict himself by saying:[82]
<img style="HEIGHT: 29px; WIDTH: 841px" border="0" hspace="0" alt="Source: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/warhero/connection.htm" src="owen-on-moulton3.png" width="286" height="293" >
or this:[83]
<img style="HEIGHT: 20px; WIDTH: 609px" border="0" hspace="0" alt="Source: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/warhero/crippled.htm" src="owen-on-moulton2.png" width="309" height="351" >
In other words, Owen talked out of both
sides of his mouth. By and large, Owen ignored the
missing, conflicting or inexplicable records in Hubbard's
service file from the South Pacific period, and thereby
avoided discussing the possibility of Hubbard's seeing combat
or being injured there. When it came to the USS EDSALL,
Owen stated the following in a footnote:[84]
<img style="HEIGHT: 44px; WIDTH: 853px" border="0" hspace="0" alt="Source: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/warhero/navalint.htm" src="edsall-owen1.jpg" width="1212" height="49" >
In fact, the EDSALL was not only operating
out of Darwin, but it was also transporting officers, men
and supplies between Darwin and Java during January and
February 1942.[85] Owen then
closed the footnote by claiming the
following:
<img style="HEIGHT: 24px; WIDTH: 844px" border="0" hspace="0" alt="Source: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/warhero/navalint.htm" src="edsall-owen2.jpg" width="1212" height="27" >
It's an odd claim, considering on the very
same page, Owen had stated:[86]
<img style="HEIGHT: 53px; WIDTH: 834px" border="0" hspace="0" alt="Source: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/warhero/navalint.htm" src="owen-darwin1.png" width="515" height="95" ></p>
<p class=" sf_first_nav_item" style="DISPLAY: block"
align=left>Owen was unwilling to recognize
that this document from Johnson to Darwin may have in fact
been in relation to Hubbard's getting passage from Darwin to
Java. In fact, as we will discuss in more detail below,
USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Army Colonel Alexander L. P. Johnson was Hubbard's Army
commanding officer for several weeks while in Australia
(Hubbard was formally attached to the Army while there).
We will also discover that Hubbard was in fact sent to Darwin
on a day that the Japanese were bombing the airfield
there. He may have also been sent there earlier on his
way to Java, which is where this Johnson
document may apply. But we're getting ahead of
ourselves.
With regard to Moulton's testimony and his
correction of the dates, Lawrence Wright went the Miller and
Atack route. He claimed that Moulton was talking
about events which took place on 7-Dec-1941 (Pearl
Harbor), and not late February/early March 1942 (fall of
Java).[87] This was
especially disappointing, since Wright was purported to
be a careful researcher.
In any event, as mentioned earlier in
several places, much of the documentation for Hubbard's
time in the South Pacific is missing from his service
records. If we just rely on Hubbard's service records
alone, as mentioned, there is no Officer Fitness Report (as
there is with nearly all other periods in his
service record), and thus no indication of his duties, his
commanding officer or his performance. There are no
medical records. There are no travel
receipts. There are no records of weapons training or
experience, and no records of awards bestowed. And
the few documents and notations which do exist in his
service record, if not looked at carefully and if not
augmented by additional documentation, paint a much
more simplistic scenario where Hubbard arrived
in Australia, got into a quarrel with the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Naval
Attache, and who then tried to send Hubbard home on
a ship.[88]
That was the "simplistic scenario", at
least, until recently.
As shown above in the <a href="#Return2" >"Return by ship vs. plane"
section</a>, it can now be documented that Hubbard didn't in
fact return to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). on a ship (as his service record
implies), but returned on a plane in mid-March 1942, as he
had claimed.
Further, Hubbard was <a href="1942-03-USSNewOrleansWarDiary.htm" >documented</a>
as being the "Naval Observer", providing counter-espionage
information on 8-Mar-1942 to the captain of the <img
style="HEIGHT: 237px; WIDTH: 172px" border=0 hspace=0
alt="Source: http://www.historyforsale.com/productimages/jpeg/24181.jpg"
align=right src="HH-Good-New-Orleans.png" width=245 height=320
>USS NEW ORLEANS (Capt. H. H. Good
[right]), while the ship was moored in Brisbane,
Australia. If Hubbard were simply being sent back
to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). on a ship after a quarrel with the Naval Attache, it
seems unlikely that he would have been trusted
with counter-espionage details and disseminating
them to seasoned Navy captains. In other
words, the evidence seems to suggest that someone more
senior in the Navy intervened.
As it turns out, however, the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Naval
Attache's (L. D. Causey's) quarrel
with Hubbard seems to have been based more on a
brief meeting and office politics, than anything with too much
substance. When Hubbard had arrived in Brisbane in
mid-January 1942, he contacted the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Naval
Attache (who was based in Melbourne) and told him
that his orders were to go to the Philippines. By that
time however, the passage from Australia to the Philippines
had become quite treacherous due to Japanese advancement, so
it was unclear if Hubbard would be able to get as far north as
the Philippines. As a result, Hubbard needed to request
updated orders from the Navy command of the region (the
Commander of the Asiatic Fleet), which had recently moved
its headquarters from the Philippines to Java. With
Causey's blessing,[89] Hubbard formally
attached himself to the Army in Brisbane while awaiting orders
from Admiral Thomas Hart, the Navy's
regional Commander-in-Chief (CinC) of the Asiatic
fleet, based in Java.[90] (Hart was
the most senior Navy commander in the entire
region, the Navy equivalent of the Army's <img style="HEIGHT: 237px; WIDTH: 190px"
border=0 hspace=0
alt="Source: http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/011558A/"
align=left src="Alexander-LP-Johnson.png" width=800 height=510
>General MacArthur, who was the
regional senior Army commander
still stuck in the Philippines after the Japanese
incursion.)[91]
Once attached to the Army, Hubbard's
senior Army officer became USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Army Colonel Alexander L.
P. Johnson (left), the Commanding OfficerThe org is commanded by the Commanding Officer (SO orgs). (HCO PL 7 Mar 72) ''Abbr.'' CO of Base Section #3
(Brisbane; see map below).[92] Hubbard and
Johnson appear to have worked closely together for
several weeks,[93]
and Johnson would later describe Hubbard as "an intelligent, resourceful and
dependable officer" in the
above-mentioned 13-Feb-1942 letter to the Army
Commander of Base Section #1 (Darwin) who at that time was
Col. Frank LaRue.[94]
During January and February, the top
military commanders in Washington were receiving pleas from
MacArthur to send needed supplies, medicine, ammunition,
etc. to the Philippines by whatever means possible for
the desperate troops there.[95] As a result,
one of the missions given to the Army and Navy in Melbourne
and Brisbane, was to load up several ships with supplies,
etc., and surrepticiously send them from Australia to the
Philippines as fast as possible.[96] This was
a high priority project that Hubbard and Johnson became
involved in.[97]
As part of this project, some important
documents that had been sent to Melbourne from Brisbane went
missing in late January 1942 enroute to Melbourne. As a
result, Hubbard was ordered to fly to Melbourne from
Brisbane and bring copies of the documents with him. <img
border=0 hspace=15
alt="Based on image found at: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/engineers_v1_1947/australia_base_section_1947.jpg"
vspace=15 align=right src="basesections-1942.jpg" width=368
height=348>It was a weekend, and while
there, he also had meetings with some senior Army
officials and apparently met Causey for the first time.
In these meetings, Causey apparently didn't like the fact
that Hubbard had been attached to the
Army, and that Hubbard was assisting Johnson with various
functions (though
apparently, Causey had verbally
approved Hubbard's Army attachment when Hubbard
first arrived two weeks earlier). Additionally,
Causey openly insulted the work that the Army was doing in
Brisbane, and didn't seem to like the fact that Hubbard was
taking initiative in various ways.
We don't have the minutes or transcripts
of these meetings, and so most of this information is based
on a five-page report that Hubbard wrote immediately
afterward,[98]
followed by a memo from Causey.[99] As a result
of these meetings, Causey threatened to order Hubbard back to
the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).. Causey's threat to send Hubbard back to the
USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). no doubt didn't go over very well with Hubbard.
He had only been in Australia for two weeks
(and Melbourne for 2-3 days), and flew back to
Brisbane immediately. Likely at the request of
Johnson (whose own trip to Melbourne apparently
overlapped with Hubbard's trip),[100] Hubbard wrote a <a href="1942-02-03-Hubbard-report-to-Johnson.htm" >report</a> to
him (Johnson) dated 3-Feb-1942 detailing the events that
transpired in Melbourne. Hubbard also pointed out
that it was discovered that Causey had had the missing
documents in his office.
In all likelihood, the report was sent to
various parties. Causey likely either saw it, or at
least got wind of it. A few days later,
Causey wrote a <a href="causey-letter.htm" >memo</a>
describing Hubbard as "garrulous" (i.e. talking too
much) and attempted to follow through on his earlier
threat to send Hubbard back to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). on a ship (the
CHAUMONT), which was departing Brisbane on 13-Feb-1942.
Based on what we now know, senior Navy commanders in the
region appear to have intervened. According
to Hubbard's service record, he
received "secret orders" from a Vice Admiral, the
COMANZAC (the Commander of the Australia-New Zealand Area
Command) some time in February. These would
have taken precedence over Commander Causey's
orders. By 8-Mar-1942, Hubbard was holding
the senior position of "<a href="1942-03-USSNewOrleansWarDiary.htm" >Naval
Observer</a>", a position later
replaced by a Navy Commander,[101] a Lieutenant and
several other men, after Hubbard's departure to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). by air
in mid-March.
<img border="0" hspace="12"
alt="Source: http://www.brooklynvisualheritage.org/welcome-brooklyn"
vspace=12 align=left src="leary.jpg" width=142 height=177
>To provide additional background, during
the month of February 1942, the Navy commands in the
region were undergoing some changes and
re-organization. As mentioned above, when Hubbard
first arrived in Australia in mid-January, the CinC Asiatic
Fleet (Admiral Thomas Hart) was the senior commander of the
entire Southwest Pacific.[102] He was based in
Java. By early February, a new regional Navy command was
being established first out of New Zealand and then out of
Melbourne, Australia, called ANZAC (Australia-New Zealand
Area Command). Its first commander (the COMANZAC) was
Vice Admiral H. F. Leary (left).[103] Though both the
Asiatic Fleet and ANZAC existed simultaneously for a while (at
least operationally, while Java was still being defended by
the Allies through February and early March), the Asiatic
Fleet's command would eventually be handed off
to others (also based in Java) in mid-February, after
Hart was relieved of command.[104] Then, after the
fall of Java in early March, it would be absorbed into
ANZAC.[105] For all practical
purposes, however, the senior Navy command for Australia
and New Zealand, at least, fell under COMANZAC after
the first week of February 1942, as shown in the
following COMANZAC War Diary for the period:[106]
<a href="1942-COMANZACWarDiary.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 186px; WIDTH: 675px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-COMANZACWarDiary-clip.jpg" width="895" height="238" ></a>
In mid-January 1942, shortly
after Hubbard arrived in Australia, he reported in
to the CinC Asiatic Fleet, awaiting orders.[65a] Then, while
attached to the Army's Base Section #3 in Brisbane (under
Johnson), sometime in early- or mid-February Hubbard received
"secret orders" from the COMANZAC, as shown under
the "11th Endorsement" in this document attached to
Hubbard's Compliance Report for this period, in Hubbard's
service record:[107]
<a href="10th-12th-endorsements.htm" ><img
style="HEIGHT: 205px; WIDTH: 719px" border=0 hspace=0
align=middle src="10th-12th-endorsements.jpg" width=1009
height=308></a>
Though the above record for these orders
exists in Hubbard's service file, the orders themselves do
not. Nor have they been located in the military
records of the National Archives. So their contents
are still unknown. Nevertheless, we know that
Hubbard was later doing counter-espionage work as a more
senior "Naval Observer" (later replaced by a Navy Commander,
a Lieutenant and several men)[107a] and was then flown
home -- and so it seems likely that the Vice Admiral's
(COMANZAC's) orders to Hubbard may have been in relation to
assigning Hubbard additional duties of a broader and
more senior nature.[108]
The question is: was
Hubbard ordered to a combat zone at any time while in the
region? The answer is: yes. For the more
specific question of whether he was ordered to Java, and
engaged in combat and the other exploits that he
apparently described to Thomas Moulton a year later, the
answer at this time is: possibly. Let's first
examine the latter
Java question.
<img style="HEIGHT: 198px; WIDTH: 240px"
border=0 hspace=10
alt="Source: http://www.navsource.org/archives/06/images/129/0612904.jpg"
vspace=10 align=left src="edsall.jpg" width=332 height=306
>The USS EDSALL, a destroyer in
the Asiatic Fleet during World War II, was in
fact ferrying officers, men and supplies between various ports
of the Netherlands East Indies (including ports in Java) and
northern Australia, during the months of January and February
1942[109] (as were several other
ships and destroyers). If Hubbard had been landed in
Java from the EDSALL during this period (as Moulton
recalled Hubbard telling him), then this does fit with
Hubbard's known timeline while in the region.
Unfortunately, some of the EDSALL's final logs are
missing,[110] so at this time at
least, we do not know if Hubbard took passage on her during
February 1942.
Based on what is known about
Hubbard's timeline while in Australia and the known
timeline of the EDSALL, however, Hubbard
would likely have been first flown to Darwin in
mid-February, and then flown (or took passage on a ship) to
western Timor. From there, he
could have picked up the EDSALL (or possibly another
ship or destroyer, such as the USS ALDEN or the USS
PAUL JONES) for transport to Java, which were known to be
providing escort service and making deliveries between Timor
and Java in mid-February 1942.[111]
<a name="johnson-letter-to-darwin"
></a>In the above-mentioned letter from
Johnson to the Commander of the Base Force, Darwin (Col. Frank
LaRue), some relevant facts are worth noting. Let's
review:
<img style="HEIGHT: 48px; WIDTH: 799px"
border=0 hspace=0
alt="Source: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/warhero/navalint.htm"
align=middle src="owen-darwin2.jpg" width=1259 height=64
navalint.htm? warhero Cowen ~dst
www.cs.cmu.edu http: - Hero?? ?War the Ron>
Johnson is said to
be "recommending that an earlier request be granted" with
regard to Hubbard. This letter and the
"earlier request" may have been in relation to providing
Hubbard transport to Timor and/or Java. And these
may have all been in relation to Hubbard carrying out senior
Navy orders to go to Java, for an as-yet undetermined
reason. Here specifically is what Moulton recalled
Hubbard telling him:[112]
<a href="moulton-full-testimony.htm" ><img border="0" hspace="0" src="moulton-java-landing-jungle.jpg" width="666" height="97" ></a>
Some additional circumstantial evidence
that suggests that Hubbard may have gone to Java,
includes the fact that he was issued a machine gun at some
point while in Australia/South Pacific[113] and claimed in
mid-1942 to have gotten "recent experience with ...
.30 and .50 machineguns, also Thompsons and
Vickers" (the .50 Vickers were used
extensively as ship-mounted anti-aircraft guns in early
1942 off Australia)[114] while in the South
Pacific.[115]
<a href="1942-06-10-sea-duty-request.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 57px; WIDTH: 665px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-06-10-sea-duty-request-vickers-clip.jpg" width="1268" height="103" ></a>
Hubbard also apparently caught
malaria while in the region. He also damaged his eyes
somehow, and sprained or broke an ankle, and may have
also taken some small bits of shrapnel -- all of which we will
get into in the <a href="#Injured2" >"Injured" section</a>. As
mentioned above, it's noted that Hubbard referred to himself
as a "combat intelligence officer" on at least
two occasions in his service record (shortly after
returning from the South Pacific), and then a year later
(1943), a notation was made in his Navy medical log
that he had been "in combat area" in the early Spring of
1942:[116]
<a href="1943-07-15--med-malaria+combat.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 115px; WIDTH: 341px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1943-07-15--combat-area.jpg" width="394" height="136" ></a>
If he did in fact go to Java, he would
have likely had to have returned by late February, where he
appears to be recorded as having gotten a new or
repaired uniform[117] (which in
itself invites the question: whyThat basic outness found which will lead to a recovery of stats. (HCO PL 13 Oct 70 II) would Hubbard
have needed a new or repaired uniform? Had he damaged
his existing one somehow during a mission to Java, as
described in Moulton's testimony?)
Overall, not only would a trip by Hubbard
to and from Java during the last two weeks of February
1942 fit the known historical timeline, but it would also fit
his own known timeline while in that region. In fact,
there are records in the National Archives which show
that Navy officers were being sent to Java at this late
date (mid-February 1942), as this letter from an
Army General making flight arrangements for a USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Navy
officer on 16-Feb-1942 shows:[118]
<a href="1942-02-16-antrim-order.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 303px; WIDTH: 573px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-02-16-antrim-order.png" width="887" height="265" ></a>
Note that this letter was being sent
to the same individual (in Darwin) that the above <a href="#johnson-letter-to-darwin" >Johnson
letter</a> had been sent to, recommending that an
earlier request regarding Hubbard be
granted.
There were also quite a few verbal travel orders sending
officers and men to the Combat Zone during this
period, as this memo from the period confirms:[119]
<a href="1942-04-04-travorders.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 107px; WIDTH: 681px" border="0" hspace="0" src="VerbTravorders.jpg" width="681" height="102" ></a>
As a result, if there was a verbal
component in any orders sending Hubbard to Java,
tracking down evidence for this may be
difficult. Related documentation may yet
be found, but for now, definitive documentation which confirms
(or disproves) that Hubbard was
sent to Java during the month of February
1942 has not yet been located. The circumstantial
evidence certainly suggests that he may have, especially
during the last two weeks of February.
On the other
hand, definitive records have been located in the National
Archives (and are currently being studied), which do
place Hubbard directly in a combat area on a day
when the Japanese attacked the area. Specifically,
on 4-Mar-1942, the Japanese conducted an air raid on an
airfield in northern Australia, in the town
of Darwin.[120]
Per Army movement
records, Hubbard left Brisbane for Darwin on
that day,[121] possibly in the early
morning hours. The attack is known to have killed at
least one serviceman, caused unknown numbers of injuries,
destroyed several planes and lasted about one hour beginning
at around 1:30 PM.[122] A
review of these and related Army movement records is
currently underway, and they will eventually be posted
here, once they have been thoroughly studied.
For those with a serious interest, the records of Hubbard's
going to Darwin on 4-Mar-1942 can be found in Record
Group 495 "Records of Headquarters, United States Army
Forces, Western Pacific (World War II)" in National
Archives II in College Park, MD.
Hubbard's trip to Darwin would have been a
short one, as he is known to have been back in Brisbane by
8-Mar-1942 disseminating counter-intelligence details to Navy
officials as noted in the War Diary of the USS NEW ORLEANS of
that date (<a href="1942-03-USSNewOrleansWarDiary.htm" >here</a>).
Since all medical records for this
period are missing, it is unknown whether Hubbard was injured
in this attack. However, later medical records do show
that Hubbard was injured while in the South Pacific at
some point.
<p class=" sf_first_nav_item" style="DISPLAY: block"
align=left>
</strong></font><a name="Injured2"
></a>
</span></font>INJURED
Was Hubbard
ever injured during World War II?
At the end of the war,
Hubbard received 40% disability from the
Veteran's Administration (VA). Was any of it
related to war or combat injuries?
There is little doubt based on Hubbard's
service record that he injured his eyes at some point
while in the South Pacific. Earlier researchers, such as
Miller, Atack, Owen and Lawrence Wright, do not seem to
have been aware of the difference between
"conjunctivitis" and "actinic conjunctivitis".[123] [124]
[125] [126] For that reason, it's useful to
review the difference between the two:
-
"Conjunctivitis" - a bacterial/viral
based infection of the eye, also known as "pink eye",[127] and;
-
"Actinic conjunctivitis" - physical
damage to the eye caused by intense UV (ultraviolet)
radiation, such as that caused by an explosion,
unprotected staring at welder's sparks, sun reflection on
snow/water, etc.; sometimes called "eye burn" or
"photokeratitis".[128]
In Hubbard's casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63), he
was diagnosed with chronic "actinic
conjunctivitis"[129] which indicates
that the source of the UV was highly prolonged or severe,
such as being on a raft at sea (a highly reflective
surface) for several days or from an explosion, gun flash,
etc.[130] From the
records, the injury took place while Hubbard was in
the South Pacific.[131] In other words,
something must have "blinded" Hubbard while in the
region. In most cases, actinic conjunctivitis fades
<img border="0"
hspace=0
alt="Source: From the Oregon Journal, April 22, 1943: "
align=left src="Hubbard_and_moulton-label.jpg" width=218
height=237 on http: Hunts Ex-Portlander
1-Mar-2013).? Hubbard_and_moulton.jpg d3 d commons wikipedia
upload.wikimedia.org from (pulled
U-Boats?>away quickly, within a
day or two, if the source of the UV did not cause lasting
damage. If the source(s) were especially
prolonged, highly reflective or made worse by
multiple occurrences, then it could become long-term or
chronic,[132] indicating
that the underlying injury did not heal after
several weeks, months or years, as in Hubbard's
casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63).
The conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25) in contemporary usage
is often called "photokeratoconjunctivitis (PKC)" or
"photokeratitis" or "ultraviolet keratitis" and the
symptoms include high sensitivity to normal light,
inflammation of the eyes, watering, reddening, burning of the
eyes, and as a result, often headaches. In the
1940s, the degree to which UV could damage the eye was
not well understood; in later decades, animal and human
research helped to better explain it.[133] <img
style="HEIGHT: 173px; WIDTH: 138px" border=0 hspace=15
alt="Source: http://www.ronthepoet.org/poet/p77_0.jpg"
vspace=15 align=right src="p77_0.jpg" width=309 height=351
>
During the war, Hubbard resorted to
wearing tinted glasses (at the doctor's suggestion),[134] because often even in
dim light, Hubbard's eyes would redden, burn, water and he
would get headaches as a result. These facts
are documented in Hubbard's medical records,[135] and witnesses at
the time describe seeing Hubbard having this conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25).
Pictures of the period also show Hubbard wearing tinted
glasses (this page), and witnesses after the war mention
seeing Hubbard with the tinted glasses.[136]
When Thomas Moulton (Hubbard's first
officer during World War II) was asked about it under oath, in
1984, he recalled the following details which he
witnessed in 1942/1943 (about a year after Hubbard's return
from the South Pacific):[137]
<a href="moulton-full-testimony.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 426px; WIDTH: 693px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1984-moult-darkglasses.jpg" width="692" height="428" ></a>
In the same 1984 testimony, Moulton also
recalled Hubbard telling him that he, and another
man, were in a raft at sea for multiple days escaping
from Java, around the time of the fall of Java. In
the early 1970s, Paulette Cooper had also heard this
story about Hubbard having been in a raft and
having damaged his eyes at sea. Cooper
today doesn't recall from where she heard the story[137a] and didn't
provide a reference in her 1971 "The Scandal of
Scientology" book, but in the book she wrote:
"[Hubbard] was severely injured in the war (and in fact was in
a lifeboat for many days, badly injuring his body and his eyes
in the hot Pacific sun)."[137b]
It may have been this eye injury that
was being referred to when, in the Spring of 1942, the
sci-fi fanzine "SUNSPOTS", published the following
newsflash in their April/May issue:[138]
<a href="sunspots.htm" ><img border="0" hspace="0"
align=middle src="sunspots.jpg" width=243 height=132
></a>
The SUNSPOTS editors had
likely gotten this information from John W. Campbell,
Jr., the well-known science-fiction editor.
Campbell and Hubbard had become friends in the late
1930s,[139] and on 13-May-1942,
Campbell wrote a letter to Robert Heinlein mentioning that
Hubbard had returned to New York (where Campbell was
based). Campbell described Hubbard as "wounded" in the
letter to Heinlein.[140] It seems likely
that Hubbard and Campbell might have met up at some point,
when Hubbard went to New York in early
May 1942,[141] a few
weeks after his return from the South Pacific.
In Hubbard's Navy medical records around
this time (about a month and a half after he returned from the
South Pacific), it mentions the symptoms that Hubbard was
experiencing with his eyes, as well as some kind of
injury to his foot/ankle:[142]
<img border="0" hspace="0" align="middle"
src="1942-05-11-med-record-NY.png" width=0 height=0
><a href="1942-05-11-medreport.htm" ><img
style="HEIGHT: 359px; WIDTH: 310px" border=0 hspace=0
align=middle src="1942-05-11-med-record-NY.png" width=983
height=1316></a>
We don't have any medical records for
Hubbard for his time in the South Pacific, and so we don't
know exactly what caused the eye damage or how
severe the original injury was to
the ankle/foot. If he had been on a raft in the Timor Sea
for multiple days (as <a href="moulton-full-testimony.htm" >Moulton's
testimony</a> suggests),[143] then the eye injury may
have indeed been a result of extended "strong
sunlight" (which would be in alignment with
Hubbard's statement to the doctor
above). Another possibility is that
the damage caused by strong sunlight may have been
complicated or worsened by another eye injury. This
would certainly explain the severity and length of time that
Hubbard had the eye conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25) (through the whole war and
afterwards). A year after the above medical log,
Moulton seemed to remember (in court, 40 years later)
that Hubbard had told him in 1942/1943 that the eye
injury was a result of a gun flash:[144]
<a href="moulton-full-testimony.htm" ><img
style="HEIGHT: 235px; WIDTH: 673px" border=0 hspace=0
align=middle src="1943-moult-flashburn.jpg" width=673
height=235></a>
Aside from the possibility that Moulton
may have been mis-remembering the details, it may be that
Hubbard simply started piecing together the event(s) which may
have caused the conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25), a year after returning from the
South Pacific. The EDSALL (and other destroyers and
ships) were indeed fighting off Japanese air attacks in the
waters around Java during the period that Hubbard may have
been there,[145] and if he was aboard,
this would have been an opportunity for Hubbard to have been
near a gun flash. Or, if on 4-Mar-1942,
when Hubbard is known to have been in Darwin on the day
that the Japanese attacked, his eyes may have been damaged in
an explosion or gun-related incident there (see <a href="#Combat2" >"Combat" section</a>
above).
Since the eye conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25) did ultimately
become chronic,[146] it seems possible that
either (or both) the extended sunlight and/or
a gun-flash or other explosion of some kind may
have been the cause of what ultimately became a
long-term and chronic conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25).
The medical log in Hubbard's service
file, a year after his return from the South Pacific, while
mentioning the eye conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25) again, also states that Hubbard
had gotten malaria while in the region in early
1942:[147]
<a href="1943-07-15--med-malaria+combat.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 380px; WIDTH: 329px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1943-07-15--med-malaria.jpg" width="390" height="471" ></a>
It would have been highly unusual (and
very unlikely) for Hubbard to have gotten malaria if he
remained only in Brisbane or southern
Australia during his entire stay in the region, as Owen
and others have claimed. Malaria is a disease
carried and spread by mosquitos -- and the mosquitos like
to stay in warm, humid, tropical climates.[148] The
disease was a very serious problema problem is postulate-counter-postulate, terminal-counter-terminal, force-counter-force. It’s one thing versus another thing. You’ve got two forces or two ideas which are interlocked of comparable magnitude and the thing stops right there. All right, now with these two things one stuck against the other you get a sort of a timelessness, it floats in time. (SH Spec 82, 6111C21) 2 . a problem is a postulate-counter-postulate resulting in indecision. That is the first manifestation of problems, and the first consequence of a problem is indecision. (SH Spec 27, 6107C11) 3 . a multiple confusion. (SH Spec 26X, 6107C03) 4 . an intention counter-intention that worries the preclear. (HCOB 23 Feb 61) 5 . a problem is the conflict arising from two opposing intentions. A present time problem is one that exists in present time, in a real universe. (HCOB 3 Jul 59) 6 . something which is persisting, the as-is-ness of which cannot be attained easily. (PRO 16, 5408CM20) for the Army in the
tropical islands of the Southwest Pacific during the early
period of World War II, especially in areas such as
the Philippines, New Guinea and Java.[149] But it largely
stayed within the tropical regions.[150]
While it is possible
that Hubbard may have picked up malaria while
in Darwin (a tropical area in northern Australia) for the 1-3
days that he was there in early March 1942, a much
more likely setting for Hubbard to have picked up malaria
would have been spending several days and nights in the
jungles of Java, as Moulton recalled Hubbard describing
(see <a href="#Combat2" >"Combat" section</a> above and <a href="moulton-full-testimony.htm" >Moulton
testimony</a>).
To treat malaria, the Army was using
experimental dosages of quinine and atabrine in early 1942,
and they still had not fully understood how and where the
malaria virus remained in the body after treatment, with the
malarial symptoms (of catarrhal fever, chills, fatigue,
headaches) often recurring weeks, months or years later.
With the form of the malaria virus (P. vivax) that was
prevalent in the Asian jungles, it would
sometimes become very difficult -- if not impossible -- to
detect the virus with the tests available at the time (early
1940s).[151] The
virus would appear in the blood slides, then be treated,
then disappear in subsequent tests. Only to show up
again with the exact same tests many weeks or months later,
despite no opportunities
for re-infection.
Hubbard himself stated in
1954 that he had had malaria, probably referring
to this period during
the war:
"They speak very widely and rather wildly
that cinchona bark, known to us better as quinine, is a
specific [treatment] for malaria, and is a specific
[treatment] in the prevention of malaria; that atabrine is a
- is a specific [treatment] in the prevention of malaria.
And I've had malaria while full of both of those."[152]
While there are several notations in
Hubbard's later medical record that he had had malaria while
in the South Pacific (as mentioned
above), there are no medical records from the South
Pacific period to confirm it. Based on the running
nature of medical logs in most Navy service records, this
appears to be an indication that there are missing
medical records in Hubbard's Navy service records. This
seems especially noticable between the 24-Nov-1941
and 23-Mar-1942 entries while Hubbard was in the South
Pacific. For example, there are records of a
physical exam made on 8-Dec-1941 (just prior to Hubbard's
departure to the South Pacific), but the corresponding entries
in the running medical log (history) for the physical
exam are missing. Then, on Hubbard's return to the
USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). on 23-Mar-1942, the medical log was inexplicably
restarted on "Page 1". There are several other
examples of missing medical records as well.[153]
When Hubbard first returned to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). from
the South Pacific, he was hospitalized. In
the medical log, there are notations that
he had the primary symptoms of malaria ("CATARRHAL
FEVER, ACUTE") but there are no notations that he
was actually diagnosed with (or even tested
for) malaria by the doctor:[154]
<a href="1942-03-23-medreport.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 475px; WIDTH: 337px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1942-03-23--med-report.jpg" width="389" height="569" ></a>
So if he had been diagnosed with malaria,
and treated with quinine and atabrine, it would likely
have taken place in Australia (though it is also possible
that the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). doctor simply didn't notate it in the
log). To support this, years later, Hubbard
made the following observation about this
period:
"they simply reported to Washington, DC
that I was in good conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25) - I was, by the way, walking
with a cane. 'I was in good conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25).' I couldn't see. I had dark
glasses on, but I, you know, I was doing all right in a kind
of a dumb sort of way..."[155]
So it seems possible that the above
medical log may not have been very
complete. The above 23-Mar-1942 log did
mention the "conjunctivae injected" and "head aches"
(likely in relation to Hubbard's actinic conjunctivitis), but
perhaps when Hubbard tried to complain
about other conditions/injuries ("general body pains and
aches"), the doctor saw this as "somewhat preoccupied
with himself" and may have simply disregarded them, thinking
that all the symptoms were related to the
catarrhal fever.
In any event, one of the side-effects of
quinine and atabrine -- especially in "experimental" doses as
were being provided in early 1942[156] -- is gastro-intestinal
difficulties.[157] And in rare
cases, some people develop ulcers -- especially from
quinine.[158] Whether as a
coincidence, or as a direct result, about a year after
returning from the South Pacific, Hubbard had developed a
duodenal ulcer, and was hospitalized.[159]
The above conditions -- eye damage,
catarrhal fevers, general body aches, pain in feet, ulcer --
continued to plague Hubbard throughout the war. In
1944, Heinlein noticed that Hubbard was having a hard time
walking, when they (and a group of other science fiction
luminaries, including Campbell) were working on a special
"Japanese kamakazi problema problem is postulate-counter-postulate, terminal-counter-terminal, force-counter-force. It’s one thing versus another thing. You’ve got two forces or two ideas which are interlocked of comparable magnitude and the thing stops right there. All right, now with these two things one stuck against the other you get a sort of a timelessness, it floats in time. (SH Spec 82, 6111C21) 2 . a problem is a postulate-counter-postulate resulting in indecision. That is the first manifestation of problems, and the first consequence of a problem is indecision. (SH Spec 27, 6107C11) 3 . a multiple confusion. (SH Spec 26X, 6107C03) 4 . an intention counter-intention that worries the preclear. (HCOB 23 Feb 61) 5 . a problem is the conflict arising from two opposing intentions. A present time problem is one that exists in present time, in a real universe. (HCOB 3 Jul 59) 6 . something which is persisting, the as-is-ness of which cannot be attained easily. (PRO 16, 5408CM20)" project for the Chief of Naval
Operations on the east coast.[160] Hubbard would
spend weekends at the Heinleins' apartment in Philadelphia
with the group (Hubbard was attending the Navy's
"School of Military Government" at Princeton University
in New Jersey during the weekdays, and would take the train to
Philadelphia on weekends), and Heinlein's biographer says
Heinlein "was fascinated by Hubbard's larger-than-life quality
-- and by the number of wounds he had already taken in his
country's service".[161]
In addition to the eye injury (tinted
glasses), it must have been apparent that Hubbard damaged his
feet, because Heinlein felt guilty making him walk to a
friend's nearby apartment to sleep, instead of offering him
something closer by.[162] Medical records
also show that an infected bone in Hubbard's hip (possibly
shrapnel related) was apparently flaring up around this time,
due to the cold climate of the northeast.[163] At the end of the
war, Hubbard also stayed at Heinlein's house for a month in
Hollywood, and Heinlein would later refer to Hubbard as a
"wounded veteran" in notes/letters of the time.[164] These were of
course all firsthand descriptions, having spent several
weeks living with Hubbard.
From looking over Hubbard's Navy medical
and service records, however, it appears likely that these
early injuries in the South Pacific just festered for Hubbard,
and never fully healed. There is
some firsthand evidence that Hubbard may have taken some
small bits of shrapnel while in the South Pacific, in his
torso and hip. In addition to the above-mentioned
"bone infection in his hip" in his medical records, witnesses
also describe Hubbard taking off his shirt during a boisterous
conversation around a kitchen table, to show off
"scars on his chest", in late 1945 or early 1946.[165] Another
eye-witness account mentions seeing a small piece of shrapnel
falling out from under Hubbard's shirt in 1954.[166]
With regard to Hubbard's eyes, it was not
just the chronic actinic conjunctivitis that he was contending
with -- it was also his overall eyesight. This had
deteriorated substantially over the course of the
war. Though Hubbard was hospitalized
primarily for the duodenal ulcer for almost a
year in 1945 -- it had flared up again in the
Spring of that year -- his medical records at the end of the year
(6-Dec-1945) when he was separating from
the Navy also indicate the following:[167]
<a href="1945-phys-exam.htm" ><img
style="HEIGHT: 72px; WIDTH: 739px" border=0 hspace=0
align=middle src="1945-12-06 - medexam.jpg" width=976
height=91></a>
Just before Hubbard entered active
service, the same medical summary (22-Sep-1941)
looked like this:[168]
<a href="1941-11-24--physical-exam.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 80px; WIDTH: 728px" border="0" hspace="0" src="1941-09-22--physical-summary-clip.jpg" width="729" height="85" ></a>
When Hubbard moved out of Heinlein's house
in Hollywood, CA in late November 1945, and moved into
Jack Parson's Pasadena, CA house in December 1945 (after
separating from his wife), he was described
as wearing dark glasses and using a cane to walk.[169]
Between the moves, Hubbard returned
to San Francisco for separation from the Navy. In the
medical log of 28-Nov-1945, it indicates that the doctors (and
likely Hubbard himself) were trying to understand his
maladies:[170a]
<a href="1945-aug-dec-med-notes.htm" ><img border="0" hspace="0" src="1945-Aug-Dec-medical-report-clip.jpg" width="358" height="240" ></a>
Hubbard was also described by one
Veteran's Administration (VA) doctor later in 1946 as
walking "with a hobble like gait" among other
descriptions:[170b]
<a href="1946-09-19-VA-phys-exam.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 149px; WIDTH: 555px" border="0" hspace="0" src="VAhobblelikegait.jpg" width="500" height="117" ></a>
Overall, Hubbard's physical conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25) at
the end of the war appears to have been intermittent --
good some days, bad others. Some of Hubbard's critics --
despite the above evidence in the records -- concluded
that Hubbard must have been lying about his
postA position from which a terminal operates in an org, where one knows that somebody is at. (FO 2200)-war maladies. To them, Hubbard's eye
conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25) was just "pink eye" and he was faking the
rest of his physical conditions -- and so, to
them, he was trying to (unfairly) get more VA
disability than he was due. The
problema problem is postulate-counter-postulate, terminal-counter-terminal, force-counter-force. It’s one thing versus another thing. You’ve got two forces or two ideas which are interlocked of comparable magnitude and the thing stops right there. All right, now with these two things one stuck against the other you get a sort of a timelessness, it floats in time. (SH Spec 82, 6111C21) 2 . a problem is a postulate-counter-postulate resulting in indecision. That is the first manifestation of problems, and the first consequence of a problem is indecision. (SH Spec 27, 6107C11) 3 . a multiple confusion. (SH Spec 26X, 6107C03) 4 . an intention counter-intention that worries the preclear. (HCOB 23 Feb 61) 5 . a problem is the conflict arising from two opposing intentions. A present time problem is one that exists in present time, in a real universe. (HCOB 3 Jul 59) 6 . something which is persisting, the as-is-ness of which cannot be attained easily. (PRO 16, 5408CM20) of course is that there are medical
logs, pictures and witnesses throughout Hubbard's war years,
which show that he returned from the South Pacific with
damaged eyes and what appear to be other physical injuries and
disease, which never seemed to properly heal.
In one casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63), Hubbard was remarking in a
lecture in 1951[171] how he was surprised
that a burst of adrenaline during a dangerous
situation in mid-1945 allowed him to overcome his weakened
physical conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25), and engage (i.e. fight off)
some drunk sailors outside a hotel in Los
Angeles. The critics -- ignoring the medical
records, the eye-witnesses, the pictures and even the
lecture's context -- saw it as evidence that he was
faking it.[172][173]
In another casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63), some documents called
"The Affirmations"[174] have been used by
Hubbard's critics to show that, in Hubbard's own secret
thoughts, he was faking his conditions. The
documents in fact show just the opposite. What appear to
be Hubbard's private notes during experimental
self-hypnosis (undated, but likely from early or mid-1946),
they actually show that Hubbard was trying to cure the
problems with his eyes, his feet, his hip, and his stomach,
using "will power" and positive suggestion.[175] These documents (if one takes them
at face value -- the originals have never been produced)[176] also show
that Hubbard thought that he still had
malaria after the war (which was called "recurrent
malaria" at the time, and was a very common and serious
problema problem is postulate-counter-postulate, terminal-counter-terminal, force-counter-force. It’s one thing versus another thing. You’ve got two forces or two ideas which are interlocked of comparable magnitude and the thing stops right there. All right, now with these two things one stuck against the other you get a sort of a timelessness, it floats in time. (SH Spec 82, 6111C21) 2 . a problem is a postulate-counter-postulate resulting in indecision. That is the first manifestation of problems, and the first consequence of a problem is indecision. (SH Spec 27, 6107C11) 3 . a multiple confusion. (SH Spec 26X, 6107C03) 4 . an intention counter-intention that worries the preclear. (HCOB 23 Feb 61) 5 . a problem is the conflict arising from two opposing intentions. A present time problem is one that exists in present time, in a real universe. (HCOB 3 Jul 59) 6 . something which is persisting, the as-is-ness of which cannot be attained easily. (PRO 16, 5408CM20) among veterans, due to the formative understanding by
scientists of the disease, tests and treatment during
this period).[177]
Hubbard also refers to himself
as a "cripple" in these private papers, which would be
unlikely if he was faking it
all.
Ultimately, Hubbard's Navy medical records
and then the VA examinations were the deciding
factors. The VA were the final authority as to
whether Hubbard's physical conditions were real or
not, and which of his injuries/conditions were
service-connected and thus to be covered by VA
disability. After several examinations of
Hubbard -- taking x-rays, medical tests, and using other
measuring devices (calipers) -- they ultimately concluded that
he was deserving of<a href="1948-va-benefits.htm" > 40%
disability</a>, for service-connected injuries and
conditions. A quarter of the disability was allocated for
the eye injury/conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25). It specifically
excluded his deteriorating eyesight. A quarter was for
the ulcer (recurrent malaria was not covered). And the
remaining half was for arthritis in the ankles, hip and spine,
and bursitis in the shoulder.[178] Today, doctors
generally agree that arthritis and bursitis are
often caused by earlier traumatic injury.[179] As such, it
seems likely that the early injuries that Hubbard appears to
have gotten in the South Pacific are the causes for the later
arthritis and bursitis conditions.
Descriptions
in later years
Hubbard would later describe this postA position from which a terminal operates in an org, where one knows that somebody is at. (FO 2200)-war
period as feeling like he "faced an almost
nonexistent future".[180] In addition to
his physical conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25), as mentioned earlier his marriage was
also falling apart.[181]
In 1950, to the national media, Hubbard
downplayed his war injuries and maladies, not mentioning
the cane which he sometimes used to walk (nor
the dark glasses for the eye injury) and simply
described his postA position from which a terminal operates in an org, where one knows that somebody is at. (FO 2200)-war conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25) as: "ulcers,
conjunctivitis, deteriorating eyesight, bursitis and something
wrong with my feet".[182] In 1965,
while reminiscing about his postA position from which a terminal operates in an org, where one knows that somebody is at. (FO 2200)-war life in his philosophical
essay "My Philosophy", he would describe his conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25) as
"blinded with injured optic nerves, and lame<img
style="HEIGHT: 264px; WIDTH: 306px" border=0 hspace=10
alt="Source: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/warhero/crippled.htm"
vspace=10 align=right src="wis-pic.jpg" width=341 height=277
> with physical injuries to hip and
back".[183] The Church of
Scientology would later publish this postA position from which a terminal operates in an org, where one knows that somebody is at. (FO 2200)-war
biographical illustration (right) in their "What is
Scientology?" book, which depicts Hubbard seated
with his back to us, holding a cane. A <a
href="http://web.archive.org/web/20000306083647/http://scientology.org/wis/wiseng/wis1-3/wis3_1s.htm"
>neighboring illustration</a> in the
same book shows Hubbard with a cane and also wearing
tinted glasses.[184] Based on
the known medical records and other evidence, these
illustrations are probably fairly accurate
depictions of Hubbard's physical conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25) at the end of the
war.
The Strawman
Argument
Surprisingly, some critics have
veered off the truth, and built up "strawmen
arguments" in their take-down of Hubbard's war
years. One very notable casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63) is in relation to the
picture on the right. In attempting to show that
Scientology (and Hubbard) were exaggerating Hubbard's
degree of being "crippled and blinded" after the
war, Owen claims at his website that
this illustration is depicting the following:[185]
<img style="HEIGHT: 61px; WIDTH: 388px"
border=0 hspace=0
alt="Source: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/warhero/crippled.htm"
align=left src="owen-on-wis-pic.jpg" width=515 height=77
>
<img style="HEIGHT: 400px; WIDTH: 317px"
border=0 hspace=0 align=left src="WIS-pic-w-notes.jpg"
width=365 height=450>The
problema problem is postulate-counter-postulate, terminal-counter-terminal, force-counter-force. It’s one thing versus another thing. You’ve got two forces or two ideas which are interlocked of comparable magnitude and the thing stops right there. All right, now with these two things one stuck against the other you get a sort of a timelessness, it floats in time. (SH Spec 82, 6111C21) 2 . a problem is a postulate-counter-postulate resulting in indecision. That is the first manifestation of problems, and the first consequence of a problem is indecision. (SH Spec 27, 6107C11) 3 . a multiple confusion. (SH Spec 26X, 6107C03) 4 . an intention counter-intention that worries the preclear. (HCOB 23 Feb 61) 5 . a problem is the conflict arising from two opposing intentions. A present time problem is one that exists in present time, in a real universe. (HCOB 3 Jul 59) 6 . something which is persisting, the as-is-ness of which cannot be attained easily. (PRO 16, 5408CM20) of course is that's not what the illustration is
depicting.
As mentioned above, Hubbard is in
fact being shown here as one of the "Navy colleagues", seated,
with his back to us, holding a cane. The soldier with
the bandage over his eyes and hooked up to an intravenous drip
is not Hubbard. As mentioned, a
neighboring illustration in the same book shows Hubbard
in the same seated position, still using a cane but also
wearing tinted glasses. The neighboring text in the
book provides the context and
description.</p>
<p>Based on the medical records,
these illustrations actually depict, fairly
accurately, what Hubbard's physical conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25) was probably
like at the end of World War II.
</strong></font></font><a
name=Separation2></a>
NOTICE OF
SEPARATION
What does a
fair analysis of the dueling "Notice of Separation from the
U.S. Naval Service" documents reveal?
In his 2011 New Yorker article, repeated
again in "Going Clear3. a Clear is not an all-knowing being. A Clear is somebody who has lost the mass, energy, space and time connected with the thing called mind . ( SH Spec 80, 6609C08) ...more", author Lawrence Wright describes his
research into the two "Notice of Separation from the U.S.
Naval Service" documents of L. Ron Hubbard: one which came
from the Church of Scientology and one which originally came
from the Navy. In both cases, they were presented to him as
the official Separation Documents of L. Ron Hubbard from the
Navy after World War II.[186][187]
Per Wright, they both had important
differences. Most notably, the church one indicated that
Hubbard had been awarded a "Purple Heart (palm)" - which
ostensibly implied that Hubbard was wounded in action twice,
Wright said - and the other showed no Purple Heart of any
kind. Wright said that he and his colleagues dug through
Hubbard's Navy service records from the National Personnel
Records Center (NPRC), talked to various experts, and decided:
the church document is fake. He provided a page on the New
Yorker website,[188] which listed out and
highlighted the claimed flaws of the Church document. And he
provided a copy of the Navy version of the document on the
same website, but didn't mention it having any flaws or
questions of authenticity.
The truth of the matter is, when one holds
the two Naval Separation documents side-by-side, and carefully
goes through each of their respective boxes (with
a decent understanding of Hubbard's service record in
mind3. a network of communications and pictures, energies and masses, which are brought into being by the activities of the thetan versus the physical universe or other thetans. The mind is a communication and control system between the thetan and his environment. (FOT, p. 56)...MORE), one discovers the following fact: they both are inaccurate and have
flaws. And they both have questions of authenticity.
Wright didn't mention the following facts with regard to the
Navy version of the Separation document in his article or
book:
-
Incorrect Entry
Date. The Navy version inaccurately claims
that Hubbard entered active service on 24-Nov-1941. The
Church version accurately shows an entry date of
22-Sep-1941.
-
Incomplete Training
List. The Navy version inaccurately
only lists one of Hubbard's Navy schools attended
(Submarine Chaser Training Center (SCTC), Miami, Florida).
The Church version accurately lists four:
- Office
of Naval Intelligence (ONI), New York City.
-
Submarine Chaser Training Center (SCTC), Miami, Florida.
- Combat
Information Center (CIC), Treasure Island, California.
-
Military Government, Princeton, New Jersey.
-
No Discharge Payment
Amount. The Navy version doesn't provide the
amount of payment upon discharge. The Church version does.
-
Mystery "Expert Rifle
& Pistol" Award. No records exist
anywhere in Hubbard's service file which explain where, when
or how Hubbard would have earned this (though it may have
been among the now-missing documents of the South Pacific
period).[189]</font> </div>
-
No
Fingerprint. The Navy version does not have a
fingerprint (which even carbon copies were supposed to
have). The Church version does. </ol>
<a href="nav-sep-with-comments.htm" >Navy version</a>
<a href="cos-sep-with-comments.htm" >Church
version</a>
(Click <a href="nav-sep-with-comments.htm" >HERE</a> for version
with comments; <a href="nprc-sep.htm" >HERE</a> for original
copy)
(Click <a href="cos-sep-with-comments.htm" >HERE</a> for version
with comments; <a href="cos-sep.htm" >HERE</a> for original
copy)
<img style="HEIGHT: 509px; WIDTH: 437px"
border=0 hspace=0 align=left src="sep-doc-navy-w-numbs.jpg"
width=864 height=1125><img
style="HEIGHT: 490px; WIDTH: 391px" border=0 hspace=0
align=right src="sep-doc-cos-w-reds.jpg" width=864 height=1125
>
It was almost as though the person who
compiled the Navy version didn't have Hubbard's complete
service records in front of them; and possibly not even
Hubbard himself, as there is no fingerprint.
Wright then also provided several points
in the <a
href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/02/l-ron-hubbard-leaves-the-navy.html"
>New Yorker website</a> which he proposed
was further evidence that he felt made the Church version of
the Notice of Separation document suspicious.[190] The following are
Wright's specific
statements. The followup responses in this color are the
author's:
Wright:
"On the church document, the type is larger and in a
different font than is typically seen on Notices of
Separation from the end of the Second World War [according
to NPRC archivists]."
-
When a brief research
was conducted of a small sampling of Navy Separation
documents from the end of World War II, several were found
which used the same type size and font as the one used by
the Church's document. (click image to see
samples)
<a href="sep-font.htm" ><img border="0" hspace="0" src="sep-font-BRANDEL-clip.jpg" width="503" height="82" ></a>
Wright:
"Official military documents typically did not have type
spilling outside the space provided, as it does here [in the
Church document] and in the list of medals
below."
-
Again, several Separation
documents from the end of World War II were easily found
which show the type spilling over the sides of the space
provided. (click image to see
samples)
<a href="sep-edge.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 96px; WIDTH: 595px" border="0" hspace="0" src="sep-edge-HOLT-clip.jpg" width="637" height="112" ></a>
Wright:
"Job descriptions should not - and typically do not - appear
on a Notice of Separation, according to the archivists. On
the document in Hubbard's National Archives file, the
information in this box is limited to the vessels and
stations on which Hubbard served. The church document,
however, includes Hubbard's job titles: 'C.O., (temp.)' and
'(Acting Exec).'"
-
It may be
true that they "should not - and typically do not", but
once again, multiple examples were easily found on
other Separation documents of other veterans
which include the job descriptions in this
box. (click image to see
samples)
<a href="sep-title.htm" ><img border="0" hspace="0" src="sep-title-CARPENTER-clip.jpg" width="600" height="60" ></a>
Wright: "The U.S.S. Mist was a
civilian vessel that was commissioned by the Navy and dubbed
U.S.S. YP-422 -- the name that appears in the document from
the National Archives."
-
Hubbard's Navy service records (from
the National Archives) refer to the ship as the "Mist" as
well:
<a href="mist-fitness-report.htm" ><img style="HEIGHT: 64px; WIDTH: 601px" border="0" hspace="0" src="mist-fitness-report-clip.jpg" width="736" height="72" ></a>
Wright: "The commanding officer
who signed this document was 'Howard D. Thompson, Lt. Cmdr.'
The Notice of Separation at the National Archives is signed
by J. C. Rhodes, the same officer who signed Hubbard's
detachment paperwork (p. 3). Hubbard's National Archives
file contains a letter, from 2000, to a researcher who had
written for more information about Thompson. The letter says
that 'there was no Howard D. Thompson listed' in records of
commissioned naval officers at the
time."
-
It can be
confirmed that there was no "Howard D. Thompson, Lt. Cmdr,
USNR" in the records of commissioned Naval Reserve
officers in 1944 or 1945.
-
There was
however a "Howard T. Thompson", a "Howard A. Thompson",
and "Howard H.", "Howard O.", "Howard E." and "Howard J."
Thompsons. Since documents in the 1940s were often rapidly
typed by secretaries, mistakenly hearing "D" instead of
"T" in a dictation, or hitting the "D" key (near the "A"
key on a typewriter) seems to fall within the realm of
possibility.
-
At least
one of the above Thompsons is known to have been based in
San Francisco (the location where Hubbard was separated
from the Navy).
-
As
suspicious as this signatory is, it seems premature
to conclude that the document is a fake without
having gone through the necessary steps to ensure that a
different "Howard Thompson" did not sign
it.
Wright: "The document provided
by the Church of Scientology says that Hubbard received a
'Purple Heart (palm)', which would indicate that he was
wounded in action on two separate occasions while in the
Navy. The document in the National Archives lists only four
service medals (not including a Purple Heart) and Hubbard's
military records do not mention any battle wounds. Moreover,
if someone was wounded in action more than once, the Navy
recognized subsequent wounds with gold and silver stars, not
a palm, according to archivists and to John E. Bircher, the
spokesman for the Military Order of the Purple
Heart."
-
Hubbard's records also don't make
mention of where Hubbard might have gotten the "Expert
Rifle & Pistol" award, yet the Navy version claims
Hubbard received it.
-
Further, there are several issues
which Wright does not seem to be aware of with regard to
the Purple Heart and Hubbard's service:
-
During the early
months of World War II, the Navy did not give out Purple
Hearts at all, only the Army did.[191]
-
The Army DID use "leaf clusters" (or
perhaps "palm" on some Separation documents) to
indicate a second Purple Heart award.[192]
-
Hubbard was in fact formally
attached to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Army in Australia, during the
first several weeks of his service in the South
Pacific after Pearl Harbor (see <a href="#Combat2" >"Combat"
section</a>).
-
It turns out that the most likely
period in which Hubbard would have seen action and
was injured was during this period
in Australia/South Pacific (see <a href="#Combat2" >"Combat"
section</a>).
Now true enough, the <a href="cos-sep-with-comments.htm" >Church version</a>
has its own inaccuracies and anomalies -- for example, it
shows Hubbard as having a four year degree, when in fact he
barely finished two years of college. And it also lists other
medals for which there is no corresponding record in Hubbard's
Navy file (with the undocumented "Expert Rifle &
Pistol" award being a common discrepancy between both
versions). And the Church version has the
suspicious signatory of "Howard D. Thompson".
Ultimately, however, both versions have
inaccuracies. And the Navy version, in particular,
has questions of completeness. Therefore, neither
version can be relied upon in any meaningful way. This
is especially true if we are to use the Navy
version for a complete and accurate list of any awards
that Hubbard may have received while in the South Pacific
(for which a great deal of documentation is missing - see
<a href="#Gaps2" >"Gaps" section</a>
above). In essence, the "Notice of Separation"
issue is essentially a red
herring argument, drawing attention away from the
real issue of whether Hubbard saw combat, was injured and/or
received a Purple Heart.
It seems, if we are to approach
this with balance, that a "merged
version" of the two documents would
provide the most accurate and complete summary of
Hubbard's World War II service. As to whether a
Purple Heart would be included on that "merged version",
arguably more documentation would be needed to do so.
Hubbard certainly was in a position to have seen combat (see
<a href="#Combat2" >"Combat" section</a> above); and he
did injure his eyes somehow (see <a href="#Injured2" >"Injured"
section</a> above) and apparently other parts of his body; he
may have also taken small pieces of shrapnel. The question of
Hubbard's possibly earning the Purple Heart is looked at more
closely in the <a href="#PurpleHeart2" >Purple Heart section</a>
below.
<a name="ServiceRecords2"
><a name="ServiceRecords"
></a>
SOUTH PACIFIC
RECORDS
What happened
to Hubbard's service records for the period that he was in the
South Pacific?
As described in the <a href="#Gaps2" >"Gaps" section</a>
above, there is a significant gap in Hubbard's service record
covering his time in the South Pacific in the months after
Pearl Harbor. Several theories have sprung up over the
years as to the fate of Hubbard's service records
while he was in the South Pacific. In the past,
Hubbard's critics have generally contended that Hubbard's
existing service records were sufficient to explain it
all: that Hubbard was never involved in
counter-intelligence activities, was
never near combat, never left southern Australia
(Brisbane/Melbourne), was never injured, and he simply
returned home on a ship (not a plane) shortly after
he arrived.
We now know, based on the above, that
all of these conclusions are false. <a href="hubbard-nprc-jacket.htm" ><img
style="HEIGHT: 224px; WIDTH: 427px" border=0 hspace=12
vspace=12 align=left src="hubbard-nprc-jacket-clip.jpg"
width=660 height=387></a>
There are records of Hubbard's <a href="1942-03-USSNewOrleansWarDiary.htm" >counter-intelligence
activities</a>, records that he was in a <a href="#Combat2" >combat zone</a>, medical records
of <a href="#Injured2" >injury</a>, and evidence that he was
<a href="#Return2" >flown home</a>. All of this
evidence also tends to support Hubbard's statements in
his service record shortly after returning from the South
Pacific, that he was a "combat intelligence officer" for
at least part of the time while he was in the South
Pacific.
Hubbard military researcher, the
late <a href="prouty-affidavit.htm" >L. Fletcher Prouty</a>,
seemed to believe in 1985 that the Navy was holding out on
releasing the rest of Hubbard's service files, believing
that there was a "second record" which would fill in all the
gaps. While documents like the "Promotion History" card
seems to have surfaced in the last ten years or so (in
Hubbard's service record), there doesn't seem to have
been a full "second record" that has ever surfaced.
While it would certainly be helpful if a
"second record" would surface as to Hubbard's activities
while in the South Pacific, the reality is: many veterans' service records
have gaps. Missing records, especially from World War
II, just come with the territory. It is
common. There has been, in fact, a very
large problema problem is postulate-counter-postulate, terminal-counter-terminal, force-counter-force. It’s one thing versus another thing. You’ve got two forces or two ideas which are interlocked of comparable magnitude and the thing stops right there. All right, now with these two things one stuck against the other you get a sort of a timelessness, it floats in time. (SH Spec 82, 6111C21) 2 . a problem is a postulate-counter-postulate resulting in indecision. That is the first manifestation of problems, and the first consequence of a problem is indecision. (SH Spec 27, 6107C11) 3 . a multiple confusion. (SH Spec 26X, 6107C03) 4 . an intention counter-intention that worries the preclear. (HCOB 23 Feb 61) 5 . a problem is the conflict arising from two opposing intentions. A present time problem is one that exists in present time, in a real universe. (HCOB 3 Jul 59) 6 . something which is persisting, the as-is-ness of which cannot be attained easily. (PRO 16, 5408CM20) over the years with regard to evidence
for "missing records" among Army veterans, when it comes
to VA benefits, recognition and awards such as the Purple
Heart.[193]
With that said, there is also no question
that Hubbard was an intelligence officer during the period for
which the largest gap exists in his record. And there is
also no question that the bulk of the
discrepancies were/are centered around that
period. Some of these discrepancies are now
starting to get cleared up, as (hopefully) shown in these
pages. His flight home from the South Pacific, for
example, may have been due to intelligence
activities, and may have also been ordered verbally
leaving behind very few records.
One theory, as to the fate of some of
Hubbard's service records for the period that he was in the
South Pacific, is that they were lost in the 1973 National
Archives fire which destroyed many millions of veterans'
records. Specifically, on 12-Jul-1973, a fire destroyed 16-18
million Army and Air Force veteran's service records in the
National Personnel Records Center <img border="0" hspace="10"
alt="Source: http://blogs.archives.gov/aotus/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/nara-logo.jpg"
vspace=10 align=right src="natl-acrhives-logo.jpg" width=200
height=200>of the National Archives in St.
Louis, MOAbbreviation for 1. medical officer, 2. mission order. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976)., including veterans' records from World War II.[194] While Hubbard was never
actually a member of the Army, he was formally attached to the
Army while in Australia. As such, there may have been a
personnel file created for him separate from his normal Navy
file. Normally, disparate files such as these would have all
been collected up over the years, and eventually incorporated
into one common "veterans service file".[195] If an Army file had been created for Hubbard, but
had not yet made its way to his main Navy file, then it's
possible that it could have been lost in the 1973 fire of
Army records.
Fortunately, a World War II veteran's
service record is not the only record of a veteran's
activities while in the service. This is especially true
for officers (such as
Hubbard), who often are specifically named in
correspondence, movement records, rosters, etc. There
are millions and millions of military records in the National
Archives, which often provide additional evidence of
various activities of officers (and even in some cases
"enlisted men") outside their normal service
record. This has already been used to fill in some
of the gaps for Hubbard's World War II service above. It
is hoped that future research into these records, will
continue to do so.
<p>
<a name="PurpleHeart"
><a name="PurpleHeart2"
><a name="PurpleHeart"
></a>
PURPLE
HEART
Is there
evidence that Hubbard received a Purple Heart award during
World War II?
There is evidence in Hubbard's
service record that he was injured (see <a href="#Injured2" >"Injured" section</a> above) in the
South Pacific in early 1942. There is also evidence that
he was in a combat zone in northern Australia (Darwin) on the
day that the Japanese attacked (see <a href="#Combat2" >"Combat"
section</a> above) on 4-Mar-1942. There is
also circumstantial evidence that he may have gone to the
combat-heavy Java during the last two weeks of Feburary
1942. Generally speaking, the Purple Heart <img
style="HEIGHT: 251px; WIDTH: 113px" border=0 hspace=10
alt="Source: http://www.45thdivision.org/Pictures/General_Knowlege/RankMedalsPatches/Medals/PurpleW1Oak.jpg"
vspace=10 align=right
src="purple-heart-with-oak-leaf-cluster.jpg" width=148
height=340>award was given to servicemen
if they were injured as a result of combat. If
the serviceman was injured a second time in combat,
and was part of the Army, they would have been given a "leaf
cluster" (perhaps sometimes called "palm" on some
records) to signify a second injury.
Without knowing the specifics of how
and where (geographically) Hubbard was injured --
and whether he actually saw combat while in a combat
zone -- it is difficult to say with
absolute certainty that he would have been awarded (or been
eligible for) the Purple Heart. (He was attached to the Army
at the time, so "Purple Heart (palm)" may have been an
appropriate Army designation on his Navy separation
papers.)
There are, however, a few additional
factors which should be understood with regard to the Purple
Heart award. The specific and formal rules
of eligibility for being awarded the Purple
Heart (i.e. injury during combat) were not in fact adopted for
the Purple Heart until September 1942 and later.[196] Prior to that,
some servicemen (in the Army) were awarded the
Purple Heart for particularly meritorious service
alone -- independent of injury, or independent of
their having seen combat.[197] The Navy did not
begin awarding the Purple Heart at all until late 1942.[198]
In other words, Hubbard could have
received the award in early 1942 without even being
injured. He could have received
it for "meritorious service".
In one version of Hubbard's
"Notice of Separation from the U.S. Naval
Service" document (the church version), a "Purple
Heart (palm)" is listed under awards and
decorations. The Navy version of the same document
does not list it. While there are noted inaccuracies in
the church version of the Separation document,
the Navy version is noted for being
woefully incomplete (see <a href="#Separation2" >"Notice of
Separation" section</a> above).
Given the fact that it can be documented
that Hubbard injured his eyes and was in a combat
zone while in the South Pacific (see <a href="#Combat2" >"Combat"</a> and
<a href="#Injured2" >"Injured" sections</a> above), it is
within the realm of possibility that Hubbard may
have been awarded the Purple Heart by the Army during the
February/March 1942 period (while he was attached to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).
Army Forces in Australia).[199] If
so, the records for the award may have gotten
lost along with other records from this period, such
as those for the "Expert Rifle and Pistol" award (see
earlier <a href="#Gaps2" >"Gaps" section</a>).
In order to fully confirm (or disprove) an
award of the Purple Heart, however, additional documentation
would need to be located regarding Hubbard's specific
activities while in the South Pacific.
<a
name=Conclusions2
></a>CONCLUSIONS
Hubbard's Navy service record (as today
supplied by the National Personnel Records Center [NPRC] of
the the National Archives) is demonstrably incomplete, and in
certain cases also provides false and inaccurate information
with regard to Hubbard's actual activities during World War
II. This is especially true for the South Pacific period,
during which he was a Naval intelligence officer and also
attached to the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Army. In all likelihood, most of these
incomplete and inaccurate records are due to administrative
oversight and error. There may have also been
intelligence-related activites which
affected certain documents. And some records may
have been lost in the 1973 NPRC fire of Army personnel
records.
If one relies solely on Hubbard's service
record from the NPRC to understand Hubbard's military career
in the Navy (as most earlier Hubbard researchers and
biographers appear to have done), one will be left with an
inaccurate and incomplete picture of Hubbard's World War II
years. One must look into the military, travel and other
records of the National Archives (as well as other reliable
sources) in order to get a more complete and accurate picture
of Hubbard's Navy service. This is especially true as it
pertains to accurately answering the questions surrounding the
South Pacific period, i.e. the truth behind whether Hubbard
was flown home in the Spring of 1942, whether he was injured,
and whether he saw combat.
When more extensive research was conducted
into these areas, it was found that Hubbard was in fact flown
home from the South Pacific (as he had claimed), did in fact
sustain injuries while in the South Pacific (including being
"blinded" by something which physically damaged his eyes), and
was sent into an area where he may have seen combat. The
injuries, combined with a later duodenal ulcer, left Hubbard
in a debilitated conditionA condition is an operating state. (SH Spec 62, 6505C25) after the war. As a result, the
Veteran's Administration considered him 40% disabled, after
World War II, after conducting physical exams and
tests.</p>
<p>
<a name="OverallView2"
><a name="OverallView"
></a>
Note: If you have read this article, and
wish to join in the conversation about it, please
visit:
<a href="http://scientologymythsblog.com"
>http://scientologymythsblog.com</a>
REFERENCES </font> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref001b"
></a>[1] Miller, Russell, "Bare-Faced Messiah: The
True Story of L. Ron Hubbard" (New York: Henry Holt & Co.,
1987).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref002b"
></a>[2] Atack, Jon, "A Piece of Blue Sky:
Scientology, Dianetics1. DIA (Greek) through, NOUS (Greek) mind, deals with a system of mental image pictures in relation to psychic (spiritual) trauma. The mental image pictures are believed on the basis of personal revelation to be comprising mental activity created and formed by the spirit, and not by the body or brain. (BPL 24 Sept 73 V) 2. Dn addresses the body. Thus Dn is used to knock out and erase illnesses, unwanted sensations, misemotion, somatics, pain, etc. Dn came before Scn. It disposed of body illness and the difficulties a thetan was having with his body. (HCOB 22 Apr 69)...more and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed" (New York:
A Lyle Stuart book, 1990).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref003b"
></a>[3] Owen, Chris, "Ron the 'War Hero'" web
pages (1999), online at <a
href="http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/warhero/"
>http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/warhero/</a> pulled
on March 12, 2013.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref004b"
></a>[4] Wright, Lawrence, "The Apostate: Paul
Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology", New Yorker magazine,
14-Feb-2011, online at <a
href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright"
>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref005b"
></a>[5] Wright, Lawrence, "Going
Clear3. a Clear is not an all-knowing being. A Clear is somebody who has lost the mass, energy, space and time connected with the thing called mind . ( SH Spec 80, 6609C08) ...more: Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison of Belief"
(New York: Knopf, 2013).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref006b"
></a>[6] The author of this article can be reached
at mesamarg @ earthlink.net.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref007b"
></a>[7] "L. Ron Hubbard Navy service records",
National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), St. Louis, MOAbbreviation for 1. medical officer, 2. mission order. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).
(copies provided in 2011), Correspondence section. The NPRC
is part of the U. S. National Archives and
Records Administration (aka NARA aka "National
Archives"). Hubbard's service records from the NPRC can
be found <a href="Hubbards-Navy-records.htm" >here</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref008b"
></a>[8] Ibid.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref009b"
></a>[9] Ibid.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref010b"
></a>[10] Ibid, Service Records
section.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref010b"
></a>[10a] Hubbard was initially rejected on
19-Nov-1945 for a promotion to Lt. Commander based on being
physically disqualifed (see <a href="1945-11-09-Lt-Cmdr-rejection.htm" >this</a>
document), however a later <a
href="http://scientologymyths.com/retroactive-appt.htm"
>letter</a> dated 25-Jun-1947 authorized
his temporary promotion to Lt. Commander effective 3-Oct-1945,
and was then later made permanent by authority of a Secretary
of the Navy letter dated 3-Jun-1948, as noted in the far right
column of Hubbard's <a href="promo-history.htm" >Promotion History Card</a>
(technically known as the "Officer Precedence Record") in
Hubbard's Navy service file.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref011b"
></a>[11] Ibid, Correspondence section (see letters
<a href="1978-pearson-letter+response1.htm" >here</a>).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref012b"
></a>[12] Ibid (see letter <a href="1978-pearson-response2.htm" >here</a>).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref013b"
></a>[13] Ibid, Service Records
section.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref014b"
></a>[14] Ibid, Correspondence
section.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref015b"
></a>[15] Ibid.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref016b"
></a>[16] Ibid; also missing is Hubbard's assignment
to the Hydrographic Office for two weeks in
Sep-1941.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref017b"
></a>[17] Ibid.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref018b"
></a>[18] Miller.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref018b"
></a>[18a] Sappell, Joel and Welkos, Robert,
"The Scientology Story: The Mind Behind the Religion", Los
Angeles Times, 24-Jun-1990, online at <a
href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080612145705/http://www.latimes.com/business/la-scientology062490,0,2050131,full.story"
>http://web.archive.org/web/20080612145705/http://www.latimes.com/business/la-scientology062490,0,2050131,full.story</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref019b"
></a>[19] Atack, pg. 86 (PDF version); "Hubbard
became a Lieutenant senior grade. This was the highest rank he
achieved".</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref020b"
></a>[20] Wright, "Going Clear3. a Clear is not an all-knowing being. A Clear is somebody who has lost the mass, energy, space and time connected with the thing called mind . ( SH Spec 80, 6609C08) ...more", p. 36, "in April
1943 ... he was actually not yet a full
lieutenant".</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref021b"
></a>[21] Most travel records from the National
Archives are no longer available as paper records, but
were microfilmed and are now available at the
various National Archives research locations around the
country. See <a
href="http://www.archives.gov/locations/"
>http://www.archives.gov/locations/</a> for
addresses. Two of the National Archives' online <a
href="http://www.archives.gov/digitization/partnerships.html"
>partner</a> sites, <a
href="http://www.fold3.com"
>http://www.fold3.com</a> and <a
href="http://www.ancestry.com"
>http://www.ancestry.com</a>, have
also been putting many of these and other military and public
National Archives records online. Most
are digitally searchable. These sites generally
require a for-pay membership in order to access their records,
though some libraries and all National Archives research
locations provide access for free.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
><a name="ref022b"
></a>[22] "Church of Scientology of California vs.
Gerald Armstrong" ("CSC v Armstrong"), Los Angeles Superior
Court, Case No. C 420153 (1982-). Many (though not
all) of these records are available online at <a
href="http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/"
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[23] Prouty, L. Fletcher (USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Army Colonel,
ret'd), "Prouty Affidavit" for the Church of Scientology,
February 1985. Available online at <a
href="http://scientologymyths.com/prouty-affidavit.htm"
>http://scientologymyths.com/prouty-affidavit.htm</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[24] Hubbard Navy service records, Medical
Records section.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[25] Prouty Affidavit.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[26] Packard, Wyman H. (USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Navy Captain,
ret'd), "A Century of U.S. Naval Intelligence", A Joint
Publication of the Office of Naval Intelligence and the Naval
Historical Center (Department of the Navy, Washington,
1996); pp. 334-335. The 16xx routing designation
can also be found in many hard-copy intelligence-related
memos in the Navy records of the National
Archives.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[27] Hubbard Navy service records,
Service Records section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[28] Ibid, Efficiency Records
section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[29] Ibid, Service Records
section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[30] CSC v Armstrong; Frank K. Flynn
testimony, 1-Jun-1984. <o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[31] Owen, "Conclusions"
page.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[32] <a href="causey-letter.htm" >"Causey
memo"</a>, Hubbard Navy service records, Service Records
section.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[33] Hubbard Navy service records, Service
Records section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[34] As one example, the USS POLK, which took
Hubbard from San Francisco to Brisbane in Dec-1941/Jan-1942,
was considered a "fast ship" at the time by Washington (see <a
href="http://ozatwar.com/pensacola.htm"
>http://ozatwar.com/pensacola.htm</a>). Before
it arrived in New Zealand, it did not make any stops
and was not in convoy; it left San Francisco in the early
morning hours of 19-Dec-1941 and rushed to Wellington, New
Zealand, arriving on 6-Jan-1942 -- 18.5 days later; it
then took 3-4 days to get to Brisbane (Bartsch, William H.,
"Everyday a Nightmare: American Pursuit Pilots in the Defense
of Java, 1941-1942", [Texas A&M University Press,
2010]).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[35] "USS NEW ORLEANS War Diary, March 1942" in
the "World War II War Diaries" of Record Group 38,
"Records of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations,
1875-2006", National Archives; also online at <a
href="http://www.fold3.com/image/#267903716"
>http://www.fold3.com/image/#267903716</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[36] Miller, Chapter 6, "The Hero Who Never
Was".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[37] Atack, Part 2, Chapter 3, "Hubbard as
Hero".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[38] Owen, "Naval Intelligence"
page.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[39] Hubbard Navy service records, Service
Records section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[40] Ibid.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[41] Ibid, Medical Records
section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[42] See USS POLK example above.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[43] Hubbard Navy service records, Medical
Records section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[44] "Passenger Lists of Vessels Arriving at
San Francisco, CA, 1893-1953", National Archives, Microfilm
Publication number M1410, USS CHAUMONT records. Available
online at ancestry.com, in the "Immigration and Travel"
section.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[45] Ibid.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[46] Ibid.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[47] "CinCPAC War Diary, March 1942", from
National Archives microfilm "World War II War Diaries,
1941-1945", roll A15. Available online at fold3.com in "World
War II, War Diaries" section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[48] "Passenger Lists of Vessels Arriving at
San Francisco, CA, 1893-1953", Microfilm Publication number
M1410, M/S PENNANT records, National Archives, Record
Group 85. Available online at ancestry.com in the "Immigration
and Travel" section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[49] Ibid.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[50] Ibid, M/S ALCOA PENNANT records; also
"CinCPAC War Diary, March 1942" in National Archives and
fold3.com.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[51] "PHILIPPINE CLIPPER" airplane records in
"Index to Vessels Arriving in San Francisco, 1882-1957",
Microfilm Publication Number M1437, Record Group 85, National
Archives.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[52] "CHINA CLIPPER" airplane passenger
records, 22-Apr-1942, showing USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Navy Admiral Chester Nimitz
aboard, "Passenger Lists of Airplanes Departing from Honolulu,
Hawaii, January 27, 1942-July 1, 1948", Microfilm
Publication Number A3392, Record Group 85, National
Archives; also available online at ancestry.com.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[53] "YANKEE CLIPPER" airplaine passenger
records, 8-Mar-1942, showing USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Navy Admiral Thomas Hart
aboard, "Passenger and Crew Lists of Vessels Arriving at New
York, New York, 1897-1957", Microfilm Publication Number T715,
Record Group 85, National Archives; also available online at
ancestry.com.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[54] "NC-18609" airplane passenger records,
28-Mar-1942, showing intelligence officer Roger D. Wolcott
aboard, "Passenger and Crew Lists of Vessels Arriving at New
York, New York, 1897-1957", Microfilm Publication Number T715,
Record Group 85, National Archives; also available online at
ancestry.com.<o:p></o:p><o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[55] Declassified <a href="oni-uses-panair.htm" >intelligence memo</a>
dated 12-Jan-1942 sending intelligence officer Lt.
Cassady "carrying very important and highly confidential
pouches for both the State Department and ONI" from
New York to France on trans-Atlantic PanAir flight via
Bermuda, Record Group 80, "Secretary of the Navy / Chief Naval
Officer Formerly Classified Correspondence, 1940 - 1947", Box
458, National Archives II, College Park, MD.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[56] "Index to Correspondence in the Office
File of Frank Knox, 1940-1944", from Boxes 1-14, Record
Group 80, National Archives II, College Park,
MD.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[57] Ibid.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[58] Hubbard Navy service records, Service
Records section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[59] "John O'Keefe Obituary", Chicago Tribune,
9-Feb-1992, <a
href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-02-09/news/9201120771"
>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-02-09/news/9201120771</a> pulled
14-Mar-2013 (also available <a href="okeefe-obit.htm" >here</a>).<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[60] <a href="letter-rec-magnuson.htm" >Letter of
Recommendation</a> from Congressman Warren G. Magnuson,
8-Apr-1941, Hubbard Navy service records, Service
Records section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[61] <a href="letter-rec-ford.htm" >Letter
of Recommendation</a> from Congressman Robert
M. Ford, 1-May-1941 (this letter is not in Hubbard's
Navy service records; apparently written by Hubbard at Ford's
request, and signed by Ford [see Miller, p. 66]; original
source of document appears to be Hubbard's personal archives,
retrieved by Gerry Armstrong).<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[62] Reitman, Janet, "Inside Scientology", (New
York: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt, 2011), p. 11; Wright,
"Going Clear3. a Clear is not an all-knowing being. A Clear is somebody who has lost the mass, energy, space and time connected with the thing called mind . ( SH Spec 80, 6609C08) ...more", p. 34.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[63] Hubbard claimed in at least two lectures
in the 1950s, to have been flown home from the South Pacific
in the Secretary of the Navy's plane in the Spring of 1942,
specifically lectures dated 7-Feb-1956 called <a href="secnav-plane-hubbard1.htm" >"The Game of
Life"</a>, and 8-Nov-1956 called <a href="secnav-plane-hubbard2.htm" >"Definition of
Organization, Part I"</a> (transcript
excerpts).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[64] See for example: Warren, James R.,
"The War Years: A Chronicle of Washington State in World
War II", (University of Washington Press, 2000), p. 208;
Juettner, Bonnie, "100 Native Americans Who Changed American
History", (Gareth Stevens Publishing, 2005), p. 76.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[65] Airplane passenger lists from 1942, Record
Group 85, National Archives. Many
now available online at ancestry.com in the
"Immigration and Travel" section.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[65a] <a href="1942-01-19-Hubbard-cable-to-CinC.htm" >Cable
from Hubbard/Johnson to CinC Asiatic</a>, "Adjutant General,
Outgoing Messages, 1941-1942", Box 1172, Record Group 495 "Records of Headquarters,
United States Army Forces, Western Pacific (World War II)",
National Archives II, College Park,
MD.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[66] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Service Records section, <a href="promo-history.htm" >Promotion Card</a>,
promotion to full Lieutenant effective 15-Jun-1942.
(Note: Records for the promotion on 15-Jun-1942 do not
exist in Hubbard's service record, though <a href="promotion-to-lt.htm" >correspondence</a> in
early 1943 indicates that Hubbard had accepted it in
mid-1942. This promotion may have been due, in part,
to Hubbard having met certain qualifications based
on a general Navy order ALNAV-120; the promotion was
recommended by his commanding officer in the Cable Censor
office in New York in mid-1942, according to 1943
correspondence in Hubbard's Navy service
records.) </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[67] Matloff M., Snell E. M., "United States
Army in World War II, The War Department, Strategic Planning for Coalition Warfare,
1941-1942" (Washington DC: USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Government Printing Office,
1992), Chapters V, available online at <a
href="http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-WD-Strategic1/index.html"
>http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-WD-Strategic1/index.html</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[68] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Service Records section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[69] Ibid, see <a href="1966-navy-summary-to-doj.htm" >this</a>
document.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[70] Ibid, see <a href="1941-11-05-corresp-course.htm" >this</a>
document.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[71] "Name and Subject Index to the General
Correspondence to the Secretary of the Navy, 1930-1942 (also
includes Office of Chief of Naval Operations)", Microfilm
Publication M1067, National Archives I, Washington,
DC.</p><o:p
></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[72] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Service Records
section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[73] "USS NEW ORLEANS War Diary, March 1942",
National Archives.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[74] Hubbard lecture, 8-Nov-1956, <a href="secnav-plane-hubbard2.htm" >"Definition of
Organization, Part I"</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[75] Hubbard lecture, 7-Feb-1956, <a href="secnav-plane-hubbard1.htm" >"The Game of
Life"</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[76] CSC v Armstrong; Frank K. Flynn testimony,
1-Jun-1984.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[77] CSC v Armstrong; <a href="moulton-full-testimony.htm" >Thomas S. Moulton
testimony</a>, 21-May-1984.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[78] Ibid.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[78a] Map from <a
href="http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/BBBO/BBBO-3.html"
>http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/BBBO/BBBO-3.html</a> (pulled
on 14-Mar-2013).<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[79] Matloff, Snell, Chapters IV-VII; Naval History
Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy
Department, "UNITED STATES NAVAL CHRONOLOGY, WORLD WAR II"
(Washingon DC: USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Government Printing Office, 1955),
1941-1942, available online at <a
href="http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/chr/chrface.html"
>http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/chr/chrface.html</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[80] Owen, "Naval Intelligence"
page.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[81] Owen, "Crippled and Blinded"
page.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[82] Owen, "Intelligence Connection"
page.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[83] Owen, "Crippled and Blinded"
page.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[84] Owen, "Naval Intelligence"
page.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[85] Kehn Jr., Donald M., "A Blue Sea of Blood:
Deciphering the Mysterious Fate of the USS Edsall" (Zenith
Press, 2009).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[86] Owen, "Naval Intelligence" page; Atack, p.
85 (PDF version).<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[87] Wright, "Going Clear3. a Clear is not an all-knowing being. A Clear is somebody who has lost the mass, energy, space and time connected with the thing called mind . ( SH Spec 80, 6609C08) ...more", p. 34.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[88] Hubbard Navy service records, Service
Records section, <a href="causey-letter.htm" >"Causey
memo"</a> dated 14-Feb-1942.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[89] "<a href="1942-02-03-Hubbard-report-to-Johnson.htm" >Hubbard
Report</a> to Army Col. Alexander L.P. Johnson, 3-Feb-1942",
from Owen's website (this document is not in Hubbard's Navy
service file, and it presumably came from Gerry
Armstrong, who presumablly retrieved it from Hubbard's
personal archives).
</p><o:p
></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[90] Ibid.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[91] Williford, Glenn M., "Racing the SUNRISE:
Reinforcing America's Pacific Outposts, 1941-1942" (Annapolis:
Naval Institute Press, 2010), Ch. 5.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[92] <a href="1942-02-03-Hubbard-report-to-Johnson.htm" >Hubbard
Report</a> to Johnson; and Record Group 495 "Records of Headquarters,
United States Army Forces, Western Pacific (World War II)",
National Archives II in College Park, MD.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[93] Record Group 495 "Records of Headquarters,
United States Army Forces, Western Pacific (World War II)",
National Archives II, College Park,
MD.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[94] Dunn, Peter, "Australia @ War" website, <a
href="http://www.ozatwar.com/usarmy/basesection1.htm"
>http://www.ozatwar.com/usarmy/basesection1.htm</a> (2011)
pulled 14-Mar-2013; also Record Group 495 "Records of Headquarters,
United States Army Forces, Western Pacific (World War II)",
National Archives II, College Park,
MD.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[95] RG 495, National Archives, Jan-Mar 1942
correspondence.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[96] Ibid.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[97] Ibid; and <a href="1942-02-03-Hubbard-report-to-Johnson.htm" >Hubbard
Report</a> to Johnson.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[98] <a href="1942-02-03-Hubbard-report-to-Johnson.htm" >Hubbard
report</a> to Johnson.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[99] <a href="causey-letter.htm" >Causey
memo</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[100] RG 495, National Archives, Jan-Mar 1942
movement records.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[101] <a href="1942-03-USSNewOrleansWarDiary.htm" >USS NEW
ORLEANS War Diary</a>; Memo showing <a href="pennant-letter.htm" >Naval Observer as
"Commander"</a>, Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC), Service
Records section; Commander Paul S. Slawson and his staff
replaced Hubbard as the "USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Naval Liaison Officer" and "Naval
Observer" for Brisbane, upon Hubbard's departure in
mid-March 1942, "Paul S. Slawson Navy service records",
National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), St. Louis,
MOAbbreviation for 1. medical officer, 2. mission order. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976)..</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[102] Hart, Adm. Thomas H., "Narrative of
events, Asiatic Fleet leading up to War & from 12/8/41 to
2/15/42", "World War II War Diaries, compiled
12/07/1941-12/31/1945", Record Group 38, National Archives,
available online at fold3.com</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[103] "COMANZAC War Diary, 3/23-31/42", "World
War II War Diaries, 1941-1945", Microfilm Roll A19, Record
Group 38, National Archives; also available online at the
National Archives partner site, fold3.com, at: <a
href="http://www.fold3.com/image/#268226393"
>http://www.fold3.com/image/#268226393</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[104] Lundstrom, John B., "Black Shoe Carrier
Admiral: Frank Jack Fletcher at Coral Sea, Midway, and
Guadalcanal" (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2006), Ch.
6; Hart's War Diary; NAVY CHRONOLOGY; Glassford, R. Adm.
William, "Narrative of events in the South-West Pacific from
14 Feb to 5 Apr 1942", "World War II War Diaries, compiled
12/07/1941-12/31/1945", Record Group 38, National Archives,
available online at fold3.com.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[105] Ibid.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[106] "COMANZAC War Diary,
3/23-31/43".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[107] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Service Records
section.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[107a] <a href="1942-03-19-CNO-cable-re-NavObs.htm" >Cable from
CNO</a>, "Foreign Intelligence Branch, Correspondence with
Naval Attaches, Observers, & Liaison Officers 1930-1948,
Cairo to Caracus", Box 4, Record Group 38 "Records of the
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Office of Naval
Intellgience", National Archives II, College Park,
MD.<o:p
></o:p></p><o:p
></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[108] The fact that Hubbard was involved in
counter-espionage, was the "Naval Observer" as well as "Naval
Liaison Officer" in Brisbane, and was also sent into a combat
zone -- all of which have been discovered from National
Archives military records outside Hubbard's service record
(War Diaries, RG 495, et al) -- suggests that the
order(s) that Hubbard received from the COMANZAC
were likely in relation to expanding Hubbard's
duties. Further this <a href="1942-03-19-CNO-cable-re-NavObs.htm" >CNO document</a>,
and additional documents in the National Archives and at NPRC
(Slawson Navy service record), show that Hubbard's
duties as the "Naval Observer" and "Naval Liaison
Officer" were turned over to a Navy Commander, Lieutenant
and several other men upon his (Hubbard's)
departure.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[109] Kehn, p. 109.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[110] "Muster Rolls of U.S. Navy Ships,
Stations, and Other Naval Activities, 01/01/1939 -
01/01/1949", Record Group 24, National Archives II, College
Park, MD; also online at ancestry.com.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[111] Ibid; and Kehn, p. 109.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[112] CSC v Armstrong; <a href="moulton-full-testimony.htm" >Thomas S. Moulton
testimony</a>, 21-May-1984.<o:p
></o:p><o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[113] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Service Records section, <a href="machine-gun.htm" >1943
Australian machine-gun
despatch</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[114] See <a
href="http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_5-62_mk3.htm"
>http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_5-62_mk3.htm</a> and
<a href="http://www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk/"
>http://www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk/</a> (the
"Gun, Machine, Vickers .5-inch, Mk. III" selection in the "The
Guns" section).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[115] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Service Records section, <a href="1942-06-10-sea-duty-request.htm" >1942 Request
for Sea
Duty</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[116] Hubbard Navy service records
(NPRC), Medical Records
section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[117] Ibid, Service Records section, <a href="ryders-all.htm" >1942 Ryders
correspondence</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[118] "Adjutant General, Outgoing Messages,
1941-1942", Box 1172, Record Group 495 "Records of
Headquarters, United States Army Forces, Western Pacific
(World War II)", National Archives II, College Park,
MD.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[119] "Adjutant General, General Correspondence,
1942-1946", Box 190, Record Group 495 "Records of
Headquarters, United States Army Forces, Western Pacific
(World War II)", National Archives II, College Park,
MD.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[120] Dunn website, "Air Raids on Australia"
page, online at <a
href="http://www.ozatwar.com/japsbomb/bomb08.htm"
>http://www.ozatwar.com/japsbomb/bomb08.htm</a>;
also Record Group 495, National Archives contains several
references to this attack. Additional details of this attack,
however, were never fully understood until the Japanese
records were later analyzed and summarized, as available at
the ozatwar.com site. In general however, this attack is still
not very well documented, overshadowed by the much larger
Darwin attack on 19-Feb-1942, which took several hundred
lives. Several books have been written on the 19-Feb-1942
attack, dubbed "The Pearl Harbor of Australia".<o:p
></o:p><o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[121] Record Group 495 "Records of Headquarters,
United States Army Forces, Western Pacific (World War II)",
National Archives II, College Park, MD.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[122] Dunn website, "Air Raids on Australia"
page, online at <a
href="http://www.ozatwar.com/japsbomb/bomb08.htm"
>http://www.ozatwar.com/japsbomb/bomb08.htm</a>;
also Record Group 495, National Archives contains several
references to this attack.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[123] Miller, p. 100. (No mention is made
by Miller of actinic conjunctivitis; Miller also
makes no connection between Hubbard's "mysterious dark
glasses" and the UV eye damage [i.e. actinic
conjunctivitis] documented throughout Hubbard's Navy
medical records, beginning with <a href="1942-05-11-medreport.htm" >medical records</a>
shortly after his return from the South Pacific.)<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[124] Atack, p 88. (Atack does not seem to
be aware that actinic conjunctivitis is not "pink-eye". Atack
states: "Hubbard attributed his visual trouble to 'excessive
tropical sunlight.' The real problema problem is postulate-counter-postulate, terminal-counter-terminal, force-counter-force. It’s one thing versus another thing. You’ve got two forces or two ideas which are interlocked of comparable magnitude and the thing stops right there. All right, now with these two things one stuck against the other you get a sort of a timelessness, it floats in time. (SH Spec 82, 6111C21) 2 . a problem is a postulate-counter-postulate resulting in indecision. That is the first manifestation of problems, and the first consequence of a problem is indecision. (SH Spec 27, 6107C11) 3 . a multiple confusion. (SH Spec 26X, 6107C03) 4 . an intention counter-intention that worries the preclear. (HCOB 23 Feb 61) 5 . a problem is the conflict arising from two opposing intentions. A present time problem is one that exists in present time, in a real universe. (HCOB 3 Jul 59) 6 . something which is persisting, the as-is-ness of which cannot be attained easily. (PRO 16, 5408CM20) was a recurrence of his
conjunctivitis." Atack does not seem to
recognize that there are distinct differences
between what causes "conjunctivitis" [a bacterial/viral
infection] and "actinic conjunctivitis" [UV damage to the
eye].)</p><o:p
></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[125] Owen, "Crippled and Blinded" section.
(Owen: "It would seem that Hubbard's casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63) of conjunctivitis,
aka 'pink-eye', was transformed in his own mind3. a network of communications and pictures, energies and masses, which are brought into being by the activities of the thetan versus the physical universe or other thetans. The mind is a communication and control system between the thetan and his environment. (FOT, p. 56)...MORE into a war
injury." Owen mistakenly confuses "actinic
conjunctivits" with "pink-eye".)<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[126] Wright, "Going Clear3. a Clear is not an all-knowing being. A Clear is somebody who has lost the mass, energy, space and time connected with the thing called mind . ( SH Spec 80, 6609C08) ...more", p. 35.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[127] Conjunctivitis is defined
as: "Conjunctivitis is swelling (inflammation) or infection of
the membrane lining the eyelids (conjunctiva)", and in
"Causes, incidence and risk factors" it states: "There
are many causes of conjunctivitis. Viruses are the most common
cause. Viral conjuctivitis is
referred to as 'pink eye'", (Source: A.D.A.M. Medical
Encyclopedia), from "PubMed Health" website, <a
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002005/"
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002005/</a>
pulled 15-Mar-2013.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[128] Actinic
conjunctivitis is defined as "an inflammation of
the eye contracted from prolonged
exposure to actinic (ultraviolet)
rays", (Source: "Actinic Conjunctivitis",
Miller, Vandome, McBrewster [2010]). Synonyms
include: photokeratitis, solar photoophthalmia, UV-keratitis,
actinic keratitis, and photokeratoconjunctivitis (See: Young,
Richard W., "The Family of Sunlight-Related Eye Diseases",
Optometry & Vision Science, 71(2):125-144, February
1994, online at <a
href="http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/toc/1994/02000"
>http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/toc/1994/02000</a>; synonyms and "damage to eye" in
relation to severity are in the "Photokeratitis"
section of Young paper: "Damage occurs primarily in
the superficial epithelial cell but, as severity increases, it
extends to the stromal keratocytes and corneal endothelium"
and "It was previously thought that complete recovery
from photokeratitis was the rule, but this recent evidence of
keratocyte and endothelial cell injury and death indicates
that permanent damage may result".)<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[129] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Medical Records section. See the <a href="1942-05-11-medreport.htm" >11-May-1942 medical
notes</a>, <a href="1942-06-18-phys-exam.htm" >18-Jun-1942 physical
exam</a>, <a href="1943-07-15--med-malaria+combat.htm" >15-Jul-1943
medical notes</a>, <a href="1945-aug-dec-med-notes.htm" >28-Nov-1945 medical
notes</a> and ultimately the Summary section of the <a href="1945-phys-exam.htm" >1945 Physical
Exam</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[130] Young; Roberts, Joan E., "Ocular
phototoxicity", Journal of Photochemistry
and Photobiology B: Biology 64 (2001) 136 -
143, (online at: <a
href="http://faculty.fordham.edu/jroberts/JPP%20oct%20phto.pdf"
>http://faculty.fordham.edu/jroberts/JPP%20oct%20phto.pdf</a>);
Yen, YL, et al, "Photokeratoconjunctivitis caused by different
light sources", American Journal of Emergency Medicine,
2004 Nov;22(7):511-5, (online at: <a
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15666251"
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15666251</a>);
also, see final notes in the "Actinic conjunctivitis" entry
above.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[131] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Medical Records section. See the 9-May to 11-May-1942 <a href="1942-05-11-medreport.htm" >medical log</a>
entries.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[132] Young; Roberts; Yen.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[133] See especially Young above under
"Actinic conjunctivitis" entry. Also Roberts; Yen;
Brozen, Reed MD, and Kulkarni, Rick MD, "Ultraviolet
Keratitis" (2011) article at <a
href="http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/799025-overview#a0104"
>http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/799025-overview#a0104</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[134] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Medical Records section. See <a href="1942-05-11-medreport.htm" >15-May-1942 medical
log</a>
entry.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[135] Ibid; see also <a href="1943-07-15--med-malaria+combat.htm" >15-Jul-1943
P.E. medical log</a> entry, <a href="1945-aug-dec-med-notes.htm" >28-Nov-1945 medical
log</a> entry and <a href="1945-phys-exam.htm" >5-Dec-1945 medical
summary</a> section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[136] Wright, "Going Clear3. a Clear is not an all-knowing being. A Clear is somebody who has lost the mass, energy, space and time connected with the thing called mind . ( SH Spec 80, 6609C08) ...more", p.
42.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[137] CSC v Armstrong; <a href="moulton-full-testimony.htm" >Thomas S. Moulton
testimony</a>,
21-May-1984.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[137a] The author's personal correspondence with
Paulette Cooper in 2012; in 2012,
Cooper didn't believe the
story.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[137b] Cooper, Paulette, "The Scandal of
Scientology", (New York: Tower Publications, 1971), Chapter
20.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[138] <a href="sunspots.htm" >"SUN SPOTS", Vol. 6, No. 3,
Apr-May 1942</a>, editors Gerry de la Ree, Jr. & Roderick
Gaetz (New Jersey: Solar Press, 1942).<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[139] Chapdelaine, Perry A. (editor) et al, "The
John W. Campbell Letters, Volume I" (Fairview, TN: AC
Projects, 1985), letter from Campbell to
Hubbard dated 5-Apr-1938 shows nature of their
early friendship.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[140] Patterson Jr., William H., "Robert A.
Heinlein: In Dialogue with His Century: Volume 1,
1907-1948: Learning Curve" (New York: Tom Doherty Associates,
LLC, 2010), p. 308 - "Campbell wrote [Heinlein] in mid-May
[1942] that L. Ron Hubbard was in New York, wounded, and he
might be available".<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[141] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Service Records section, <a href="1942-05-09-reporting-to-NY.htm" >9-May-1942
document</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[142] Ibid, Medical Records section, <a href="1942-05-11-medreport.htm" >11-May-1942 medical
log</a>
entry.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[143] CSC v Armstrong, <a href="moulton-full-testimony.htm" >Thomas S. Moulton
testimony</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[144] Ibid.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[145] Hart's War Diary; Glassford War Diary;
NAVAL CHRONOLOGY.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[146] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Medical Records section, <a href="1945-phys-exam.htm" >5-Dec-1942 medical
summary</a>
section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[147] Ibid, <a href="1943-07-15--med-malaria+combat.htm" >15-Jul-1943
medical log</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[148] "Where Malaria Occurs" (2010) in Malaria
section of "Center for Disease Control and Prevention"
website, <a
href="http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/distribution.html"
>http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/distribution.html</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[149] Walker, Allan S., "Australia in the War of
1939 - 1945. Series 5 - Medical - Volume Vol 1" (Sydney:
Halstead Press, 1952), see "Section 1 - Infection
Diseases (b) Vector-borne Group, Chapter 7 -
Malaria", online at <a
href="http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67921"
>http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67921</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[150] Ibid, p. 76, see <a href="1942-malarious-areas-SWP.htm" >map of malarial
areas</a> in the Southwest Pacific in early
1942.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[151] Joy, Robert J. T., "Malaria in American
Troops in the South and Southwest Pacific in World War II",
Medical History, 1999, 43: 192-207, online at <a
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1044732/pdf/medhist00019-0044.pdf"
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1044732/pdf/medhist00019-0044.pdf</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[152] Hubbard lecture, 6-Dec-1954, <a href="1954-malaria-hubbard.htm" >"Havingness"</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[153] Several examples of missing medical
records exist in Hubbard's service
file: (a) A Physical Exam was given on <a href="1941-07-19--physical-exam.htm" >19-Jul-1941</a>,
but a corresponding mention of this Physical
Exam does not exist in the <a href="1941-09-22--medical-history.htm" >running
medical log/history pages</a> in Hubbard's service file
(as it does with most other Physical Exams);
(b) The <a href="1941-11-24--medical-history.htm" >24-Nov-1941
medical log</a> entry (for a matching <a href="1941-11-24--physical-exam.htm" >Physical
Exam</a>) is the final entry before Hubbard left the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).,
however there was a <a href="1941-12-08--physical-exam.htm" >Physical
Exam on 8-Dec-1941</a> which does not exist (any
longer) in the running medical log pages -- the
relevant medical log pages appear to be missing;
(c) No medical records exist (any longer)
for Hubbard's time outside the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976)., despite<a href="1942-05-11-medreport.htm" > later references</a>
to Hubbard's having gotten malaria and injuring his eyes and
his foot while in the South Pacific;
(d) The medical log was
re-started when Hubbard returned from the South Pacific for
some reason, i.e. it says "Page 1" on <a href="1942-03-23-medreport.htm" >23-Mar-1942</a> (despite
there being earlier pages from before his
departure); (e) There is a reference to a Physical
Exam in the medical log pages for <a href="1943-12-28--medical-history.htm" >28-Dec-1943</a>,
but no Physical Exam of this date exists in Hubbard's medical
records;
(f) There is also a reference to a
Physical Exam in the medical log pages for <a href="1944-11-23--medical-history.htm" >23-Nov-1944</a>,
but no Physical Exam of this date exists in Hubbard's medical
records.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[154] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Medical Records section, <a href="1942-03-23-medreport.htm" >23-Mar-1942 medical
history/log</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[155] Hubbard lecture, 7-Feb-1956, <a href="secnav-plane-hubbard1.htm" >"The Game of
Life"</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[156] Brodie, B. B., Udenfriend, S., "The
estimation of Atabrine in biological fluids and tissues",
Journal of Biological Chemistry, 151(1): 299-317.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[157] Medical Research Council on Malaria,
"Mepacrine for Malaria", British Medical Journal, 1944
November 18; 2(4376): 664, online at <a
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2286849/?page=1"
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2286849/?page=1</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[158] Private conversation with MD and
anti-malarial specialist.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[159] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Medical Records section, <a href="1943-07-15--med-malaria+combat.htm" >15-Jul-1943
medical
log</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[160] Patterson, p. 335.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[161] Patterson, p. 336.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[162] Patterson, p. 563.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[163] "<a href="1946-07-04-hubbard-letter-to-VA.htm" >Hubbard
Appeal to the Veteran's Administration</a>", 4-Jul-1946, from
Owen's website (this document is not in Hubbard's Navy service
file, and it presumably came from Gerry Armstrong, who
presumablly retrieved it from Hubbard's personal archives),
pulled 14-Mar-2013.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[164] Patterson, p. 409.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[165] Pendle, George, "Strange Angel: The
Otherwordly Life of Rocket Scientist John Whiteside Parsons"
(Orlando, FL: Harcourt Books, 2005), pp.
253-254.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[166] Miller, p. 181. (Note:
Shrapnel working its way out of World War II veterans' bodies
years, even decades, later is not as unusual as it might
sound; see <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/ronald-brown-war-hero-shrapnel_n_1987945.html"
>this</a> and <a
href="http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/war-hero-alfred-mann-was-left-94206"
>this</a> article for recent
examples.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[167] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Medical Records section, <a href="1945-phys-exam.htm" >5-Dec-1945 medical
summary</a>
section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[168] Ibid, <a href="1941-09-22--medical-history.htm" >22-Sep-1941
medical summary</a>
section.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[169] Wright, "Going Clear3. a Clear is not an all-knowing being. A Clear is somebody who has lost the mass, energy, space and time connected with the thing called mind . ( SH Spec 80, 6609C08) ...more", p.
43.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[170a] Hubbard
Navy service records (NPRC), Medical Records section, <a href="1945-aug-dec-med-notes.htm" >Aug-Dec 1945
medical
notes</a>.</p><o:p
></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[170b] "<a href="1946-09-19-VA-phys-exam.htm" >Veteran's
Administration Physical Exam of Hubbard</a>", dated
19-Sep-1946, from Owen's website (this document does not exist
in Hubbard's Navy service record; presumably originally from
Gerry Armstrong, who presumably retrieved it from Hubbard's
personal archives.)
<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[171] Hubbard lecture, 23-Jul-1951, "<a href="hubbard-lecture-re-mid-1945.htm" >Basic
Processing - Science of Perceptics</a>".</p><o:p
></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[172] Atack, p. 98.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[173] Owen, "Blinded and Crippled"
section.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[174] "The Affirmations", said to
be written by Hubbard shortly after the war, come
from Gerry Armstrong. Armstrong says he
retrieved these undated, unsigned documents from
Hubbard's personal archives -- with Hubbard's blessing (see
CSC v Armstrong) -- for biographical research in the
early 1980s. Armstrong was a former Hubbard
archivist. Parts were entered into the Church of
Scientology vs. Armstrong trial in the 1980s by Armstrong, and
the Church treated them as authentic documents (at the
time). In all likelihood, they are authentic and were written by
Hubbard in the early- to mid-1946 timeframe. Originals,
however, have not surfaced (nor have copies of
originals), so we rely on Armstrong to
have faithfully typed them up based on what he says were
hand-written copies of originals. Based on their
contents, the documents appear to have
been written at a time that Hubbard later
considered to be one of the lowest points
in his life, when he was trying to heal himself and
rise above life's difficulties. They were
likely given by Hubbard to his biographers in 1980 to help
them understand Hubbard's journey, showing his struggles
at a time that he later described as "<a href="my-philosophy.htm" >facing an almost
non-existent future</a>". Armstrong would later use
their very personal and often self-contradictory
nature to attempt to tear
down Hubbard.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
> The content of
"The Affirmations" is an amalgamation of Hubbard's
experimentation with self-hypnosis and positive
suggestion after the war, often written as
stream-of-consciouness, life-reflection and perhaps just
fantasy and whim. "The Affirmations" were written
during a time in Hubbard's life when he was trying to
rebuild his life, find a footing again as a successful
fantasy writer, and also trying to cure himself of physical
and emotional maladies after the war. While many
parts of the documents are self-contradictory (most
likely as a result of their being a mixture of random
thoughts, story ideas and real life experiences), they also
portray an individual trying to come to terms with life's
ups-and-downs and the psycho-spiritual
experiences/abilities which he seems to have had in
his life. For example, "The Affirmations" make
reference to Hubbard's unpublished "Excalibur" which he
wrote in 1938 (described as "The One Command" in "The
Affirmations") which was later said to be inspired by an
out-of-body/spiritual/near-death experience that Hubbard
had had during a 1937 dental operation (see Wright,
"Going Clear3. a Clear is not an all-knowing being. A Clear is somebody who has lost the mass, energy, space and time connected with the thing called mind . ( SH Spec 80, 6609C08) ...more", pp. 28-30; also in Hubbard's own words at <a href="hubbard-operation.htm" >this link</a>). In
terms of how "The Affirmations" relate to the
validity of Hubbard's war injuries and maladies, "The
Affirmations" show that Hubbard -- in his own
private thoughts -- in fact considered them very real and
debilitating.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[175] Ibid.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[176] Ibid, see Armstrong preface to
documents.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[177] Joy.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[178] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Medical Records section, <a href="1948-va-benefits.htm" >1948
VA
letter</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[179] Cleveland Clinic website (2010), article
on "Post-traumatic Arthritis": "Post-traumatic arthritis
is caused by the wearing out of a joint that has had any kind
of physical injury. The injury could be from sports, a vehicle
accident, a fall, a military injury, or any other source of
physical trauma." <a
href="http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/arthritis/hic-post-traumatic-arthritis.aspx"
>http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/arthritis/hic-post-traumatic-arthritis.aspx</a><o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[180] Hubbard, L. Ron, "<a href="my-philosophy.htm" >My Philosophy</a>",
1965.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[181] Miller, p. 109.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[182] "Dianetics1. DIA (Greek) through, NOUS (Greek) mind, deals with a system of mental image pictures in relation to psychic (spiritual) trauma. The mental image pictures are believed on the basis of personal revelation to be comprising mental activity created and formed by the spirit, and not by the body or brain. (BPL 24 Sept 73 V) 2. Dn addresses the body. Thus Dn is used to knock out and erase illnesses, unwanted sensations, misemotion, somatics, pain, etc. Dn came before Scn. It disposed of body illness and the difficulties a thetan was having with his body. (HCOB 22 Apr 69)...more: Science or Hoax?", LOOK
magazine, 5-Dec-1950.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[183] Hubbard, "My Philosophy".<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[184] "What is Scientology?", Church of
Scientology (1992), pp. 120-121. (Second picture online
at <a
href="http://web.archive.org/web/20000306083647/http://scientology.org/wis/wiseng/wis1-3/wis3_1s.htm"
>http://web.archive.org/web/20000306083647/http://scientology.org/wis/wiseng/wis1-3/wis3_1s.htm</a>.)<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[185] Owen, "Crippled and Blinded"
section.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[186] Wright, "The Apostate".<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[187] Wright, "Going Clear3. a Clear is not an all-knowing being. A Clear is somebody who has lost the mass, energy, space and time connected with the thing called mind . ( SH Spec 80, 6609C08) ...more", p. 351.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[188] See <a
href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/02/l-ron-hubbard-leaves-the-navy.html"
>http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/02/l-ron-hubbard-leaves-the-navy.html</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[189] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Service Records section,
this <a href="1942-06-10-sea-duty-request.htm" >document</a>
in Hubbard's service record in which he requests sea duty in
mid-1942 makes note of "recent experience with small arms
(qualified)", suggesting that he may have gotten the award in
the South Pacific/Australia in early 1942.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[190] See <a
href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/02/l-ron-hubbard-leaves-the-navy.html"
>http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/02/l-ron-hubbard-leaves-the-navy.html</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[191] "National Purple Heart Hall of Honor"
website, History section, <a
href="http://www.thepurpleheart.com/history/"
>http://www.thepurpleheart.com/history/</a>;
"The Institute of Heraldry" website, Purple Heart section, <a
href="http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Awards/purple_heart.aspx"
>http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Awards/purple_heart.aspx</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[192] "Department of Defense, MANUAL NUMBER
1348.33, Volume 3, November 23, 2010", online at <a
href="http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134833vol3.pdf"
>http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134833vol3.pdf</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[193] See for example <a
href="http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/16923-locating-missing-service-medical-records/"
>http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/16923-locating-missing-service-medical-records/</a>,
<a
href="http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/453198221"
>http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/453198221</a>
and <a
href="http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/26/nation/la-na-filipino-vets-20130127"
>http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/26/nation/la-na-filipino-vets-20130127</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[194] "The 1973 Fire, National Personnel Records
Center", National Archives, online at <a
href="http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/fire-1973.html"
>http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/fire-1973.html</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[195] Based on personal conversations with
archivists at the National Archives.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[196] "National Purple Heart Hall of Honor"
website, History section, <a
href="http://www.thepurpleheart.com/history/"
>http://www.thepurpleheart.com/history/</a>;
"The Institute of Heraldry" website, Purple Heart section, <a
href="http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Awards/purple_heart.aspx"
>http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Awards/purple_heart.aspx</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[197] Ibid.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[198] Ibid.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>[199] Hubbard Navy service records (NPRC),
Service Records section. See <a href="1942-03-23-compreport.htm" >23-Mar-1942
Compliance
report</a>.<o:p
></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"
></p>
<p></p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=center> </p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=center>Image
Sources</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left> </p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=center> </p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=center> </p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=center> </p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=center>Acknowledgements</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=center> </p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>Grateful acknowledgement must be made to
the following individuals and organizations, without whose
earlier work and/or assistance, the above would not have
been possible:</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left> </p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>William H.
Bartsch National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
locations in:</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>Peter
Dunn
Washington,
DC San
Bruno, CA</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>Mike
Rinder
College Park,
MD Riverside,
CA</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).
Army
(and the very helpful archivists at each of
them)</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>Chris
Owen
National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), St. Louis,
MOAbbreviation for 1. medical officer, 2. mission order. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>Lawrence
Wright
Library of Congress, Washington, DC</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>Russell
Miller
USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Air Force Historical Research Agency, Washington,
DC</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>William H. Patterson,
Jr.
ancestry.com</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>Gerry
Armstrong
fold3.com</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>Ken
Urquhart The
editors at malaria.com</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>George
Pendleton
USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB,
AL</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>Capt. Shelby L. Stanton, USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).
Army The contributors
at Australlia @ War (ozatwar.com website)</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>Jon
Atack The
"Pacific War 1941-1945" discussion forum at
network54.com</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>Mark "Marty"
Rathbun </p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>Donald M. Kehn</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left>Capt. Wyman H. Packard, USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976).
Navy</p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left> </p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=center>...and so many others too numerous to
mention. Thank
you. </font></p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=center> </p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=center> </p><a
href="http://scientologymyths.com/debbiecook.htm"
>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=center>Debbie Coo</a></p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=center>k Speaks Out</p>
</td></tr></tbody></table></p></
p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
align=left></p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
></p>
<p
style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: baseline; WHITE-SPACE: normal; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; WORD-SPACING: 0px; COLOR: rgb(28,28,28); PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT: 16px/25px ubuntu-1, ubuntu-2, Gudea, Helvetica, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-hyphens: auto"
></p>
<p align="left">
</p> </font></td></tr>
|
