Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Owen, We Have a Problem...

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Steve Plakos

unread,
Apr 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/5/00
to

Kase Ossifer wrote:

> Yo! Chris Owen. Need a little historian help here.
>
> I was just perusing the timelines that the Librarian posted, and noticed
> these two gems:
>
> Tuesday, 28 May 1974
> The Apollo's liaison office in New York ostensibly writes to the Navy
> Department enclosing an authorization from LRH to obtain his medals and
> asking for them to be forwarded as soon as possible. The letter provides
> some background data: "He served in the South Pacific and in 1942 was
> relieved by fifteen officers of rank and was rushed home to take part in
> the 1942 battle against German submarines as Commanding Officer of a
> Corvette serving in the North Atlantic. In 1943 he was made Commodore of
> corvette squadrons and in 1944 he worked with amphibious forces." There
> follows a list of seventeen medals awarded to LRH, including the Purple
> Heart and the Navy Commendation Medal, many of them with bronze stars.
> OUTPOINTS: SMOKING GUN, CONTRARY FACTS: This account in "Bare-Faced
> Messiah" is a "bare-faced" contradiction to another assertion from the
> same source, in Chapter 17, that a fidgety "LRH" had "his sixteen war
> medals" on display during a 1968 interview [see entry for 6 August 1968]
> in Bizerte, Tunesia, with two reporters from the London Daily Mail. This
> reeks of a botched intelligence operation.
> SOURCE: Bare Faced Messiah, Chapter 19
>
> Tuesday, 18 June 1974
> The Navy Department replies [see 28 May 1974 entry], enclosing the four
> "routine medals" awarded to former Lieutenant Lafayette R Hubbard, US
> Naval Reserve, and noting, "The records in this Bureau fail to establish
> Mr Hubbard's entitlement to the other medals and awards listed in your
> request."
> OUTPOINTS: SMOKING GUN, CONTRARY FACTS: This account in "Bare-Faced
> Messiah" is a "bare-faced" contradiction to another assertion from the
> same source, in Chapter 17, that a fidgety "LRH" had "his sixteen war
> medals" on display during a 1968 interview [see entry for 6 August 1968]
> in Bizerte, Tunesia, with two reporters from the London Daily Mail. This
> reeks of a botched intelligence operation.
> SOURCE: Bare Faced Messiah, Chapter 19
>
> So I go to BFM, Chapter 17, and what do I find:
>
> "These developments spurred British newspapers to renewed efforts to
> find and interview the elusive Mr Hubbard. The Daily Mail, which had
> recently been pleased to publish the numbers of Hubbard's bank accounts
> in Switzerland, was first to track him down in Bizerte. Hubbard affected
> an attitude of nonchalant indifference to events in Britain and did his
> best to charm the Mail team. He invited the reporters on board, showed
> them his sixteen war medals in a framed case behind his desk and
> politely answered questions for more than two hours."
>
> Also, in Chapter 19, I find out that BFM claims that Hubbard himself
> supposedly "authorized" the Apollo liaison office's request to the Navy:
>
> "In May 1974, Hubbard did a very curious thing which perhaps indicated
> that he was losing his facility to distinguish, even in his own mind,
> between fact and fiction: he applied to the US Navy for the war medals
> he had always claimed he had been awarded but knew he had never won.
>
> "On 28 May, the ship's liaison office in New York wrote to the Navy
> Department enclosing an authorization from Hubbard to obtain his medals
> and asking for them to be forwarded as soon as possible."
>
> So, vaunted fountain of historical accuracy and truth, Chris Owen, this
> raises the following questions about your authoritatively biased
> "histories" of L. Ron Hubbard:
>
> 1. If he wasn't entitled to 16 medals, where and how did he get them so
> that he had them framed behind his desk in 1968, as reported by two
> reporters from the London Daily Mail who interviewed him in person and
> saw them in person?

Chris may have a different answer, but the simple explanation, and,
mostlikely explanation is: He bought them.

In case you think this unlikely, I would remind you that in 1968 he was
only 23 years past the end of the war and I remember going to flea markets
in the 50's & 60's were you could buy almost anything associated with WWII
including replicas of the Congressional Medal of Honor. War Record
Enhancement was quite common, especially for Vets with as
poor a record as LRH.

SP

>
>
> 2. If he already had 16 medals, why did the liaison office of the Apollo
> send a written request for his medals?
>
> 3. Were either Gerry Armstrong or Jim Dincalci running the liaison
> office at the time this request went out?
>
> 4. What had happened to the 16 framed medals?
>
> 5. Who forged the "authorization" from L. Ron Hubbard requesting medals
> that he had already had in his possession in 1968?
>
> 6. What had happened to L. Ron Hubbard by May of 1974, since, obviously,
> he was not around to find out about this?
>
> 7. So was Fletcher Prouty right in saying: "He [Hubbard] had a much more
> important career than they knew... Furthermore there is great
> obfuscation among his purported 'military' records. Despite all that, he
> had a most unusual and important career...by military standards. ...I
> can not account for the fact that the Church chooses to provide its own
> 'cover' for his intelligence career; but that is none of my business.
> .I can not account for the Church's choice to conceal my findings."
>
> 8. Would the fact that the "church" <SPIT!> is actually CST, and is under
> the control of intelligence agencies, perhaps account for the fact that
> the "church" <SPIT!> chose to conceal Prouty's findings, and for the
> phony "request" and "answer" for the medals in 1974?
>
> 9. It *does* reek of a botched intel action, doesn't it?
>
> Just hoped you could sort this all out for us, Owen. <Snort> You and
> your shit-fly "black-helicopter" peanut gallery.
>
> Oh! And, by the way: I've been noticing that this 1972-1982 timeline
> pretty much made month-old hampster bedding out of all that work you did
> trying to make the government's "Stipulation of Evidence" smell like a
> rose. Have you read the timeline yet? Recommended reading. Especially
> for you. <Snort>
>
> Sure hope you can whitewash all the trash in the Stipulation that the
> timeline uncovered. Bring 50-gallon drums and an industrial-strength
> sprayer, though. <Snort>
>
> F'r'instance, do you have an explanation for why IRS-employee (under
> Meade Emory) Gerald Wolfe waived his protection that would have kept him
> out of having to face a Grand Jury if he wasn't *really* working for
> the guv'mint all along (instead of for the GO, which is what the
> "Stipulation" <Snort> claims)? Hm? Any ideas or "reasonable explanations"
> for that one, Chris?
>
> Owen, We Have a Problem...
>
> Kase Ossifer


Kase Ossifer

unread,
Apr 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/6/00
to

2. If he already had 16 medals, why did the liaison office of the Apollo

Shy David www.xenu.net

unread,
Apr 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/6/00
to
On 6 Apr 2000 01:41:57 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
(Kase Ossifer) wrote:

> OUTPOINTS: SMOKING GUN, CONTRARY FACTS: This account in "Bare-Faced
> Messiah" is a "bare-faced" contradiction to another assertion from the
> same source, in Chapter 17, that a fidgety "LRH" had "his sixteen war
> medals" on display during a 1968 interview [see entry for 6 August 1968]
> in Bizerte, Tunesia, with two reporters from the London Daily Mail. This
> reeks of a botched intelligence operation.
> SOURCE: Bare Faced Messiah, Chapter 19

Go into a pawn shop and see the war medals for sale. I suspect that
folks coming home from the war would, 20 years later, rather have a
few dollars instead of their medals and sell them.
---
"Shy" David Rice. A proud supporter and defender of religious rights. Help fight
religious descrimination! <http://holysmoke.org/tolerate.htm>
"The 'ho hasn't silence me yet." -- Grady Ward

barb

unread,
Apr 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/6/00
to

Yeah, you can trot right down to the Army Surplus store down the block
from me and load up with medals of all kinds, should you be so inclined.
--
barb

"copy c:\clams.scn c:\scienos\scienos.pod"
-Sten (Koos Koos) Arne

Jeffrey Liss

unread,
Apr 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/6/00
to

> 1. If he wasn't entitled to 16 medals, where and how did he get them
so
> that he had them framed behind his desk in 1968, as reported by two
> reporters from the London Daily Mail who interviewed him in person and
> saw them in person?

I am concerned about this question, as it is so obviously loaded. You
seem to imply that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary,
Hubbard *might* have been entitled to the medals in question. Since
his Navy record -- and other relevant War Deparment records for that
period -- contain no mention of his "exploits" or the citations he
allegedly received for them, what you are alleging is a conspiracy.
The Navy, you seem to suppose, has covered up the "truth" about L. Ron
Hubbard's naval career. Why? To what end? And why would Hubbard -- a
hack science fiction writer with no education or talent worth
mentioning -- be tapped for such a sensitive role in the war? You
obviously think little of Owen's scholarship on this issue, but your
questions come off as so much sciolism in the absence of any evidence.


>
> 7. So was Fletcher Prouty right in saying: "He [Hubbard] had a much
more
> important career than they knew... Furthermore there is great
> obfuscation among his purported 'military' records. Despite all that,
he
> had a most unusual and important career...by military standards. ...I
> can not account for the fact that the Church chooses to provide its
own
> 'cover' for his intelligence career; but that is none of my business.
> .I can not account for the Church's choice to conceal my findings."

I am unfamiliar with this quote, but perhaps you could post the
relevant documents...or at least provide information on where I might
search for them in the National Archives.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Cornelius Krasel

unread,
Apr 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/6/00
to
Kase Ossifer <Anonymous...@see.comment.header> wrote:
> Yo! Chris Owen. Need a little historian help here.

http://www.ronthewarhero.org/

--Cornelius.

--
/* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
/* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: pha...@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP4 */
/* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */

Kase Ossifer

unread,
Apr 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/6/00
to

Jeffrey Liss <monu...@my-deja.com> in message
<8cider$2vf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> said:

>> 1. If he wasn't entitled to 16 medals, where and how did he get
>> them so that he had them framed behind his desk in 1968, as
>> reported by two reporters from the London Daily Mail who
>> interviewed him in person and saw them in person?
>

>I am concerned about this question,

Yeah, I am too, Jeffrey.

>as it is so obviously loaded.

And cocked.

>You seem to imply that, despite overwhelming evidence to the
>contrary,
>

Which is also full of other holes that just haven't had the light of
day shown through them yet. Let's take one thing at a time, shall we?

>
>Hubbard *might* have been entitled to the medals in question.

He showed off 16 medals to two reporters from a large international
newpaper. Would you be that stupid if you hadn't earned them? Think it
through, Blondie.

>Since his Navy record -- and other relevant War Deparment records for
>that period -- contain no mention of his "exploits" or the citations
>he allegedly received for them,

See Prouty.

>
>what you are alleging is a conspiracy.

No I'm not. What is implied BY THE DATA is NOT a "conspiracy," which
is nothing more than a word the intel agencies have already thoroughly
re-defined in the culture as "nutcase fantasies."

What is implied BY THE DATA is a BLACK OPERATION. Learn the
difference. A BLACK OPERATION is what intelligence agencies actually
DO under DEEP COVER using PUBLIC FUNDING. Read all about it in several
famous House and Senate findings. If you don't think that BLACK
OPERATIONS are actually DONE under DEEP COVER using PUBLIC FUNDING,
that's because you are another one of those that the agencies call
"shit-flies." Those are the dunces in the society that, when they get
ANY evidence of an actual BLACK OPERATION, start scratching and
grunting "conspiracy theory," and pass this along like shit-flies to
other shit-flies who pick it up and scratch and grunt and giggle and
pass it along, and thereby go on merrily ignoring actual evidence.
This is something the agencies rely on as part of their DEEP COVER.

I'm not wasting time here on a shit-fly, am I? If not, can your
"conspiracy" bullshit, and let's look at facts, okay?

>The Navy, you seem to suppose, has covered up the "truth" about L.
>Ron Hubbard's naval career. Why? To what end?

Have you read the 1972-1982 timelines that the Librarian posted? No,
you haven't. If you had, you wouldn't be asking the question. Go read
them, then come back and ask an informed question. I ain't got the
time nor the inclination to give you the Reader's Digest version.

>And why would Hubbard -- a hack science fiction writer with no
>education or talent worth mentioning --

Check your skirt, Sally - your bias is showing.

>be tapped for such a sensitive role in the war?

Which "such sensitive role" are you referring to? The question on the
table is "medals." As for any "sensitive role" Hubbard may or may not
have had, even Owen's little snickering excuse for a military outline
acknowledges that Hubbard WAS in intelligence. Why? Route your
question to the Navy, would you? I didn't assign him.

>You obviously think little of Owen's scholarship on this issue,
>

<Snort!> What "scholarship?" Owen's pitiable bias against L. Ron
Hubbard is his MAJOR PREMISE, and he NEVER includes ANY FACT that will
do ANYTHING but support his overtly stated hatred of the man. He will
go around a fooball field to ignore and avoid any fact (like the one
about the 1968 Mail interview, with Hubbard's war medals prominently
on display) that doesn't fit in with his MAJOR PREMISE. Is that what
you label "scholarship?" What do you call manure - porridge?

>but your questions come off as so much sciolism in the absence of any
>evidence.

A fine endorsement coming from a bloviating blinkard too obtuse to see
the evidence plainly in sight.

The evidence is a case full of 16 medals seen up-close and personal by
TWO, count 'em, TWO, reporters from the London Daily Mail.

If you want to "explain it away" with the other shit-flies here who
think Hubbard went and "bought the medals" at a pawn shop or surplus
store, answer these burning questions:

1. Why would Hubbard run the risk of such an idiotic and dangerous
"con" with two reporters from an international newspaper - actually
POINTING OUT the medals and bringing them to the reporters' attention?
He had no way of knowing whether they would check the medals out or
not. And even if the reporters DIDN'T check them out, the very fact of
him having them on display was being reported IN AN INTERNATIONAL
NEWSPAPER, where ANYONE in the Navy who knew he shouldn't have had
them could have exposed the "con." The risk to everything he had spent
18 years building would have been incalculable. It makes NO sense.

2. If Hubbard "bought" these sixteen medals, why did he not actually
HAVE in his possession ANY of even the four that the Navy later (in
1974) claimed that he was entitled to - AND SENT? Why hadn't he been
given those medals when they were awarded? It makes NO sense.

3. If Hubbard had sixteen "bought" medals that had passed the muster
of the London Daily Mail, and he KNEW that he wasn't entitled to that
many, why the hell would he "authorize" an official request to the
Navy that would "PROVE CONCLUSIVELY," in the most embarrassing and
"official" way possible, that he was NOT entitled to the medals he had
claimed? NOTHING ADDS UP!

4. But NOW: if YOU assume the viewpoint of somebody who wanted to
CREATE an "OFFICIAL RECORD" that Hubbard was NOT entitled to 16
medals, but to only four - but you were somebody who had overlooked or
forgotten about the London Daily Mail story - THEN, and ONLY then,
doesn't that idiotic "authorized request" from the Apollo liaison
office start making some sort of "sense"?

>
>> 7. So was Fletcher Prouty right in saying: "He [Hubbard] had a much
>> more important career than they knew... Furthermore there is great
>> obfuscation among his purported 'military' records. Despite all
>> that, he had a most unusual and important career...by military
>> standards. ...I can not account for the fact that the Church
>> chooses to provide its own 'cover' for his intelligence career; but

>> that is none of my business. ...I can not account for the Church's

>> choice to conceal my findings."
>

>I am unfamiliar with this quote, but perhaps you could post the
>relevant documents...or at least provide information on where I might
>search for them in the National Archives.

It was a letter from Fletcher Prouty to a Patrick Jost. I believe it
was posted in a.r.s. by Arnie Lerma. Maybe he can give you the
background on it. The short story is Prouty was a hired gun looking
into Hubbard's military career. He says turned up a lot of data that
was then suppressed.

But that testimony probably doesn't fit in with your biases, just like
with that great scholar you admire so much, Chris Owen. Am I right?
<Snort!!>


©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/

unread,
Apr 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/6/00
to
On 6 Apr 2000 19:21:35 -0000.
In Message-ID: <3B6F4...@127.0.0.1>
From: Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Kase Ossifer).
Organization: mail...@zedz.net.
Wrote on the subject: Re: Owen, We Have a Problem...:

Veritas, the lovers of Hubbard and the most criminal policies.

I knew you were a Veritas loon.

Hubbard was a liar his whole life dammit, and you are a Veritas idiot
with ideas to take over the fuck cult for your own purposes.

Go to hell Veritas, to be more exact, go to Hubbard.

Sten-Arne


--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are not even vaguely propitiative toward medicine or psychiatry,
and we are overtly intent upon assimilating every function they are
now performing."

- L. Ron Hubbard, Professional Auditor's Bulletin No. 53,
May 27, 1955
---------------------------------------------------------------------
******* Body thetans? We don't need no stinking Body Thetans! *******
*********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ************
IRC #Scientology JavaChat http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/irc.html
* Multimedia: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm *
**** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm *****
******** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) ********
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Steve Plakos

unread,
Apr 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/6/00
to

Kase Ossifer wrote:

(snip)

> >He showed off 16 medals to two reporters from a large international
> newpaper. Would you be that stupid if you hadn't earned them? Think it
> through, Blondie.

Of course he would! By 1968 he had claimed, among many other things, to
be a nuclear physicist, a civil engineer, a Ph.D., to be a blood brother
to an Indian tribe, to have explored for the U.S. Geologic Survey, and all
of these claims were lies. Did you read his "admissions"? In words he
never expected you to ever know about, he confesses to having had a "poor"
war record. Display phony medals while claiming to be Ron the War Hero,
please, for LRH lying was a way of life.

>
>
> >Since his Navy record -- and other relevant War Deparment records for
> >that period -- contain no mention of his "exploits" or the citations
> >he allegedly received for them,
>
> See Prouty.

Why? There is *NO* evidence from any source to support his statement.

>
>
> >
> >what you are alleging is a conspiracy.
>
> No I'm not. What is implied BY THE DATA is NOT a "conspiracy," which
> is nothing more than a word the intel agencies have already thoroughly
> re-defined in the culture as "nutcase fantasies."
>
> What is implied BY THE DATA is a BLACK OPERATION. Learn the
> difference. A BLACK OPERATION is what intelligence agencies actually
> DO under DEEP COVER using PUBLIC FUNDING. Read all about it in several
> famous House and Senate findings. If you don't think that BLACK
> OPERATIONS are actually DONE under DEEP COVER using PUBLIC FUNDING,
> that's because you are another one of those that the agencies call
> "shit-flies." Those are the dunces in the society that, when they get
> ANY evidence of an actual BLACK OPERATION, start scratching and
> grunting "conspiracy theory," and pass this along like shit-flies to
> other shit-flies who pick it up and scratch and grunt and giggle and
> pass it along, and thereby go on merrily ignoring actual evidence.
> This is something the agencies rely on as part of their DEEP COVER.
>
> I'm not wasting time here on a shit-fly, am I? If not, can your
> "conspiracy" bullshit, and let's look at facts, okay?

ah oh ... ("There is a Happy Dale far far away" Cary Grant - Arsenic and
Old Lace)

>
>
> >The Navy, you seem to suppose, has covered up the "truth" about L.
> >Ron Hubbard's naval career. Why? To what end?
>
> Have you read the 1972-1982 timelines that the Librarian posted? No,
> you haven't. If you had, you wouldn't be asking the question. Go read
> them, then come back and ask an informed question. I ain't got the
> time nor the inclination to give you the Reader's Digest version.

A little time off at Happy Dale will fix that.

>
>
> >And why would Hubbard -- a hack science fiction writer with no
> >education or talent worth mentioning --
>
> Check your skirt, Sally - your bias is showing.
>
> >be tapped for such a sensitive role in the war?
>
> Which "such sensitive role" are you referring to? The question on the
> table is "medals." As for any "sensitive role" Hubbard may or may not
> have had, even Owen's little snickering excuse for a military outline
> acknowledges that Hubbard WAS in intelligence. Why? Route your
> question to the Navy, would you? I didn't assign him.
>
> >You obviously think little of Owen's scholarship on this issue,
> >
>
> <Snort!> What "scholarship?" Owen's pitiable bias against L. Ron
> Hubbard is his MAJOR PREMISE, and he NEVER includes ANY FACT that will
> do ANYTHING but support his overtly stated hatred of the man. He will
> go around a fooball field to ignore and avoid any fact (like the one
> about the 1968 Mail interview, with Hubbard's war medals prominently
> on display) that doesn't fit in with his MAJOR PREMISE. Is that what
> you label "scholarship?" What do you call manure - porridge?

But you have no bias whatsoever? Rest and Prozac can fix that.

>
>
> >but your questions come off as so much sciolism in the absence of any
> >evidence.
>
> A fine endorsement coming from a bloviating blinkard too obtuse to see
> the evidence plainly in sight.
>
> The evidence is a case full of 16 medals seen up-close and personal by
> TWO, count 'em, TWO, reporters from the London Daily Mail.

He bought them down at the Army Navy Surplus Store. You name any sixteen
medals from W.W.II and I'll get you either an *actual* medal or an
indistinguishable from the original copy.

More importantly, and you can take this from someone who served in combat
with the U.S. Armed Forces, they don't simply hand you the medal, they
also give you a citation explaining why your receiving the medal. The
citations become a part of your permanent military record. Even if you
assume Hubby became a spook on behalf of the Navy, where are the citations
for his combat experience? Answer, he didn't get any other then the ones
*everyone* received, i.e., theater combat ribbons, good conduct, etc.

Why is the obvious explanation never the real one for you?

>
>
> If you want to "explain it away" with the other shit-flies here who
> think Hubbard went and "bought the medals" at a pawn shop or surplus
> store, answer these burning questions:
>
> 1. Why would Hubbard run the risk of such an idiotic and dangerous
> "con" with two reporters from an international newspaper - actually
> POINTING OUT the medals and bringing them to the reporters' attention?
> He had no way of knowing whether they would check the medals out or
> not. And even if the reporters DIDN'T check them out, the very fact of
> him having them on display was being reported IN AN INTERNATIONAL
> NEWSPAPER, where ANYONE in the Navy who knew he shouldn't have had
> them could have exposed the "con." The risk to everything he had spent
> 18 years building would have been incalculable. It makes NO sense.

You seem to forget that Hubbard had been making virtually all of these
claims well before 1968 without anyone having called his bluff. There was
no Freedom of Information Act to reveal his lies. Unless I'm mistaken the
FOIA inquiry that ultimately blew his lies out of the water took place
well after he left for Marcab. He could make virtually any claim he
wanted to British reporters without much fear of exposure.

>
>
> 2. If Hubbard "bought" these sixteen medals, why did he not actually
> HAVE in his possession ANY of even the four that the Navy later (in
> 1974) claimed that he was entitled to - AND SENT? Why hadn't he been
> given those medals when they were awarded? It makes NO sense.

Sure it does when you realize that Hubbard was taking increasingly heavy
doses of hallucinogens and most like came to believe in his own fantasy
life. As to the Navy issuing his four earned medals that's an easy
answer. *ANY* U.S. Veteran who has earned combat decorations can contact
the Defense Department and request that there medals be forwarded to
them. It is likely that Hubbards' request was for "replacements" for
medals that had been lost. A request that is routinely granted. When the
Navy looked up his service record to determine which medals he was
entitled to, they mailed him four.

>
>
> 3. If Hubbard had sixteen "bought" medals that had passed the muster
> of the London Daily Mail, and he KNEW that he wasn't entitled to that
> many, why the hell would he "authorize" an official request to the
> Navy that would "PROVE CONCLUSIVELY," in the most embarrassing and
> "official" way possible, that he was NOT entitled to the medals he had
> claimed? NOTHING ADDS UP!

Let's not forget that events never take place in a vacuum. What else was
going on in Hubbards life that caused him to believe that he had to make
the request? Well, for one thing he had agreed to an authorized
biography. Toward this end, he had authorized others to go through all of
his papers and personal records. As I recall the story, isn't it true
that Hubbard did not simply decide one day that he wanted his medals,
didn't someone go to him and say something to the effect that "we can't
find you medals and can we contact the Navy and get them for you?"

>
>
> 4. But NOW: if YOU assume the viewpoint of somebody who wanted to
> CREATE an "OFFICIAL RECORD" that Hubbard was NOT entitled to 16
> medals, but to only four - but you were somebody who had overlooked or
> forgotten about the London Daily Mail story - THEN, and ONLY then,
> doesn't that idiotic "authorized request" from the Apollo liaison
> office start making some sort of "sense"?

The difficulty in having a rational discussion with you is that your not
rational. Discrediting Hubbards claims about his war record does not
depend upon contradicting his claims to the Daily Mail. Hubbard made the
same claims in his own publications, he made them in his speeches, he told
scores of people what a hero he was. His great gift was the con. He was
convinced that no matter what lie he told, no matter how much "proof"
there was of his lies, people like you would refuse to believe the truth.
I offer *YOU* as proof that Hubbard was right.

>
>
> >
> >> 7. So was Fletcher Prouty right in saying: "He [Hubbard] had a much
> >> more important career than they knew... Furthermore there is great
> >> obfuscation among his purported 'military' records. Despite all
> >> that, he had a most unusual and important career...by military
> >> standards. ...I can not account for the fact that the Church
> >> chooses to provide its own 'cover' for his intelligence career; but
> >> that is none of my business. ...I can not account for the Church's
> >> choice to conceal my findings."

AFAIK, Prouty was not talking about his examination of Hubbards actual
military records, he was talking about Hubbards claims concerning himself.

> >
> >I am unfamiliar with this quote, but perhaps you could post the
> >relevant documents...or at least provide information on where I might
> >search for them in the National Archives.
>
> It was a letter from Fletcher Prouty to a Patrick Jost. I believe it
> was posted in a.r.s. by Arnie Lerma. Maybe he can give you the
> background on it. The short story is Prouty was a hired gun looking
> into Hubbard's military career. He says turned up a lot of data that
> was then suppressed.

The very idea that the Cof$ would suppress Hubbies "heroics" if it could
actually prove he was the Navy's version of 007 is ludicrous! The fatal
flaw in your reliance upon Prouty is that to believe him, you must believe
the Cof$ has real evidence that Hubbard was one of the great unsung heroes
of W.W.II and that they *refuse* to reveal the truth. A sillier argument
is hard to imagine.

>
>
> But that testimony probably doesn't fit in with your biases, just like
> with that great scholar you admire so much, Chris Owen. Am I right?
> <Snort!!>

Mr. Owen has demonstrated his ability to gather information and present it
in a coherent manner, when will be able to say the same for you?

SP

Chris Owen

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
In article <3B6F4...@127.0.0.1>, Kase Ossifer <Anonymous-
Rema...@See.Comment.Header> sprayed a.r.s. with spittle:

>>Since his Navy record -- and other relevant War Deparment records for
>>that period -- contain no mention of his "exploits" or the citations
>>he allegedly received for them,
>
>See Prouty.

Prouty has no credibility in this matter; many of his claims about
Hubbard's service are just plain wrong, not least in that he failed to
spot that Hubbard claimed to have been awarded medals ("British & Dutch
Victory Medals") which quite simply don't exist. There are many other
boo-boos and unsupported assumptions in Prouty's writings. See
http://www.ronthewarhero.org/connection.htm for the details.

>Which "such sensitive role" are you referring to? The question on the
>table is "medals." As for any "sensitive role" Hubbard may or may not
>have had, even Owen's little snickering excuse for a military outline
>acknowledges that Hubbard WAS in intelligence. Why? Route your
>question to the Navy, would you? I didn't assign him.

Of course he was. But there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that
he was involved in any covert operations. Fine, you can say; that's
because the US Navy has concealed all the records. Can you *prove*
this? The way I see it, I can document my claims; you can't document
yours.

>1. Why would Hubbard run the risk of such an idiotic and dangerous
>"con" with two reporters from an international newspaper - actually
>POINTING OUT the medals and bringing them to the reporters' attention?
>He had no way of knowing whether they would check the medals out or
>not. And even if the reporters DIDN'T check them out, the very fact of
>him having them on display was being reported IN AN INTERNATIONAL
>NEWSPAPER, where ANYONE in the Navy who knew he shouldn't have had
>them could have exposed the "con." The risk to everything he had spent
>18 years building would have been incalculable. It makes NO sense.

These medals are still around (I believe in the L. Ron Hubbard Lie,
sorry, Life Exhibition in Los Angeles). There's even a photo of them at
http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/img/pg11_2.gif.

You want to know why he ran the risk? Simple: there *was* no risk.
Until Hubbard's death in 1986 nobody except his authorised agents was
allowed to have access to his records. Nobody could confirm or deny
that he was awarded those medals until after he died. The US Navy
simply refused to give any information, citing (entirely legitimate)
privacy concerns. Many newspapers, including the Daily Mail, did try to
check out his claims but were rebuffed; the correspondence is still on
Hubbard's file. Here's what was said:


[Daily Mail letter, 30 December 1965]

Dear Sirs,

In connection with an article we are planning on Scientology we would be
grateful if you could confirm an item we have received regarding its
founder, Mr. Lafayette Ron Hubbard.

We understand he served as Lieutenant in the USNR from 1941-46
(commanding escort vessels and navigator in all theatres).

Would you be kind enough to tell us if this is so. If the information
is not classified it would also be helpful to us to know where he
served.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Whitehead
Editor, Newsight [the then features section of the Mail]


[Reply from the US Navy, 25 January 1966]

Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your recent inquiry concerning the naval service of
former Lieutenant Lafayette R. Hubbard, U. S. Naval Reserve.

The personnel records of members or former members of the naval service
are deemed confidential for good cause found, and access to information
in them is restricted to the officers or former officers concerned, to
their duly authorized representatives so designated in writing, to
government agencies when the release of information is considered to be
in the best interest of the government, or to a court of competent
jurisdiction upon presentation of a properly authenticated court order
to the Secretary of the Navy.

It is regretted that a more favorable reply may not be made at this
time.

By direction of Chief of Naval Personnel.

Sincerely yours,

H. J. TILLER
Lieutenant, U. S. Navy
Head
Correspondence & Services Branch


See http://www.ronthewarhero.org/uncovering.htm for details of when
Hubbard's record was released to the general public. (I haven't
included scans of the documents above because, unfortunately, the US
Navy's reply is an atrocious copy).

I might add that the Church of Scientology has never made an official
complaint that Hubbard's file is falsified. Why, I wonder?

>2. If Hubbard "bought" these sixteen medals, why did he not actually
>HAVE in his possession ANY of even the four that the Navy later (in
>1974) claimed that he was entitled to - AND SENT? Why hadn't he been
>given those medals when they were awarded? It makes NO sense.

Veterans lose medals. They also often don't receive them. In Hubbard's
case there's no record that those four medals were ever presented to
him, and he was moving around a lot at the war's end. In the case of
the British Ministry of Defence, for which I work, we get literally
dozens of calls every week from veterans wanting replacement medals or
wanting to obtain medals to which they were entitled but which, for one
reason or another, they were never awarded.

Incidentally and amusingly, I outrank Hubbard...

>3. If Hubbard had sixteen "bought" medals that had passed the muster
>of the London Daily Mail, and he KNEW that he wasn't entitled to that
>many, why the hell would he "authorize" an official request to the
>Navy that would "PROVE CONCLUSIVELY," in the most embarrassing and
>"official" way possible, that he was NOT entitled to the medals he had
>claimed? NOTHING ADDS UP!

It didn't prove anything of the sort. Hubbard requested "his" medals in
May 1974, and his claims were detailed in Flag Operations Liaison Memo
of May 28, 1974 - see http://www.ronthewarhero.org/medals.htm.
Interestingly, the medals claimed for Hubbard then differ considerably
from the medals claimed for Hubbard today.

So, May 1974. When did Hubbard or the Church of Scientology first apply
for a copy of his wartime record? Not until May-June 1979, when the
records were released to Ms. Maria Delgado, Assistant Director, Ministry
of Legal Affairs of the Founding Church of Scientology. Two letters
from her, one dated 1 June 1979 and the other undated but probably of
around 30 June 1979, are on Hubbard's file. The only non-DoD agency to
which Hubbard's file had previously been released was the Department of
Justice, which - as you can imagine - excited Ms. Delgado's interest.

This means that no Scientologist was able to contradict Hubbard's claim
in 1974 that he really was entitled to those medals. In fact, it could
have been politically advantageous to him to have put in a phoney
request - its refusal was portrayed in the FOL Memo I cited as another
sign of the US Government's vindictiveness towards Hubbard. Until 1979,
it was impossible for anyone outside the USG to prove otherwise.

>4. But NOW: if YOU assume the viewpoint of somebody who wanted to
>CREATE an "OFFICIAL RECORD" that Hubbard was NOT entitled to 16
>medals, but to only four - but you were somebody who had overlooked or
>forgotten about the London Daily Mail story - THEN, and ONLY then,
>doesn't that idiotic "authorized request" from the Apollo liaison
>office start making some sort of "sense"?

No. Nor do you.

>>> 7. So was Fletcher Prouty right in saying: "He [Hubbard] had a much
>>> more important career than they knew... Furthermore there is great
>>> obfuscation among his purported 'military' records. Despite all
>>> that, he had a most unusual and important career...by military
>>> standards. ...I can not account for the fact that the Church
>>> chooses to provide its own 'cover' for his intelligence career; but
>>> that is none of my business. ...I can not account for the Church's
>>> choice to conceal my findings."
>>
>>I am unfamiliar with this quote, but perhaps you could post the
>>relevant documents...or at least provide information on where I might
>>search for them in the National Archives.
>
>It was a letter from Fletcher Prouty to a Patrick Jost. I believe it
>was posted in a.r.s. by Arnie Lerma. Maybe he can give you the
>background on it. The short story is Prouty was a hired gun looking
>into Hubbard's military career. He says turned up a lot of data that
>was then suppressed.

I have the original correspondence. As I've said before, Prouty's
claims don't check out.

>But that testimony probably doesn't fit in with your biases, just like
>with that great scholar you admire so much, Chris Owen. Am I right?

It's a pity your own scholarship apparently didn't extend to reading
what I wrote in Ron The War Hero, which explains all of the above in
much more detail.

--
| Chris Owen - chr...@OISPAMNOlutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| THE TRUTH ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD AND THE UNITED STATES NAVY |
| http://www.ronthewarhero.org |

mimus

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
Steve Plakos <stav...@concentric.net> fingered:

>Why is the obvious explanation never the real one for you?

Because he's a Fletcher Prouty disciple, and anyone who contradicts
Prouty is a "shit-fly", of course.

--
tinmi...@hotmail.com

I saw
many people
reduced to
incoherent babbling,
stripping off clothes,
crawling around on the ground,
banging heads, limbs and other body parts against furniture and walls,
barking,
losing all sense of one's identity
and intense and persistent suicidal ideation.

--Declaration of Andre Tabayoyon


If you imagine 40-50 Scientologists posting on the Internet every few days,
we'll just run the SP's right off the system.
It will be quite simple, actually.

--Elaine Siegel, OSA INT (1996)

Case 5/BTLA/SP2

mimus

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Kase Ossifer) fingered:

>Yo! Chris Owen. Need a little historian help here.

> <SPIT!>

><SPIT!>

>Just hoped you could sort this all out for us, Owen. <Snort> You and
>your shit-fly "black-helicopter" peanut gallery.

><Snort>

><Snort>

><Snort>

>Owen, We Have a Problem...

Yep, we do, we've got someone who believes Hubbard only lied when it
made sense to, and worships Fletcher "Everybody Killed JFK" Prouty,
and has an apparent URI to boot:

Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
fuckhead

Kase Ossifer

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to

mimus stopped jerking and twitching long enough to type:

>Steve Plakos <stav...@concentric.net> fingered:


>
>>Why is the obvious explanation never the real one for you?
>

>Because...anyone who contradicts Prouty is a "shit-fly", of course.

Nahhh, mimus, that ain't what makes a shit-fly. It's idiots who
make moronic ad hominem attacks while screamingly avoiding the
facts.

You know, idiots like you.

There is salvation for you, though: just go back and address
the facts. Try to calm down a little, first, though, okay?

<Chortle>

Kase Ossifer

Kase Ossifer

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
mimus read some facts that he choked on, and went:

>> <SPIT!>
>
>><SPIT!>
>
>><Snort>
>
>><Snort>
>
>><Snort>


>
>>Owen, We Have a Problem...
>

>Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
>Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter
>Prouty blackhelicopter Hubbard blackhelicopter shitfly blackhelicopter

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! mimus, take your meds! Get ahold of yourself!

Now, mimus, it has been fully documented by the very best psychs that
the rational mind is capable of understanding and answering questions.

So let's back up to the original questions, now that you've had a chance to calm down, and test your current rationality:

1. If Hubbard wasn't entitled to 16 medals, where and how did he get them

so that he had them framed behind his desk in 1968, as reported by two
reporters from the London Daily Mail who interviewed him in person and
saw them in person?

2. If he already had 16 medals, why did the liaison office of the Apollo
send a written request for his medals?

3. Were either Gerry Armstrong or Jim Dincalci running the liaison
office at the time this request went out?

4. What had happened to the 16 framed medals?

5. Who forged the "authorization" from L. Ron Hubbard requesting medals
that he had already had in his possession in 1968?

6. What had happened to L. Ron Hubbard by May of 1974, since, obviously,
he was not around to find out about this?

7. So was Fletcher Prouty right in saying: "He [Hubbard] had a much more
important career than they knew... Furthermore there is great
obfuscation among his purported 'military' records. Despite all that, he
had a most unusual and important career...by military standards. ...I
can not account for the fact that the Church chooses to provide its own
'cover' for his intelligence career; but that is none of my business.

I can not account for the Church's choice to conceal my findings."

And the follow-up questions:

1. Why would Hubbard run the risk of such an idiotic and dangerous
"con" with two reporters from an international newspaper - actually
POINTING OUT the medals and bringing them to the reporters' attention?
He had no way of knowing whether they would check the medals out or
not. And even if the reporters DIDN'T check them out, the very fact of
him having them on display was being reported IN AN INTERNATIONAL
NEWSPAPER, where ANYONE in the Navy who knew he shouldn't have had
them could have exposed the "con." The risk to everything he had spent
18 years building would have been incalculable. It makes NO sense.

2. If Hubbard "bought" these sixteen medals, why did he not actually


HAVE in his possession ANY of even the four that the Navy later (in
1974) claimed that he was entitled to - AND SENT? Why hadn't he been
given those medals when they were awarded? It makes NO sense.

3. If Hubbard had sixteen "bought" medals that had passed the muster


of the London Daily Mail, and he KNEW that he wasn't entitled to that
many, why the hell would he "authorize" an official request to the
Navy that would "PROVE CONCLUSIVELY," in the most embarrassing and
"official" way possible, that he was NOT entitled to the medals he had
claimed? NOTHING ADDS UP!

4. But NOW: if YOU assume the viewpoint of somebody who wanted to


CREATE an "OFFICIAL RECORD" that Hubbard was NOT entitled to 16
medals, but to only four - but you were somebody who had overlooked or
forgotten about the London Daily Mail story - THEN, and ONLY then,
doesn't that idiotic "authorized request" from the Apollo liaison
office start making some sort of "sense"?

Can't wait to hear your rational answers!

Kase Ossifer

mimus

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Kase Ossifer) fingered:

>
>mimus stopped jerking and twitching long enough to type:
>
>>Steve Plakos <stav...@concentric.net> fingered:
>>

>>>Why is the obvious explanation never the real one for you?
>>

>>Because...anyone who contradicts Prouty is a "shit-fly", of course.
>
>Nahhh, mimus, that ain't what makes a shit-fly. It's idiots who
>make moronic ad hominem attacks while screamingly avoiding the
>facts.
>
>You know, idiots like you.

"Shit-fly" . . . idiots . . . Scientology . . .

I feel inspiration beginning to stir . . .

Think . . . I must think . . . .

ptscATmy-deja.com

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
Kase Ossifer foamed:

>He showed off 16 medals to two reporters from a large
>international newpaper. Would you be that stupid if you
>hadn't earned them? Think it through, Blondie.

Personally, I wouldn't be that stupid.

But then I'm not L. Ron Hubbard.

>1. Why would Hubbard run the risk of such an idiotic and
>dangerous "con" with two reporters from an international
>newspaper - actually POINTING OUT the medals and bringing
>them to the reporters' attention?

Why would the very same L. Ron Hubbard claim to have
a PhD he bought from a diploma mill and repeatedly
call that to people's attention?

Why would this eminent clown claim in a TV interview
to have had only two wives when everyone knows he
had three?

Why would this Hubbard also DELIBERATELY have a
photograph of himself with electrodes hooked up to
a goddamn tomato, and then call a press conference
for this idiocy, declaring himself a world-famous
botanist, when any fool could tell the only experience
he had with botany was being nuttier than a five
dollar fruitcake?

Because Hubbard was a GODDAMN MORON, that's why!
The only DEEP COVER he ever saw was being buried
up to his neck in his own bovine excrement!
He was a clown! A numbskull. A nitwit.
A clod. A lunatic. A buffoon. A nutter.
A man with a full scholarship to the laughing
academy. A chap with a mind like the Black Hole of
Calcutta. A simp. A hurricane of flatulence.
A king of the whopper. A flat-out genyooine
24-karat-gold-plated drooling non compos
mentis Scheisskopf.

And that's all she wrote.

pt...@my-deja.com
--
Anon news web interface. FAQ available for review at:
http://packetderm.cotse.com/cgi-bin/blockit.cgi


Patrick Volk

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
On 6 Apr 2000 19:21:35 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
(Kase Ossifer) wrote:

>
>Jeffrey Liss <monu...@my-deja.com> in message
><8cider$2vf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> said:
>
>>> 1. If he wasn't entitled to 16 medals, where and how did he get
>>> them so that he had them framed behind his desk in 1968, as
>>> reported by two reporters from the London Daily Mail who
>>> interviewed him in person and saw them in person?
>>
>>I am concerned about this question,
>
>Yeah, I am too, Jeffrey.
>
>>as it is so obviously loaded.
>
>And cocked.
>
>>You seem to imply that, despite overwhelming evidence to the
>>contrary,
>>
>
>Which is also full of other holes that just haven't had the light of
>day shown through them yet. Let's take one thing at a time, shall we?
>
>>
>>Hubbard *might* have been entitled to the medals in question.
>
>He showed off 16 medals to two reporters from a large international
>newpaper. Would you be that stupid if you hadn't earned them? Think it
>through, Blondie.
>

Think this through: She's not LRH, nor am I. I wouldn't do such a
thing.

>>Since his Navy record -- and other relevant War Deparment records for
>>that period -- contain no mention of his "exploits" or the citations
>>he allegedly received for them,
>
>See Prouty.
>
>>
>>what you are alleging is a conspiracy.
>
>No I'm not. What is implied BY THE DATA is NOT a "conspiracy," which
>is nothing more than a word the intel agencies have already thoroughly
>re-defined in the culture as "nutcase fantasies."
>
>What is implied BY THE DATA is a BLACK OPERATION. Learn the
>difference. A BLACK OPERATION is what intelligence agencies actually
>DO under DEEP COVER using PUBLIC FUNDING. Read all about it in several
>famous House and Senate findings. If you don't think that BLACK
>OPERATIONS are actually DONE under DEEP COVER using PUBLIC FUNDING,
>that's because you are another one of those that the agencies call
>"shit-flies." Those are the dunces in the society that, when they get
>ANY evidence of an actual BLACK OPERATION, start scratching and
>grunting "conspiracy theory," and pass this along like shit-flies to
>other shit-flies who pick it up and scratch and grunt and giggle and
>pass it along, and thereby go on merrily ignoring actual evidence.
>This is something the agencies rely on as part of their DEEP COVER.

But, the operation wasn't so black as to remain a secret forever.
FOIA is a wonderful thing... In 25 years, you might get my record.

>
>I'm not wasting time here on a shit-fly, am I? If not, can your
>"conspiracy" bullshit, and let's look at facts, okay?
>
>>The Navy, you seem to suppose, has covered up the "truth" about L.
>>Ron Hubbard's naval career. Why? To what end?
>
>Have you read the 1972-1982 timelines that the Librarian posted? No,
>you haven't. If you had, you wouldn't be asking the question. Go read
>them, then come back and ask an informed question. I ain't got the
>time nor the inclination to give you the Reader's Digest version.
>
>>And why would Hubbard -- a hack science fiction writer with no
>>education or talent worth mentioning --
>
>Check your skirt, Sally - your bias is showing.
>
>>be tapped for such a sensitive role in the war?
>
>Which "such sensitive role" are you referring to? The question on the
>table is "medals." As for any "sensitive role" Hubbard may or may not
>have had, even Owen's little snickering excuse for a military outline
>acknowledges that Hubbard WAS in intelligence. Why? Route your
>question to the Navy, would you? I didn't assign him.

Collating weather data is intellegence, as is topological and
hydrological data. According to the documents obtained via FOIA,
that's what he was tapped for.

>
>>You obviously think little of Owen's scholarship on this issue,
>>
>
><Snort!> What "scholarship?" Owen's pitiable bias against L. Ron
>Hubbard is his MAJOR PREMISE, and he NEVER includes ANY FACT that will
>do ANYTHING but support his overtly stated hatred of the man. He will
>go around a fooball field to ignore and avoid any fact (like the one
>about the 1968 Mail interview, with Hubbard's war medals prominently
>on display) that doesn't fit in with his MAJOR PREMISE. Is that what
>you label "scholarship?" What do you call manure - porridge?

You want scholarship? I saw scans of his record released, including
efficiency reports, and assignments, and board of inquiry results. Oh,
I did not see one commendation.

>
>>but your questions come off as so much sciolism in the absence of any
>>evidence.
>
>A fine endorsement coming from a bloviating blinkard too obtuse to see
>the evidence plainly in sight.
>
>The evidence is a case full of 16 medals seen up-close and personal by
>TWO, count 'em, TWO, reporters from the London Daily Mail.

No, the evidence is documents released by the United States Navy.

>
>If you want to "explain it away" with the other shit-flies here who
>think Hubbard went and "bought the medals" at a pawn shop or surplus
>store, answer these burning questions:
>
>1. Why would Hubbard run the risk of such an idiotic and dangerous
>"con" with two reporters from an international newspaper - actually
>POINTING OUT the medals and bringing them to the reporters' attention?
>He had no way of knowing whether they would check the medals out or
>not. And even if the reporters DIDN'T check them out, the very fact of
>him having them on display was being reported IN AN INTERNATIONAL
>NEWSPAPER, where ANYONE in the Navy who knew he shouldn't have had
>them could have exposed the "con." The risk to everything he had spent
>18 years building would have been incalculable. It makes NO sense.

I don't read the LDM, so I wouldn't check them out. I did see the
medals he requested, and three of them didn't even exist.

It is common practice in the media to hype, is it not? The rationale
for hyping being that the first impression is closer to page A-1,
while any additional data is closer to B-5 material (i.e. away from
the front page).
It wouldn't suprise me to try that on foreign journalists, because
they don't know all the medals we have.
They didn't look like the medals that are normally awarded, but
smaller. Something that might be put on a formal uniform (Class A's I
think you generally wear the ribbons and not the medals themselves..
They're rather large, especially if you have more than four.


>
>2. If Hubbard "bought" these sixteen medals, why did he not actually
>HAVE in his possession ANY of even the four that the Navy later (in
>1974) claimed that he was entitled to - AND SENT? Why hadn't he been
>given those medals when they were awarded? It makes NO sense.

Strawman argument. On one hand, you say Hubbard showed off 16 medals,
and you expect him to produce those four, which I would expect he
already displayed. I agree, it doesn't make sense to produce those
four after you produced 16.

How do you know he didn't have them in his posession? How to you know
he might not have misplaced them? I know people, including my father,
who applied for and got replacement ribbons and medals. It's not
uncommon. Somebody gets up in years, and wants a nice set of medals to
show off at the Legion.


>
>3. If Hubbard had sixteen "bought" medals that had passed the muster
>of the London Daily Mail, and he KNEW that he wasn't entitled to that
>many, why the hell would he "authorize" an official request to the
>Navy that would "PROVE CONCLUSIVELY," in the most embarrassing and
>"official" way possible, that he was NOT entitled to the medals he had
>claimed? NOTHING ADDS UP!

SHEER GUT BLOWOUT. Things slip through the cracks... Military
bureaucracy can get things wrong. Was the LDM story about LRH's naval
career, or about LRH in general? Important people have a bio, and
unless someone is doing a biography, or a serious investigation, then
they take it at face value.

Now, on one side of this argument, you have LRH. On the other side,
you have documents, records (which show at least he wasn't eligible to
get the foreign medals that he applied for, as he was in the pacific)
which state otherwise.

>
>4. But NOW: if YOU assume the viewpoint of somebody who wanted to
>CREATE an "OFFICIAL RECORD" that Hubbard was NOT entitled to 16
>medals, but to only four - but you were somebody who had overlooked or
>forgotten about the London Daily Mail story - THEN, and ONLY then,
>doesn't that idiotic "authorized request" from the Apollo liaison
>office start making some sort of "sense"?

Sorry, I don't believe the LDM over the USN.

>
>>
>>> 7. So was Fletcher Prouty right in saying: "He [Hubbard] had a much
>>> more important career than they knew... Furthermore there is great
>>> obfuscation among his purported 'military' records. Despite all
>>> that, he had a most unusual and important career...by military
>>> standards. ...I can not account for the fact that the Church
>>> chooses to provide its own 'cover' for his intelligence career; but
>>> that is none of my business. ...I can not account for the Church's
>>> choice to conceal my findings."
>>
>>I am unfamiliar with this quote, but perhaps you could post the
>>relevant documents...or at least provide information on where I might
>>search for them in the National Archives.
>
>It was a letter from Fletcher Prouty to a Patrick Jost. I believe it
>was posted in a.r.s. by Arnie Lerma. Maybe he can give you the
>background on it. The short story is Prouty was a hired gun looking
>into Hubbard's military career. He says turned up a lot of data that
>was then suppressed.

But unsuppressed through the marvel of the Freedom of Information Act.
There's a website.

>
>But that testimony probably doesn't fit in with your biases, just like
>with that great scholar you admire so much, Chris Owen. Am I right?
><Snort!!>

Umm.. Don't think so.
>
>
>
>


mimus

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Kase Ossifer) fingered:

>
>mimus stopped jerking and twitching long enough to type:
>
>>Steve Plakos <stav...@concentric.net> fingered:
>>

>>>Why is the obvious explanation never the real one for you?
>>

>>Because...anyone who contradicts Prouty is a "shit-fly", of course.
>
>Nahhh, mimus, that ain't what makes a shit-fly. It's idiots who
>make moronic ad hominem attacks while screamingly avoiding the
>facts.
>
>You know, idiots like you.
>

>There is salvation for you, though: just go back and address
>the facts. Try to calm down a little, first, though, okay?
>
><Chortle>

Alright, let's start with Fact Number One, which dwarfs all others:

L. Ron Hubbard was a lifelong and outrageous liar and fraud, with no
sense or fear at all of the consequences of even his most outrageous
lies and frauds.

Heck, even a judge felt he had to publicly note that, on the record.

Address * that *.

Chris Owen

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
In article <38EBFB9B...@concentric.net>, Steve Plakos
<stav...@concentric.net> writes

>
>Chris may have a different answer, but the simple explanation, and,
>mostlikely explanation is: He bought them.

My conclusion too.

>In case you think this unlikely, I would remind you that in 1968 he was
>only 23 years past the end of the war and I remember going to flea markets
>in the 50's & 60's were you could buy almost anything associated with WWII
>including replicas of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

I can't think of a single type of British medal that hasn't been for
sale at one time or another, including the Victoria Cross (the
equivalent of your CMH, and much rarer). Plenty of vets have had to
sell their medals to make ends meet, sadly.

Beverly Rice

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
Chris Owen wrote:
> Steve Plakos wrote:

> >In case you think this unlikely, I would remind you that in 1968 he was
> >only 23 years past the end of the war and I remember going to flea markets
> >in the 50's & 60's were you could buy almost anything associated with WWII
> >including replicas of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

> I can't think of a single type of British medal that hasn't been for


> sale at one time or another, including the Victoria Cross (the
> equivalent of your CMH, and much rarer). Plenty of vets have had to
> sell their medals to make ends meet, sadly.

Pretending to be something you were not in the military
is something that has been done lots by many people with
shattered self-esteem looking to make themselves to appear
something they never were, and could never be.

After the Viet-Nam war, lots of guys used to claim to be
Viet-Nam vets in order to use sob stories and tragedies,
or excitment, to "pick up chicks".

ARC,

Beverly

Thomas J Best

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to

ptscATmy-deja.com wrote in message <2000040704...@cotse.com>...
>Kase Ossifer foamed:

<snip>


>Personally, I wouldn't be that stupid.
>
>But then I'm not L. Ron Hubbard.

<snip>

<snip>
Why don't you just tell the nice gentleman from Veritas what you
*really* think of the great dead Tub O'Lard? :-)

tam

mimus

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Kase Ossifer) fingered:

<snip>

"Kase" . . . "Kase" . . . may I call you Kase?

Hubbard didn't care whether his lies made sense, or could easily be
disproven.

Because like all such enthusiastic liars he was perfectly confident
that he could always make up a new one to patch the old one.

Such as that his "true" military record had to be classified.

Or that there was a conspiracy by the eevil psychs to suppress his
"discovery" that personalities correspond to musical tones.

Or that "clears" aren't really "clears" yet because "space cooties"
are sticking to them.

Do you see the pattern, Kase?

jrf...@atlascomm.net

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
On 7 Apr 2000 01:49:54 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
(Kase Ossifer) wrote:

>
>mimus stopped jerking and twitching long enough to type:
>
>>Steve Plakos <stav...@concentric.net> fingered:
>>

>>>Why is the obvious explanation never the real one for you?
>>

>>Because...anyone who contradicts Prouty is a "shit-fly", of course.
>
>Nahhh, mimus, that ain't what makes a shit-fly. It's idiots who
>make moronic ad hominem attacks while screamingly avoiding the
>facts.
>
>You know, idiots like you.
>

Avoiding the facts? Like you? Can you find any citation to the dead
fat guy for any medal other than the four medals anyone would have got
for being able to sit up and take a breath while in the service during
a war? If you are correct, there should be twelve of them floating
around.

Don't waste your time looking, his claim to the medals was bogus.
Face it, HE LIED.

Simply having a medal in his possesion doesn't mean diddly. If it
did, my grandmother would have won six purple hearts and two bronze
stars.

Somebody smack this jerk with a clue x 4.

jrf...@atlascomm.net

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
On 7 Apr 2000 02:00:38 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
(Kase Ossifer) wrote:


>
>So let's back up to the original questions, now that you've had a chance to calm down, and test your current rationality:
>

>1. If Hubbard wasn't entitled to 16 medals, where and how did he get them

>so that he had them framed behind his desk in 1968, as reported by two
>reporters from the London Daily Mail who interviewed him in person and
>saw them in person?

Can you read? Do you read any responses to your lame posts? He
bought them. Much the same as everyone who owns a Super Bowl ring was
not necessarily ever in a super bowl.

Did the reporters verify they were awarded to him? No. They saw
sixteen medals that could have been fakes, stolen, or bought at pawn
shops.

>2. If he already had 16 medals, why did the liaison office of the Apollo
>send a written request for his medals?

Geez you go in circles.

Stupidity? Duplicity? Perhaps, feeling guilty about the fakes and
delusional enough to believe his own bullshit, El Rotundo asked the
idiot to send a letter to the Navy. Probably too many pinks and grays
and too much rum.

You prefer to believe in hope and deny documentation. Much like the
science in $cientology.


>3. Were either Gerry Armstrong or Jim Dincalci running the liaison
>office at the time this request went out?

You mean the people who were, at that time, loyal to him?

>4. What had happened to the 16 framed medals?

He probably left them behind when he made one of his panic escapes
from justice in the middle of the night. A guy can only take so much
in a car whilst fleeing the long arm of the law.

>5. Who forged the "authorization" from L. Ron Hubbard requesting medals
>that he had already had in his possession in 1968?

Was it forged? Not likely.


>6. What had happened to L. Ron Hubbard by May of 1974, since, obviously,
>he was not around to find out about this?
>

>7. So was Fletcher Prouty right in saying: "He [Hubbard] had a much more
>important career than they knew... Furthermore there is great
>obfuscation among his purported 'military' records. Despite all that, he
>had a most unusual and important career...by military standards. ...I
>can not account for the fact that the Church chooses to provide its own
>'cover' for his intelligence career; but that is none of my business.

>I can not account for the Church's choice to conceal my findings."
>

NO.

As if our government could really keep a secret. We know who the top
Russian spy was during the cold war and I imagine that is a greater
secret than the military record of a fraud like Tubbard.

>And the follow-up questions:


>
>1. Why would Hubbard run the risk of such an idiotic and dangerous
>"con" with two reporters from an international newspaper - actually
>POINTING OUT the medals and bringing them to the reporters' attention?
>He had no way of knowing whether they would check the medals out or
>not. And even if the reporters DIDN'T check them out, the very fact of
>him having them on display was being reported IN AN INTERNATIONAL
>NEWSPAPER, where ANYONE in the Navy who knew he shouldn't have had
>them could have exposed the "con." The risk to everything he had spent
>18 years building would have been incalculable. It makes NO sense.

Back then there was no Freedom of Information Act and he could lie and
get away with it. Lying was his favorite hobby.

>2. If Hubbard "bought" these sixteen medals, why did he not actually
>HAVE in his possession ANY of even the four that the Navy later (in
>1974) claimed that he was entitled to - AND SENT? Why hadn't he been
>given those medals when they were awarded? It makes NO sense.

Because he lost them while running away from the world.

>3. If Hubbard had sixteen "bought" medals that had passed the muster
>of the London Daily Mail, and he KNEW that he wasn't entitled to that
>many, why the hell would he "authorize" an official request to the
>Navy that would "PROVE CONCLUSIVELY," in the most embarrassing and
>"official" way possible, that he was NOT entitled to the medals he had
>claimed? NOTHING ADDS UP!

Nothing that clown said ever really added up. What's new?

>4. But NOW: if YOU assume the viewpoint of somebody who wanted to
>CREATE an "OFFICIAL RECORD" that Hubbard was NOT entitled to 16
>medals, but to only four - but you were somebody who had overlooked or
>forgotten about the London Daily Mail story - THEN, and ONLY then,
>doesn't that idiotic "authorized request" from the Apollo liaison
>office start making some sort of "sense"?
>

>Can't wait to hear your rational answers!

And we are still waiting for a rational explanation from you as to
what he may have done to warrant anything more than the four medals he
actually qualified for. From his diaries to the official record, he
was never in a position to have been able to earn anything more than
the Navy says he got.

>Kase Ossifer


Kase Ossifer

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to

QUESTION TO POTENTIAL JUROR:
Mr. ptsc, thank you for coming here today, and I'd like to find out a
few things about your ability to impartially evaluate evidence. We need
to establish whether there might be any predjudices or biases on your
part that might color your view of the facts. We are considering
evidence relating to a Mr. L. Ron Hubbard, who, as you know, is not here
to say anything in his own defense, and so we would like your reasoned
address only to facts in evidence.

Now, the question posed to you:

>>He [L. Ron Hubbard] showed off 16 medals to two reporters from a large


>>international newpaper. Would you be that stupid if you
>>hadn't earned them?

Your response, Mr. ptsc?

>Personally, I wouldn't be that stupid.
>
>But then I'm not L. Ron Hubbard.

Mmmmm. Thank you. And...

>>Why would Hubbard run the risk of such an idiotic and
>>dangerous "con" with two reporters from an international
>>newspaper - actually POINTING OUT the medals and bringing
>>them to the reporters' attention?

Your response, Mr. ptsc?

>Because Hubbard was a GODDAMN MORON, that's why!
>The only DEEP COVER he ever saw was being buried
>up to his neck in his own bovine excrement!
>He was a clown! A numbskull. A nitwit.
>A clod. A lunatic. A buffoon. A nutter.
>A man with a full scholarship to the laughing
>academy. A chap with a mind like the Black Hole of
>Calcutta. A simp. A hurricane of flatulence.
>A king of the whopper. A flat-out genyooine
>24-karat-gold-plated drooling non compos
>mentis Scheisskopf.
>
>And that's all she wrote.

Mmmmm. Well, I want to thank you, Mr. PTS III for taking the trouble to
come down here to the courthouse and applying, but I believe you can be
excused from jury duty. And may I suggest a pleasant vacation in a quiet
place where the winds blow softly, with plenty of good nutrition and
rest.

Kase Ossifer


Kase Ossifer

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to

Trumpets! Fanfare! Red Carpets! The Great Unquestionable Historian Chris
Owen FINALLY arrives--if only through the back door on the coat-tails of
Mr. Plakos. I admire your Courage, Great Sir. <Chortle. Snort.>

And The Great Unquestionable Historian Chris Owen opined:

>In article <38EBFB9B...@concentric.net>, Steve Plakos
><stav...@concentric.net> writes
>

>>Chris may have a different answer, but the simple explanation, and,
>>mostlikely explanation is: He bought them.
>

>My conclusion too.

Oh, the weight! Oh, the preponderance! The simple powerful elegance of
those three little words from The Great Unquestionable Historian:

"My conclusion too."

I takes the breath away. At least long enough to inhale in order to
deferentially ask the Great Unquestionable Historian what his
unimpeachable evidence and/or sources are for his Unquestionable
Conclusion:

1. May I assume, Great Sir, that you have a copy of a receipt from some
commercial establishment wherein Mr. Hubbard bought said 16 medals,
proving that such a purchase as you "conclude" actually occurred? If so,
would you deign to grace us all with that sacred piece of evidence, so
we, though beneath you, can have at least a chance to follow you to your
lofty Great Historian "conclusion"?

2. Failing material evidence, as in #1, above, may I assume, Great
Unassailable Historian, that you have reliable first-hand testimony from
a credible source, stating that they witnessed the purchase of said 16
medals, stating the date or approximate date on which such purchase
occurred, and stating the commercial establishment from which said
purchases were made? If so, isn't it odd that such a reliable witness
has not already come forward? Wonder why? But we would always welcome
new testimony in evidence, provided such testifier could provide a way
of verifying any such testimony.

3. We would like to ask, also, if you would be so kind as to indulge us:
Would you please name the 16 medals that Mr. Hubbard displayed to the
reporters from the London Daily Mail, so that we may ascertain that they
were, in fact, just the sort of odd collection of medals one would find
in a pawn shop or surplus store, thereby proving that at least SOME of
the medals Mr. Hubbard displayed could not POSSIBLY have been medals
that he could have been awareded. This, of course, would be entirely
credible evidence to support your Lofty and Grand Conclusion. And we are
all, here, certain that you have performed due diligence in so
dismissing this case full of 16 medals. It's just that we lesser lights
cannot always follow the great leaps of logic that you of the Loftier
Persuasion can make, and so need material stepping-stones to lead us to
the Greater Truths.

4. And finally (for now), not wishing to burden the Great Unquestionable
Historian, and keep him from his busy schedule of collecting and
evaluating documents and evidence, may we be so bold as to ask why the
Great Unquestionable Historian, Himself, in preparing his One
Unquestionable History of L. Ron Hubbard's Military Career, never even
mentioned this spectacular case full of 16 medals, boldly displayed to
two reporters from the London Daily Mail? Why, Great Defender of
Historical Truth and Accuracy, did you leave it for the lowly Kase
Ossifer to bring to the attention of all Seekers of Truth? It's these
unfortunate little glaring, massive inconsistencies, Grand Sir, that -
despite your unimpeachable Reputation as the Great Unquestionable
Historian - may one day leave you merely bobbing like a turd in the
Mississippi of Lies that is history.

We know you wouldn't allow that, now, don't we? We know you have done
due diligence, and have to hand actual, verifiable facts in evidence to
support your Grand Conclusion and PROVE that L. Ron Hubbard purchased
these 16 displayed military medals. Won't you share them with us lowly
peons? Rather quickly? The tide is rising.

Kase Ossifer

Rick English

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Kase Ossifer) wrote:

>
>Trumpets! Fanfare! Red Carpets! The Great Unquestionable Historian Chris
>Owen FINALLY arrives--if only through the back door on the coat-tails of
>Mr. Plakos. I admire your Courage, Great Sir. <Chortle. Snort.>

Well, at least you're not as obscene and unreadable as you are in your
Ace of Clubs valence. Small mercies.

>1. May I assume, Great Sir, that you have a copy of a receipt from some
>commercial establishment wherein Mr. Hubbard bought said 16 medals

Who gives a toss where he got them ? Maybe from mind-fucked Hubbardites
like you who were all too willing to propitiate themselves to the great
fraud. Whatever, it's as sure as hell he didn't earn them !

Any chance of you finding some other dead horse to flog ? In some other
newsgroup perhaps ?

Please ?

RE


Chris Owen

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
In article <D55C6...@127.0.0.1>, Kase Ossifer <Anonymous-
Rema...@See.Comment.Header> splutters

[my earlier post doesn't seem to have propagated, so here's another
crack at it]

>So let's back up to the original questions, now that you've had a chance to calm
>down, and test your current rationality:
>
>1. If Hubbard wasn't entitled to 16 medals, where and how did he get them
>so that he had them framed behind his desk in 1968, as reported by two
>reporters from the London Daily Mail who interviewed him in person and
>saw them in person?

He could easily have bought them. War medals are readily available in
pawn shops, from collectors and at auctions. The fact that he had them
doesn't mean he was entitled to them; there are many, many examples of
WW2 and Vietnam vets claiming ownership of medals they weren't entitled
to. The late Admiral Mike Boorda is a case in point - he famously
committed suicide when found out.

>2. If he already had 16 medals, why did the liaison office of the Apollo
>send a written request for his medals?

They were acting on Hubbard's specific authorisation, as he issued a
Flag Operations Liaison Memo on May 28, 1974 detailing his claims.
Interestingly, the medals he claimed then differ considerably from the
medals claimed for Hubbard today. Why do you think this is so?

It's impossible to say for sure why Hubbard had this request sent.
Russell Miller (in "Bare-Faced Messiah") suggests that it was a sign
that Hubbard was losing his marbles. I don't agree with this
explanation; Hubbard was Machiavellian, not mad. I think there's a tie-
in with the infamous Operation Snow White. This was established in
April 1973, its ostensible aim being to purge Government files of "false
reports". Scientology being what it was, it regarded (then as now)
anything Hubbard said as true and any contradiction as false. So it
would have been politically useful for that well known naval hero L. Ron
Hubbard to apply for his medals and be told that he wasn't entitled to
them - clearly an example of the Navy's false reports on Hubbard.

>3. Were either Gerry Armstrong or Jim Dincalci running the liaison
>office at the time this request went out?

I'm pretty sure Armstrong wasn't. I don't know exactly what Dincalci
was doing then; working as part of Hubbard's personal staff, I believe.

>4. What had happened to the 16 framed medals?

They still exist, I believe in the L. Ron Hubbard Lie, sorry, Life
Exhibition in Los Angeles. There's even a photo of them at
http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/img/pg11_2.gif.

>5. Who forged the "authorization" from L. Ron Hubbard requesting medals


>that he had already had in his possession in 1968?

Nobody, since Hubbard himself issued a Flag Operations Liaison Memo at
the same time. The memo lists 17 medals and awards. In June 1974,
after the USN refused to send more than the routine 4 medals listed in
his records, Hubbard claimed that he had been awarded 28 medals, 21 of
which he had been publicly awarded and the other 7 awarded in secret
because naval command were embarrassed that he had sunk a couple of subs
in their own "back yard".

>6. What had happened to L. Ron Hubbard by May of 1974, since, obviously,
>he was not around to find out about this?

Why do you say "obviously"? He was aboard the Apollo at the time, which
was wandering around between Portugal, Madeira and the Canaries. The
medals request was made by Hubbard's agents in New York City. The
Apollo was very much kept in the loop - literally feet of telex messages
arrived every day detailing the worldwide operations of Scientology. As
I've already said, Hubbard responded to the USN's refusal to give him
the 17 medals he claimed by issuing a statement to Scientologists
claiming that he was in fact owed 28 medals. This rather suggests that
he *was* "around to find out about this", doesn't it?

>7. So was Fletcher Prouty right in saying: "He [Hubbard] had a much more
>important career than they knew... Furthermore there is great
>obfuscation among his purported 'military' records. Despite all that, he
>had a most unusual and important career...by military standards. ...I
>can not account for the fact that the Church chooses to provide its own
>'cover' for his intelligence career; but that is none of my business.
>I can not account for the Church's choice to conceal my findings."

No. Prouty has no credibility in this matter; many of his claims about


Hubbard's service are just plain wrong, not least in that he failed to
spot that Hubbard claimed to have been awarded medals ("British & Dutch
Victory Medals") which quite simply don't exist. There are many other
boo-boos and unsupported assumptions in Prouty's writings. See
http://www.ronthewarhero.org/connection.htm for the details.

>And the follow-up questions:
>
>1. Why would Hubbard run the risk of such an idiotic and dangerous


>"con" with two reporters from an international newspaper - actually
>POINTING OUT the medals and bringing them to the reporters' attention?

>He had no way of knowing whether they would check the medals out or
>not. And even if the reporters DIDN'T check them out, the very fact of
>him having them on display was being reported IN AN INTERNATIONAL
>NEWSPAPER, where ANYONE in the Navy who knew he shouldn't have had
>them could have exposed the "con." The risk to everything he had spent
>18 years building would have been incalculable. It makes NO sense.

Dear Sirs,

Yours faithfully,

Dear Sir:

Sincerely yours,

>2. If Hubbard "bought" these sixteen medals, why did he not actually


>HAVE in his possession ANY of even the four that the Navy later (in
>1974) claimed that he was entitled to - AND SENT? Why hadn't he been
>given those medals when they were awarded? It makes NO sense.

Veterans lose medals. They also often don't receive them. In Hubbard's


case there's no record that those four medals were ever presented to
him, and he was moving around a lot at the war's end. In the case of
the British Ministry of Defence, for which I work, we get literally
dozens of calls every week from veterans wanting replacement medals or
wanting to obtain medals to which they were entitled but which, for one
reason or another, they were never awarded.

>3. If Hubbard had sixteen "bought" medals that had passed the muster


>of the London Daily Mail, and he KNEW that he wasn't entitled to that
>many, why the hell would he "authorize" an official request to the
>Navy that would "PROVE CONCLUSIVELY," in the most embarrassing and
>"official" way possible, that he was NOT entitled to the medals he had
>claimed? NOTHING ADDS UP!

It didn't prove anything of the sort. Hubbard's request was made in May


1974. When did Hubbard or the Church of Scientology first apply for a
copy of his wartime record? Not until May-June 1979, when the records
were released to Ms. Maria Delgado, Assistant Director, Ministry of
Legal Affairs of the Founding Church of Scientology. Two letters from
her, one dated 1 June 1979 and the other undated but probably of around
30 June 1979, are on Hubbard's file. The only non-DoD agency to which
Hubbard's file had previously been released was the Department of
Justice, which - as you can imagine - excited Ms. Delgado's interest.

This means that no Scientologist was able to contradict Hubbard's claim

in 1974 that he really was entitled to those medals. Until 1979,
it was impossible for anyone outside the USG to prove otherwise. It
wasn't until 1986 that the records were released to the general public.

>4. But NOW: if YOU assume the viewpoint of somebody who wanted to
>CREATE an "OFFICIAL RECORD" that Hubbard was NOT entitled to 16
>medals, but to only four - but you were somebody who had overlooked or
>forgotten about the London Daily Mail story - THEN, and ONLY then,
>doesn't that idiotic "authorized request" from the Apollo liaison
>office start making some sort of "sense"?

No. Nor do you.

>Can't wait to hear your rational answers!

It's a pity we can't have rational questions in the first place. Your


own scholarship apparently didn't extend to reading what I wrote in Ron
The War Hero, which explains all of the above in much more detail.

--

Chris Owen

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
In article <4C71F...@127.0.0.1>, Kase Ossifer <Anonymous-
Rema...@See.Comment.Header> writes

>
>1. May I assume, Great Sir, that you have a copy of a receipt from some
>commercial establishment wherein Mr. Hubbard bought said 16 medals,
>proving that such a purchase as you "conclude" actually occurred? If so,
>would you deign to grace us all with that sacred piece of evidence, so
>we, though beneath you, can have at least a chance to follow you to your
>lofty Great Historian "conclusion"?

Try to follow this chain of logic (difficult for you, I know, but try
nonetheless):

Were those medals awarded to Hubbard?

- There's no evidence that they were: nothing on his record, no
citations, not even any information from Hubbard or Scientology
about what the medals were awarded *for*. Don't you think it's
a bit strange that he never actually gave any details about what
the medals were awarded for?

- There's no record of him having been received *any* medals before
his 1974 application.

- If he wasn't presented with any medals and wasn't awarded the bulk
of what he claimed in the first place, he must have got them from
some source other than the US Navy.

- The only source of genuine naval war medals other than the Navy is
from other veterans, selling or giving away their medals.

- The most likely route by which these medals arrived in Hubbard's
hands was by specialist dealers, or auctions, or pawnbrokers.

- Therefore the most likely route by which Hubbard got his medals was
by buying them.

>2. Failing material evidence, as in #1, above, may I assume, Great
>Unassailable Historian, that you have reliable first-hand testimony from
>a credible source, stating that they witnessed the purchase of said 16
>medals, stating the date or approximate date on which such purchase
>occurred, and stating the commercial establishment from which said
>purchases were made? If so, isn't it odd that such a reliable witness
>has not already come forward? Wonder why? But we would always welcome
>new testimony in evidence, provided such testifier could provide a way
>of verifying any such testimony.

Since it was probably done in secret it makes it difficult to document.
Scientology was much sloppier with its communications in the 1950s,
which is why we know that Hubbard bought his degree. *I* have a couple
of original telegrams sent by Hubbard in the early 1950s - lovey-dovey
stuff to his mistress. In the early 1970s all communications to Hubbard
were routed via the Apollo - much easier to control.

>3. We would like to ask, also, if you would be so kind as to indulge us:
>Would you please name the 16 medals that Mr. Hubbard displayed to the
>reporters from the London Daily Mail, so that we may ascertain that they
>were, in fact, just the sort of odd collection of medals one would find
>in a pawn shop or surplus store, thereby proving that at least SOME of
>the medals Mr. Hubbard displayed could not POSSIBLY have been medals
>that he could have been awareded.

British war medals of every degree, right up to the Victoria Cross (the
equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor) have been bought and
sold at auctions and through dealers. The medals claimed by Hubbard
exist in far greater numbers than VCs; since the US has a much bigger
market for militaria and many more Forces-connected citizens, there are
a lot of opportunities to buy and sell medals.

Of course, there were some medals claimed by Hubbard which he couldn't
have been awarded, because they don't exist (the "British and Dutch
Victory Medals").

>This, of course, would be entirely
>credible evidence to support your Lofty and Grand Conclusion. And we are
>all, here, certain that you have performed due diligence in so
>dismissing this case full of 16 medals. It's just that we lesser lights
>cannot always follow the great leaps of logic that you of the Loftier
>Persuasion can make, and so need material stepping-stones to lead us to
>the Greater Truths.
>
>4. And finally (for now), not wishing to burden the Great Unquestionable
>Historian, and keep him from his busy schedule of collecting and
>evaluating documents and evidence, may we be so bold as to ask why the
>Great Unquestionable Historian, Himself, in preparing his One
>Unquestionable History of L. Ron Hubbard's Military Career, never even
>mentioned this spectacular case full of 16 medals, boldly displayed to

>two reporters from the London Daily Mail?

They still exist, I believe in the L. Ron Hubbard Lie, sorry, Life
Exhibition in Los Angeles. There's even a photo of them at

http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/img/pg11_2.gif. I mentioned this
in Ron The War Hero in http://www.ronthewarhero.org/medals.htm. Pity
you didn't notice. You might want to try reading what I wrote before
making a fool of yourself on Usenet.

Of course, we don't know for sure that the medals are genuine. Have
they ever been independently examined (and I don't mean by Fleet Street
hacks) to corroborate their authenticity? Do US medals have serial
numbers on their backs? If they do, it would be interesting to check
those numbers with the US Navy's records...

>We know you wouldn't allow that, now, don't we? We know you have done
>due diligence, and have to hand actual, verifiable facts in evidence to
>support your Grand Conclusion and PROVE that L. Ron Hubbard purchased
>these 16 displayed military medals. Won't you share them with us lowly
>peons? Rather quickly? The tide is rising.

I don't have to prove that Hubbard purchased them. You have to prove
that Hubbard legitimately possessed them in the first place. If he
wasn't awarded them, the question of how he got hold of them is pretty
irrelevant.

Since you, the Great Unassailable Critic, assert so strongly that he
*was* awarded them, could you share your evidence with us humble seekers
of enlightenment?

Rick English

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:

>They still exist, I believe in the L. Ron Hubbard Lie, sorry, Life
>Exhibition in Los Angeles. There's even a photo of them at
>http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/img/pg11_2.gif. I mentioned this
>in Ron The War Hero in http://www.ronthewarhero.org/medals.htm. Pity
>you didn't notice. You might want to try reading what I wrote before
>making a fool of yourself on Usenet.

Too late !

The Case Officer is already challenging Koos for Usenet Kook of the
century.

He only reads Prouty <snicker, chortle,snort(tm)> and himself as
AceofClubs and The Librarian. Bit inbred I think.

>Since you, the Great Unassailable Critic, assert so strongly that he
>*was* awarded them, could you share your evidence with us humble seekers
>of enlightenment?

Prouty ! It's Prouty !

Hell Chris, What is implied BY THE DATA is a BLACK OPERATION. Learn the
difference . What you DO under DEEP COVER using PUBLIC FUNDING as
implied BY THE DATA is NOT a "conspiracy," it's a DEEP COVER and
PUBLICLY FUNDED operation (but NOT a CONSPIRACY). It makes NO sense.
NOTHING ADDS UP!

I'm not wasting time here on a shit-fly, am I?

RE

Kase Ossifer

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to

Ah, the Great Unquestionable Historian stoops to pat the head of the
unworthy Kase Ossifer! Thank you, Great One, for your compassion, and
for your effusive outpouring of obfuscating and dispersing
information.

And I believe that, in it, we have found the pin-point focus of this
little exercise, and I so appreciate your willing cooperation. You
wrote so candidly:

>In the case of the British Ministry of Defence, for which I work...

Ah, ah, ah. Isn't this a rare coincidence! And doesn't this lead to
the obvious, obvious questions, which I am sure you will be equally
candid in answering:

1. Have you received any funding or pay or compensation whatsoever,
from any source whatsoever, for any of your research and/or writing on
the history of L. Ron Hubbard?

2. Have you received any funding or pay or compensation whatsoever
from the British Ministry of Defence, or from any military or
intelligence organization of any country, for any of the work you have
done in relation to L. Ron Hubbard?

3. How, exactly, did you obtain the documents you reference in your
work regarding L. Ron Hubbard?

4. Have you funded all your research and document collection on L. Ron
Hubbard personally, out of your own pocket, and would you provide
documented evidence of that?

4. Do you now, or have you ever, worked for, with, or on behalf of any
intelligence agency or organization, of any country, either directly,
or through any intermediary?

5. Have you been provided documents or information by, or through, any
intelligence or military intelligence organization, directly, or
through any intermediary?

6. Has any of your work regarding L. Ron Hubbard been done as an
assignment in your capacity with the British Ministry of Defence, or
on any orders or directions from the British Ministry of Defence, or
on orders or directions from any military or intelligence
organization?

7. Does the British Ministry of Defence or any of its associated
organizations have any program that is in any way related to "remote
viewing" or anything similar to "remote viewing," or in any way
related to practices commonly referred to as "paranormal," involving
spiritual or mental feats such as viewing a location remotely, or
affecting people or objects remotely?

8. Has any of your research or writing on the subject of L. Ron
Hubbard been done as part of, or during the work period of, your
position with the British Ministry of Defence?

9. Did you provide documents or any help or assistance to Russell
Miller in the research and writing of Bare-Faced Messiah?

We'll wait while you get clearance for how to respond and what you can
say. Anything you don't answer directly and unambiguosly will pretty
much say everything that needs to be said. And thanks for bringing it
all back home.

Kase Ossifer

Donald Keeney

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
Chris Owen wrote;"He could easily have bought
them.".................................................................
Any town that the navy uses as a port has uniform shops that sell any
medal you want,no questions asked.Easy as pie. Don,ex navy 63-67,ex
$cieno 69-71


Captain Nerd

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <7790-38...@storefull-232.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
dar...@webtv.net (Donald Keeney) wrote:

Ah, but "Cheese Hardener" will tell you, that it was impossible for
Hubbard to have done so! It was the FBI, the 12 German Bankers,
and the Marcab Psych Fleet that make it *look* like the medals
weren't earned!

HTH.

Cap.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2

iQA/AwUBOO6S1bztfgpKlX7qEQJ+YQCg0/IU+hHRA6NGn/0rtan2G0mLyoQAn3ZW
gOJc0CTK1BVjeXG4iN2JdRSd
=tT3n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Operation: Nerdwatch - http://www.nerdwatch.com
Captain Nerd can be reached at: cpt...@nerdwatch.com
"By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes."

Captain Nerd

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <5829C...@127.0.0.1>, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
(Kase Ossifer) wrote:

[nothing at all]

> Kase Ossifer

So, "Cheese Hardener", what do you have to say about s'logy?

Cap.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2

iQA/AwUBOO6SZ7ztfgpKlX7qEQKX1ACfUrS6YT5XHR1k/BLjhvOfgAgEyIwAoO9o
kDo/twnpT2MsaHa7NlTRsU77
=Lo9G

mimus

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Kase Ossifer) fingered:

>QUESTION TO POTENTIAL JUROR:
>Mr. ptsc, thank you for coming here today, and I'd like to find out a
>few things about your ability to impartially evaluate evidence. We need
>to establish whether there might be any predjudices or biases on your
>part that might color your view of the facts. We are considering
>evidence relating to a Mr. L. Ron Hubbard, who, as you know, is not here
>to say anything in his own defense, and so we would like your reasoned
>address only to facts in evidence.
>
>Now, the question posed to you:
>
>>>He [L. Ron Hubbard] showed off 16 medals to two reporters from a large
>>>international newpaper. Would you be that stupid if you
>>>hadn't earned them?
>
>Your response, Mr. ptsc?
>
>>Personally, I wouldn't be that stupid.
>>
>>But then I'm not L. Ron Hubbard.
>
>Mmmmm. Thank you. And...
>

>>>Why would Hubbard run the risk of such an idiotic and
>>>dangerous "con" with two reporters from an international
>>>newspaper - actually POINTING OUT the medals and bringing
>>>them to the reporters' attention?
>

>Your response, Mr. ptsc?
>
>>Because Hubbard was a GODDAMN MORON, that's why!
>>The only DEEP COVER he ever saw was being buried
>>up to his neck in his own bovine excrement!
>>He was a clown! A numbskull. A nitwit.
>>A clod. A lunatic. A buffoon. A nutter.
>>A man with a full scholarship to the laughing
>>academy. A chap with a mind like the Black Hole of
>>Calcutta. A simp. A hurricane of flatulence.
>>A king of the whopper. A flat-out genyooine
>>24-karat-gold-plated drooling non compos
>>mentis Scheisskopf.
>>
>>And that's all she wrote.
>
>Mmmmm. Well, I want to thank you, Mr. PTS III for taking the trouble to
>come down here to the courthouse and applying, but I believe you can be
>excused from jury duty. And may I suggest a pleasant vacation in a quiet
>place where the winds blow softly, with plenty of good nutrition and
>rest.

Happy Valley?

John Dorsay

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
Kase Ossifer wrote:
>
> Ah, the Great Unquestionable Historian stoops to pat the head of the
> unworthy Kase Ossifer! Thank you, Great One, for your compassion, and
> for your effusive outpouring of obfuscating and dispersing
> information.
>
> And I believe that, in it, we have found the pin-point focus of this
> little exercise, and I so appreciate your willing cooperation. You
> wrote so candidly:
>
> >In the case of the British Ministry of Defence, for which I work...
>
> Ah, ah, ah. Isn't this a rare coincidence! And doesn't this lead to
> the obvious, obvious questions, which I am sure you will be equally
> candid in answering:
>
> 1. Have you received any funding or pay or compensation whatsoever,
> from any source whatsoever, for any of your research and/or writing on
> the history of L. Ron Hubbard?

Well of course he does. Most of his payoff money comes from Bob Minton
and the big multinational drug companies, though. Government cut backs
have made it difficult for the civil service to compete with those
Minton Marks and Prozac Pounds. So he doesn't get paid as much as he
should. But then, none of us do.



> 2. Have you received any funding or pay or compensation whatsoever
> from the British Ministry of Defence, or from any military or
> intelligence organization of any country, for any of the work you have
> done in relation to L. Ron Hubbard?

MI5, Smersh, and the Mossad. But not usually all at the same time.



> 3. How, exactly, did you obtain the documents you reference in your
> work regarding L. Ron Hubbard?

Top secret Marcabian tech. We can't talk about it. I've said too much
already.

> 4. Have you funded all your research and document collection on L. Ron
> Hubbard personally, out of your own pocket, and would you provide
> documented evidence of that?

The twelve bankers have the "documented evidence" you seek. I'm not
sure I would believe them, but they have the paperwork and it's all in
order. Perfectly in order. A bit too perfectly in order, if you know
what I mean.



> 4. Do you now, or have you ever, worked for, with, or on behalf of any
> intelligence agency or organization, of any country, either directly,
> or through any intermediary?

Didn't I just answer question 4? If you're going to number them like
that, then I'm not going to answer them any more.

<snip insanity reluctantly - it's a nice change from the antipsychiatry
tedium of our sock puppets>

--
Regards, John
Exceedingly Rude and Discourteous Psychiatric Pawn

Read about Scientology and the abuse of survivors of brain injury:

http://www.parishioner.org/lopez.html

Dave Bird

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
In article<6312...@127.0.0.1>, Kase Ossified <Anonymous-
Rema...@See.Comment.Header> writes:
>1. If he wasn't entitled to 16 medals, where and how did he get them so

>that he had them framed behind his desk in 1968,


He went down the antique shop and bought 16 medals.

Case dismissed!


__ .\|/////..
||_.-' '. /\\|// ----
// ; | -----
--._// .\|/. .==== =====. --- -----------X*E*M*U-----------+
(( //(####) \d]>||<[d]>\ (~\ |
|| v '--'\\ . | \ | ''Auditting your Garden |
|| ; v . {_ \ : \/ Plants'' by L Ron Tubbard |
// .' : .'___' : ' Bridge Publications |
// ; '. ~===~ /\ $949.99 paperback |
// . .... o : /__\'''' / \ |
. \\\\~~~~|~~~~~~~|\\ / /\/,,, further details, ring |
. | .\''. |/''''/.|,,\\ //,,,,,,, 01 800 FOR TRUT |
'.|: O :|[ / ]|,,,,\/,,,,,,,,, |
----------------| '...' |[__O__]|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, --------------------------+
|_______|_______|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Chris Owen

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
In article <5829C...@127.0.0.1>, Kase Ossifer <Anonymous-
Rema...@See.Comment.Header> writes

>
>Ah, the Great Unquestionable Historian stoops to pat the head of the
>unworthy Kase Ossifer! Thank you, Great One, for your compassion, and
>for your effusive outpouring of obfuscating and dispersing
>information.

No problem. :-)

>And I believe that, in it, we have found the pin-point focus of this
>little exercise, and I so appreciate your willing cooperation. You
>wrote so candidly:
>
>>In the case of the British Ministry of Defence, for which I work...
>
>Ah, ah, ah. Isn't this a rare coincidence! And doesn't this lead to
>the obvious, obvious questions, which I am sure you will be equally
>candid in answering:
>
>1. Have you received any funding or pay or compensation whatsoever,
>from any source whatsoever, for any of your research and/or writing on
>the history of L. Ron Hubbard?

No. (Would have been nice, but...)

>2. Have you received any funding or pay or compensation whatsoever
>from the British Ministry of Defence, or from any military or
>intelligence organization of any country, for any of the work you have
>done in relation to L. Ron Hubbard?

No. I mention it only to get it out in the open. There's no
conspiracy, no hidden connections and no relation between my work on
Hubbard and my job. The only relevance is that as a defence
professional I do have a certain amount of expertise when it comes to
commenting on military matters. Of equal relevance is the fact that I
was trained as an historian at Oxford University, giving me the
analytical skills necessary to write works such as Ron The War Hero and
others.

>3. How, exactly, did you obtain the documents you reference in your
>work regarding L. Ron Hubbard?

Most were from Mr. Patrick Jost, the recipient of the correspondence
with Fletcher Prouty which you quoted in my previous e-mail. He
obtained them via FOIA from the United States Navy and posted details of
some of them to a.r.s. way back in 1996 or 1997. I obtained them from
him in Washington at the end of May 1999; no money changed hands, as he
felt that I could make better use of them than he. I travelled there at
my own expense, on Virgin Atlantic, for a (very pleasant) late spring
break.

Some were from Russell Miller, the author of Bare-Faced Messiah; in 1996
he gave me all the papers he used to write that book.

A few - mostly photos - were from the US National Archives at College
Park (sp?), Maryland, which I visited on 27 May 1999.

A few were from the US Navy Historical Center at the Navy Dockyard,
Washington D.C., obtained by making an application under FOIA.

Two were from Karin Spaink (ksp...@xs4all.nl), the source being the
Church of Scientology of the Netherlands.

A handful of corroborating items, which I didn't scan but used to verify
or disprove various details, I consulted in the archives of the Royal
Navy in Great Scotland Yard, London and the Westminster Reference
Library in St Martin's Street, London. This mainly comprised war
histories, ship catalogues (Jane's et al) and books about medals.

I think that accounts for everything.

>4. Have you funded all your research and document collection on L. Ron
>Hubbard personally, out of your own pocket, and would you provide
>documented evidence of that?

The only expenses I incurred were the cost of the flight to Washington
(an indirect expense, as I was intending to have a break there anyway;
the fact that I was able to pick up the documents was a bonus) and the
cost of photocopying in the US National Archives and Westminster
Reference Library. Obviously I can't account for dollar bills or pound
coins fed into self-service photocopiers, but my air fare I put on my
credit/debit card.

>4. Do you now, or have you ever, worked for, with, or on behalf of any
>intelligence agency or organization, of any country, either directly,
>or through any intermediary?

[Two 4's? Tsk]

Yes, but obviously I'm not going to go into details.

>5. Have you been provided documents or information by, or through, any

>intelligence or military intelligence organization, directly, or
>through any intermediary?

No.

>6. Has any of your work regarding L. Ron Hubbard been done as an
>assignment in your capacity with the British Ministry of Defence, or
>on any orders or directions from the British Ministry of Defence, or

>on orders or directions from any military or intelligence
>organization?

No.

>7. Does the British Ministry of Defence or any of its associated
>organizations have any program that is in any way related to "remote
>viewing" or anything similar to "remote viewing," or in any way
>related to practices commonly referred to as "paranormal," involving

>spiritual or mental feats such as viewing a location remotely, or
>affecting people or objects remotely?

Eh?

I'm not sure what the point of this question is, but frankly I have no
idea. Since the CIA experimented in this area I suppose it's possible
that the British may have done some similar work, but it's not something
I'd have any knowledge of. Given the greater gullibility of Americans I
would hope that we Brits would be more sensible. :-)

>8. Has any of your research or writing on the subject of L. Ron
>Hubbard been done as part of, or during the work period of, your
>position with the British Ministry of Defence?

No. All in my own free time, entirely independently of my employers.
The only items which even tangentially connected with the MOD was that I
interviewed a number of officers - in my own time and theirs - about the
principles of Service discipline, and consulted the Royal Navy
Historical Branch about a useful monograph which they had written about
corvettes, in which Hubbard claimed falsely to have served during the
war.

>9. Did you provide documents or any help or assistance to Russell
>Miller in the research and writing of Bare-Faced Messiah?

Hah! No, the other way round actually; he published BFM in 1987. In
1996 I asked him for permission to republish it on the Web, to which he
kindly agreed. As a bonus he also threw in the two crates of papers,
tapes and notebooks which he'd amassed during the writing of the book,
since he had no further use for them. Other than a Punch article in
1988 on his harassment by Scientology and a Sunday Mail rehash of BFM in
1997, he hasn't covered Scientology since.

>We'll wait while you get clearance for how to respond and what you can
>say. Anything you don't answer directly and unambiguosly will pretty
>much say everything that needs to be said.

I've been completely direct and unambiguous.

Now how about responding to the points I made in my followup to your
post? You've quoted half of one sentence written by me. What about the
rest?

noum...@freedom.net

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to

> He showed off 16 medals to two reporters from a large international
> newpaper. Would you be that stupid if you hadn't earned them? Think it
> through, Blondie.

> Have you read the 1972-1982 timelines that the Librarian posted? No,
> you haven't. If you had, you wouldn't be asking the question. Go read
> them, then come back and ask an informed question. I ain't got the
> time nor the inclination to give you the Reader's Digest version.

As I'm relatively new to this NG (and NG in general), I'm assuming that
this "librarian" is someone who posts here ... is this a recent post?

> ... Owen's little snickering excuse for a military outline ...

With all your chortles and snorts, you certainly have the snickering
going on. However, you mentioned bias earlier ... are you certain that
you yourself are not coming at this quite biased? It seems as if you
feel very *right* about all this yourself.

You wanted an unbiased view, so I will try to jump in and do my best
here. I'm not really certain which side of the proverbial fence you're
on with your ramblings ... couldn't be a scieno, because you come
across with such ummm the word "bluster" comes to mind ... then again
you could be. I don't care to prove, defend or attack the "critic
side" or the "scientologist side" of things. Like you, here's some of
my own opinion and comments. Truth and logic is well above taking
sides. (whoa! did you notice how I started to get all philosophical
for a minute! LOL don't worry I'll get over it!)

Perhaps you're doing a good job trying to mock what your idea of a
scieno is. I'm jumping at conclusions based only on your comm - so,
I'll leave it alone. But you sure make me laugh! Just as each critic
is different, so is each scieno. I'm a scientologist (for 30 years),
so here's a little bit of my view and opinion. I'm sure I'm also many
things (good and bad) to the people here too.

> The evidence is a case full of 16 medals seen up-close and personal by

> TWO, count 'em, TWO, reporters from the London Daily Mail.

> 1. Why would Hubbard run the risk of such an idiotic and dangerous


> "con" with two reporters from an international newspaper - actually
> POINTING OUT the medals and bringing them to the reporters' attention?

> He had no way of knowing whether they would check the medals out or
> not.

There is no significance whatsoever to two newspaper reporters from
London seeing medals presented to them by hubbard. First out-point is
your implication that they may be some expert or know what they are
looking at. Second is your assuming that hubbard even cared what he
told or showed to newspaper reporters. It is *your* assumption it
would be idiotic and dangerous to show medals to reporters, yet that
might not at all be the case in the mind of hubbard. We could go into
policies and actions of his regarding press, but there's no time to get
into that at the moment.

Here is a case-in-point from near the same time period with reporters
and directly into a camera. And about the same level of importance (to
me anyway) of his past - marriage.

(On camera) Interviewer to hubbard: "How many times have you been
married?" Hubbard: "I've been married twice. My first wife is dead."
Interviewer: "What happened to your second wife?" Hubbard: "I never
had a second wife."

Just for a point of comparison, I would say that this shows some
precedence for how hubbard would feel about talking to reporters and
being truthful with them at that time.

> And even if the reporters DIDN'T check them out, the very fact of
> him having them on display was being reported IN AN INTERNATIONAL
> NEWSPAPER, where ANYONE in the Navy who knew he shouldn't have had
> them could have exposed the "con." The risk to everything he had spent
> 18 years building would have been incalculable. It makes NO sense.

Of course it makes sense. What risk? Here again, it is *your*
assumption that it mattered a whit to hubbard that a London newspaper
story would include these in the story, whether real medals or not.
American medals in an English newspaper. First off, though it's likely
we can suppose that someone in the US Navy would have perhaps read the
story - it is another thing to put forth that anyone reading it from
the Navy would give a damn. How interested and newsworthy would it be
for some Navy guy to go check out hubbard's medals? My assumption is
that the Navy and any person in the Navy could care less what some
citizen claimed about his past in a London paper.

I could go on some more with your stuff, but there's no time for me at
the moment and I might like to also read this librarian stuff first.

Alfred E. Noumenon

"What, me worry?"


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Captain Nerd

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <38EED369...@umbra.xenu>, John Dorsay <dor...@umbra.xenu>
wrote:

> Kase Ossifer wrote:
> >
> > 4. Have you funded all your research and document collection on L. Ron
> > Hubbard personally, out of your own pocket, and would you provide
> > documented evidence of that?
>

> The twelve bankers have the "documented evidence" you seek. I'm not
> sure I would believe them, but they have the paperwork and it's all in
> order. Perfectly in order. A bit too perfectly in order, if you know
> what I mean.
>

> > 4. Do you now, or have you ever, worked for, with, or on behalf of any
> > intelligence agency or organization, of any country, either directly,
> > or through any intermediary?
>

> Didn't I just answer question 4? If you're going to number them like

> that, then I'm not going to answer them any more.

Oh, don't be so hard on "Cheese Hardener." He's using the New Golden
Era Technology of Counting he learned at Flag! It's all laid out in
Processes 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 2, 5, 6, 3, 7, 8, and 5.

Cap
(Kase - Cheese, Ossif(i)er - Hardener)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2

iQA/AwUBOO9BjbztfgpKlX7qEQLkjACaA99e9PCr7UCWGfU0NrSglgEJ/ngAnRdx
4e2A/DQlCrglZL1lpDDi3vbF
=mIaR

realpch

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
Rick English wrote:
>
> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Kase Ossifer) wrote:
>
> >
> >Trumpets! Fanfare! Red Carpets! The Great Unquestionable Historian Chris
> >Owen FINALLY arrives--if only through the back door on the coat-tails of
> >Mr. Plakos. I admire your Courage, Great Sir. <Chortle. Snort.>
>
> Well, at least you're not as obscene and unreadable as you are in your
> Ace of Clubs valence. Small mercies.
>
I must disagree here. I think the writing style of Mr. or Ms. Kase
Ossifer is pretty unreadable. Wasn't there a famous "it was a dark and
stormy night contest" for similar literary efforts?
Peach

mimus

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Kase Ossifer) fingered:

>2. If he already had 16 medals, why did the liaison office of the Apollo
>send a written request for his medals?

LOL

Hubbard sent Gerry Armstrong after the documentation of his career as
an explorer, psychologist, nuclear physicist and war hero, too, and we
all have some idea of what happened there.

Steve Plakos

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to

Well Kase? He answered all of your question. BT got your tongue?

SP


Ed

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to

noum...@freedom.net wrote:
>
> > He showed off 16 medals to two reporters from a large international
> > newpaper. Would you be that stupid if you hadn't earned them? Think it
> > through, Blondie.
>
> > Have you read the 1972-1982 timelines that the Librarian posted? No,
> > you haven't. If you had, you wouldn't be asking the question. Go read
> > them, then come back and ask an informed question. I ain't got the
> > time nor the inclination to give you the Reader's Digest version.
>
> As I'm relatively new to this NG (and NG in general), I'm assuming that
> this "librarian" is someone who posts here ... is this a recent post?
>

The same person who uses the name "Kase Ossifer" shares a
high similarity of content and writing style with three past
identities: Ace of Clubs, CL, and The ARSCC Librarian. A couple of
anonymous posts by CL last year had the name "Kase Ossifer" attached
in the header. But Kase Ossifer has just in this thread shown the
distinctive florid, profane style of Ace of Clubs and the Librarian,
hence all three are clearly linked.

Maybe Kase Ossifer will repost the Librarian's 1972-82 conspiracy
time track of which he is so proud?

Ed

Joe's Garage

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Dave Bird wrote:

> In article<6312...@127.0.0.1>, Kase Ossified <Anonymous-
> Rema...@See.Comment.Header> writes:
> >1. If he wasn't entitled to 16 medals, where and how did he get them so
> >that he had them framed behind his desk in 1968,
>
>
> He went down the antique shop and bought 16 medals.
>
> Case dismissed!

They were left behind by a veteran who died while running an incident
which included death. Ron liked to stare at the pretty colors while he
was on drugs, so he kept them. ;-)

Joe C., escaped Scientology white slave turned pro-critic Rambo
"If you think the problem with Scientology is bad now,
just wait until we find out what it is."
http://members.tripod.com/cic_ops/counter_warfare


El Roto

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
It seems that Mr. Ossifer is fond of wasting his own time. He
goes through all this effort to write question after question,
when, as his last post points out, all he needed to know was who
Chris Owen works for (even though that's information easily
obtained elsewhere).

Well, I gotta say this: this post's title should read "Owen, I
Have a Problem..." because the only one here that's unable to
see the truth is Mr. Ossifer, or is it Ossified?

Nice job, Chris. Thanks for your great work.

Steve G.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


mimus

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
Joe's Garage <swa...@xenu.net> fingered:

>On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Dave Bird wrote:
>
>> In article<6312...@127.0.0.1>, Kase Ossified <Anonymous-
>> Rema...@See.Comment.Header> writes:
>> >1. If he wasn't entitled to 16 medals, where and how did he get them so
>> >that he had them framed behind his desk in 1968,
>>
>>
>> He went down the antique shop and bought 16 medals.
>>
>> Case dismissed!
>
>They were left behind by a veteran who died while running an incident
>which included death. Ron liked to stare at the pretty colors while he
>was on drugs, so he kept them. ;-)

One really ought not to, but

LOL

Kase Ossifer

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to

Hiya, "Chris Owen," or whatever your birth name is.

So you actually are a salaried professional liar, then, as suspected?

You know, none of us was really sure it could be flushed out, but I
think you're due for a medal, yourself, for walking right into the
loop, tugging on the string, and hanging yourself upside down like
this.

Ah, medal, hell! Tell you what - run down the street to the local
surplus store, and buy yourself a KASE-full of goddamned medals, and
put it on our ARSCC tab. It's on us, okay?

And you can hang that case full of medals right up there above your
desk in your spook office at the British Ministry of Defence.

Let's re-cap:

A) You have confirmed that you work for the British Ministry of
Defence:

>>In the case of the British Ministry of Defence,

>>for which I work...

Message-ID: <gQUSEEAA...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>

B) You have confirmed your work for intelligence agencies when asked:

>>4. Do you now, or have you ever, worked for, with, or on behalf
>>of any intelligence agency or organization, of any country,
>>either directly, or through any intermediary?

And you replied:

>Yes, but obviously I'm not going to go into details.

Message-ID: <71mEtAALox74EwV$@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>


Not going to go into details? Imagine that! You mean, you don't want
to share the oath you took with all of us here? Don't want to explain
how you would smilingly lie to your own dear Mum in the interest of
"national security" (or whatever term you Brit spooks use to justify
your lies and deceit)? Don't want to tell us about that little
pep-talk you get when you're told to leave all former moral codes and
scruples on the door-mat, 'cause now you're on a team that plays by
its own rules, and they aren't the rules of society? Hup-hup! Stiff
upper, now!

You won't go into details, eh? My, my, my. You understand how shocked
I am. Come on, now. You mean you can't trust the lowly Kase Ossifer?
Sure you don't want to share just a few little juicy details?

I mean, you are so exhaustively detailed about the military career of
L. Ron Hubbard; and of course you swear on your sacred honor as a paid
professional liar that the irreproachable Bristish Ministry of Defence
and the naive, know-nothing intelligence agencies you work for don't
have ANYTHING at all to do with your little life-consuming hobby.

My, my, my. Oh, I believe it. Yes, Mr. Owen - or whatever your name is
- I am just going to accept everything you say at face value from this
point forward. The face value of the 1.1, that is.

That means that if you say it's black, I know it's white. If you say
it's up, I know it's down. If you say it isn't, I know it is. If you
say you haven't, I know you did. Read all about it in "Science of
Survival."

Oh, you don't read that Hubbard stuff, though, do you?

Well, your buddies over in the British Remote Viewing programme do.

Right-o! Carry on, then! Hup-hup! FOAD, spook.

Kase Ossifer


Captain Nerd

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <85D5C...@127.0.0.1>, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
(Kase Ossifer) wrote:


> Kase Ossifer

Hey, "Cheese Hardener!"

You're downstat on your Dev-T output, you know! You should
get more postings in before Thursday, or it's rice and beans
for you!

That'll harden anyone's cheese!

Cap.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2

iQA/AwUBOPAan7ztfgpKlX7qEQLkcACg5DQqntcG4tx+hX9mM2KaubCczjkAoILe
LOd1tykxTO55ZzaK2WSH9GMF
=oVBe

Chris Owen

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
In article <0d2b1080...@usw-ex0105-035.remarq.com>, El Roto
<gopackN...@sprintmail.com.invalid> writes

>It seems that Mr. Ossifer is fond of wasting his own time. He
>goes through all this effort to write question after question,
>when, as his last post points out, all he needed to know was who
>Chris Owen works for (even though that's information easily
>obtained elsewhere).
>
>Well, I gotta say this: this post's title should read "Owen, I
>Have a Problem..." because the only one here that's unable to
>see the truth is Mr. Ossifer, or is it Ossified?

Looks like it. I notice that he's dropped all the questions about
Hubbard that he came in with.

Conspiracy nuts, eh?

Chris Owen

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
In article <85D5C...@127.0.0.1>, Kase Ossifer <Anonymous-
Rema...@See.Comment.Header> writes
>

>Hiya, "Chris Owen," or whatever your birth name is.

Why haven't you responded to any of my comments about your original
questions on Hubbard?

What's your real name and who do you work for - since I've been open
about myself why can't you be about yourself?

>Well, your buddies over in the British Remote Viewing programme do.

This confirms you as a certifiable loony.

William Barwell

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
In article <4C71F...@127.0.0.1>,

Kase Ossifer <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote:
>
>Trumpets! Fanfare! Red Carpets! The Great Unquestionable Historian Chris
>Owen FINALLY arrives--if only through the back door on the coat-tails of
>Mr. Plakos. I admire your Courage, Great Sir. <Chortle. Snort.>
>
>And The Great Unquestionable Historian Chris Owen opined:
>
>>In article <38EBFB9B...@concentric.net>, Steve Plakos
>><stav...@concentric.net> writes
>>
>>>Chris may have a different answer, but the simple explanation, and,
>>>mostlikely explanation is: He bought them.
>>
>>My conclusion too.

He certainly did not earn them.
Hubbard was only entitled to four "warm body" medals.

After being turned down by the Navy for 24 medals, he
managed to somehow acquire medals by buying them and displayed
them. so we know he did that sort of thing.

Now, as to why he did it twice is another puzzle.
He early on had a display of 16 medals, and then
decided he deserved 24.

What I think happened was this, he had set up his
display of 16 medals and then realized he had
no record of having gotten them legit like.
So he decided that by grabbing his lying mini-biographies
from his books, he could hornswoggle some little
know-nothing naval clerk into on that basis, sending
him a handful of medals, and he could then use THAT
as proof he was deserving of these medals.
"See, I got these from the U.S. Navy in 1974, so I must
have earned, them, I was really a war hero, despite
wog skepticism of my record. So, all those claims
in my books, "Commanded corvettes ect." must be true."
What happened here was probably a game that Hubbard played,
however, the Navy doublechecks such things and Hubbard's
trick failed.

The fact that he had earlier displayed 16 medals he
did not earn simply shows he was lying about his
record, not nameless PR flacks writing erroneous
mini-bios for his books, but these lying claims came right
from Source, who paraded his plaque of store-bought
medals to awe his followers.
He had hope to lay on another layer of pseudo-evidence
with his later request, he had hoped to get some medals
and use that acquisition, with his letter of request,
to quell any doubts.

Obviously, this was an important issue with him, he
took a lot of trouble to claim a glorious
wartime career the old fraud in fact did not achieve.


Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!


William Barwell

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
In article <38EF699D...@aol.com>, realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote:
>Rick English wrote:
>>
>> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Kase Ossifer) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Trumpets! Fanfare! Red Carpets! The Great Unquestionable Historian Chris
>> >Owen FINALLY arrives--if only through the back door on the coat-tails of
>> >Mr. Plakos. I admire your Courage, Great Sir. <Chortle. Snort.>
>>
>> Well, at least you're not as obscene and unreadable as you are in your
>> Ace of Clubs valence. Small mercies.
>>
>I must disagree here. I think the writing style of Mr. or Ms. Kase
>Ossifer is pretty unreadable. Wasn't there a famous "it was a dark and
>stormy night contest" for similar literary efforts?
>Peach


The Bullwer Lytton contest.

William Barwell

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
In article <38ECFF5...@concentric.net>,
Steve Plakos <stav...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>
>Kase Ossifer wrote:
>
>(snip)

>
>> >He showed off 16 medals to two reporters from a large international
>> newpaper. Would you be that stupid if you hadn't earned them? Think it
>> through, Blondie.
>
>Of course he would! By 1968 he had claimed, among many other things, to
>be a nuclear physicist, a civil engineer, a Ph.D., to be a blood brother
>to an Indian tribe, to have explored for the U.S. Geologic Survey, and all
>of these claims were lies. Did you read his "admissions"? In words he
>never expected you to ever know about, he confesses to having had a "poor"
>war record. Display phony medals while claiming to be Ron the War Hero,
>please, for LRH lying was a way of life.
>
>>
>>
>> >Since his Navy record -- and other relevant War Deparment records for
>> >that period -- contain no mention of his "exploits" or the citations
>> >he allegedly received for them,
>>
>> See Prouty.
>
>Why? There is *NO* evidence from any source to support his statement.
>
True. Face facts, Prouty's claims turn totally on his
having mistaken a numerical notation on Hubbard's seperation papers
as heving intelligence connections when the actual notation merely
signified his reserve standing.

Upon this misunderstanding, Prouty, in the pay of the cult,
indulges in speculation, without evidence.

The problem is, Hubbard's claims not only have no evidence
for them, but are not possible. His second in command Moulton,
testified in court as to his and Hubbard's careers in sub
chasing school, waiting for PC-815 to be finished,
training in Seattle and his subsequent less than succesful
career as ship's captain. This left no time for any activities
that could generate a medal. There was no time from opening
hostilities from Pearl Harbour to Hubbard's sub school
days for much knees bent running around advancing behavior
that would earn Hubbard many medals.

Hubbard was a wet behind the ears junior officer
when he joined the navy just before hostilities broke out.
When did the Navy start handing out command of squadrons
of corvettes to untrained junior officers?

So just when and where did he command squadrons of corvettes as
his early books claim he did?

Kase Officer and Prouty have no answers for these questions.
Prouty bloviates and speculates, KO drools and rants.

Hubbard lied and laughed.

William Barwell

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
In article <CB961...@127.0.0.1>,
Kase Ossifer <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote:
>
>
>Nahhh, mimus, that ain't what makes a shit-fly. It's idiots who
>make moronic ad hominem attacks while screamingly avoiding the
>facts.
>

Hubbard claims he commanded squadrons of corvettes.
When was this? When did the Navy start allowing
new junior officers with no training in naval warfare
to command squadrons of corvettes?

We know he spent quite a bit of time training in Florida and then Seattle
for sub chasing and spent 80 days as PC-815's captain befor losing his
command, not only records, but on testimony of his second of command
Moulton, in the Armstrong court case.

So when would he have had time to do many brave things requiring
numerous medals and commanding squadrons of corvettes?

Hubbard claims to have hunted U-boats in the Atlantic.
And to have been in Australia, and he admits he joined
the navy just before Pearl Harbor. When did he hunt subs
in the Atlantic, keep in mind he went quite quickly
from lowly cable censor to sub school. Not much
time for training assigment, action. medals.

Can you draw us up a timeline?

William Barwell

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
In article <85D5C...@127.0.0.1>,

Kase Ossifer <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote:
>
>Hiya, "Chris Owen," or whatever your birth name is.
>
>So you actually are a salaried professional liar, then, as suspected?

Well, ain't this peachy. Hubbard is the grandest
pathological liar one can think of. And you take
his claims as true? the man who repeatedly lied
about be a nuclear physicist?
And we are supposed to believe his war story tripe?
Despite having his real records and court testimony
showing these records are correct?

The real liar is your precious Hubbard.


>You know, none of us was really sure it could be flushed out, but I
>think you're due for a medal, yourself, for walking right into the
>loop, tugging on the string, and hanging yourself upside down like
>this.


You aren't aware Chris Owen was recently decorated for his
part in the British effort against Serbian aggression
in Yugoslavia?

Better than anything Hubbard ever managed.
He only had tow real commands and lost both due
to his incompetence.


>Ah, medal, hell! Tell you what - run down the street to the local
>surplus store, and buy yourself a KASE-full of goddamned medals, and
>put it on our ARSCC tab. It's on us, okay?
>

Just like Hubbard? Good ol' Hubbard, smirking and grinning
and showing off his case of 16 medals he didn't earn.
What a pathetic man.


>And you can hang that case full of medals right up there above your
>desk in your spook office at the British Ministry of Defence.

He has real recognition for his efforts.
Unlike Hubbard's real efforts. Loss of his
command and demotion to mere navigation officer
aboard the Algol.
Poor Hubbard.

>Let's re-cap:
>
>A) You have confirmed that you work for the British Ministry of
>Defence:


>
> >>In the case of the British Ministry of Defence,
> >>for which I work...
>

> Message-ID: <gQUSEEAA...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>
>
>B) You have confirmed your work for intelligence agencies when asked:
>

> >>4. Do you now, or have you ever, worked for, with, or on behalf
> >>of any intelligence agency or organization, of any country,
> >>either directly, or through any intermediary?
>

> And you replied:


>
> >Yes, but obviously I'm not going to go into details.
>

> Message-ID: <71mEtAALox74EwV$@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>Not going to go into details?

AND how about YOUR details?
Such as a real name we can laugh at?
Owen is somebody. And you are .....?


Ask Owen about how he was recently recognized for his
intelligence efforts on behalf of the British government?

Hubbard was so important to the US Navy, they cut him loose
as soon as the war was over. Dead wood and all.
He then heroically abandoned a young wife and two small children to
bravely drive South (Being almost blind and crippled it must have been a
struggle of epic proportions) to Pasadena to join Jack Parsons
Crowleyite OTO temple of sex magic and degraded by fun rites.

How many medals did Hubbard win doing that?

Bravely done, Elron!

Dave Bird

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
In article<72E293C255CC7C68.1B4DCE71...@lp.airnews

.net>, William Barwell <wbar...@starbase.neosoft.com> writes:
>What I think happened was this, he had set up his
>display of 16 medals and then realized he had
>no record of having gotten them legit like.
>So he decided that by grabbing his lying mini-biographies
>from his books, he could hornswoggle some little
>know-nothing naval clerk into on that basis, sending
>him a handful of medals, and he could then use THAT
>as proof he was deserving of these medals.

Bill, don't US medals have "awarded to" and a name on the back?
Then Hubbub probably sent him a photo showing them face upwards.

On CB radio I had QSL cards in transparent file pockets where
you could see both sides. A local bullshitter had his glued
down and, amazingly, with the wrong -- picture -- side turned
up to the viewer. (No DXer is much bothered about the picture:
he wants to know who you spoke to when with what signal strength).

>"See, I got these from the U.S. Navy in 1974, so I must
>have earned, them, I was really a war hero, despite
>wog skepticism of my record. So, all those claims
>in my books, "Commanded corvettes ect." must be true."
>What happened here was probably a game that Hubbard played,
>however, the Navy doublechecks such things and Hubbard's
>trick failed.
>
>The fact that he had earlier displayed 16 medals he
>did not earn simply shows he was lying about his
>record, not nameless PR flacks writing erroneous
>mini-bios for his books, but these lying claims came right
>from Source, who paraded his plaque of store-bought
>medals to awe his followers.

|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F

Dave Bird

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
In article<85D5C...@127.0.0.1>, Kase Ossifer <Anonymous-

Rema...@See.Comment.Header> writes:
>
>Hiya, "Chris Owen," or whatever your birth name is.
>
>So you actually are a salaried professional liar, then, as suspected?

Are you a salaried professional fuckwit, or is it only your hobby?

No, he's a government official working for the defence (armed forces)
ministry, who writes here in a private capacity.

El Roto

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
In article <tvEpuoCBmI84Ew$Q...@xemu.demon.co.uk>,

Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article<85D5C...@127.0.0.1>, Kase Ossifer <Anonymous-
> Rema...@See.Comment.Header> writes:
> >
> >Hiya, "Chris Owen," or whatever your birth name is.
> >
> >So you actually are a salaried professional liar, then, as suspected?
>
> Are you a salaried professional fuckwit, or is it only your hobby?
>
> No, he's a government official working for the defence (armed forces)
> ministry, who writes here in a private capacity.
>

But, that's impossible! No one criticizes Hubbard or his Cherch
without support from the Invisible Psychiatric Cabal or it's lackeys in
various government agencies. Next thing you know, you'll be saying
that people have independently arrived to the conclusion that
Scientology's a dangerous mind-controlling cult that sucks members dry
and tosses them aside.

Steve G.

Enzo Piccone

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:x1HP7XAQ...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...

: In article <85D5C...@127.0.0.1>, Kase Ossifer <Anonymous-
: Rema...@See.Comment.Header> writes
: >
: >Hiya, "Chris Owen," or whatever your birth name is.
:
: Why haven't you responded to any of my comments about your original


: questions on Hubbard?
:
: What's your real name and who do you work for - since I've been open
: about myself why can't you be about yourself?
:
: >Well, your buddies over in the British Remote Viewing programme do.
:
: This confirms you as a certifiable loony.

Since his first post, Kase Ossifer (Case Officer) has displayed all of the
trappings of Randy McDonald's conspiracy-theory crew.

I was surprised, actually, to see them take you on on the subject of LRH's
war record.

E
--
Note: Correct e-mail address omits the "h" in en...@hermes.it.


Michael Reuss

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Kase Ossifer) wrote:

> I was just perusing the timelines that the Librarian posted, and noticed
> these two gems:

I'm so glad summer's coming. The librarian is just the cutest thing in
her shorty-short Levi cut-offs. Great buns, half sticking out,
shredded fabric barely there... [sigh]


[from a letter referred to by Russell Miller in BFM]:
> OUTPOINTS: SMOKING GUN, CONTRARY FACTS: This account in "Bare-Faced
> Messiah" is a "bare-faced" contradiction to another assertion from the
> same source, in Chapter 17, that a fidgety "LRH" had "his sixteen war
> medals" on display during a 1968 interview [see entry for 6 August 1968]
> in Bizerte, Tunesia, with two reporters from the London Daily Mail. This
> reeks of a botched intelligence operation.
> SOURCE: Bare Faced Messiah, Chapter 19

Why do both accounts have to match exactly in every detail? You focus
on the most amazing trivialities, and draw the goddamnest conclusions
from them.

My guess: Hubbard might have been "fidgety" because he got the 16
medals at the Sequoia War Hero Medal Store, which everyone knows, used
to right next door to Sequoia University, where Hubbard obtained his
"ph.D."

I'd be a bit fidgety if I knew I was risking getting caught in a lie,
and didn't want the reporters examining the medals too closely.

BUT OH NO! It would be impossible for that to have happened! That
would mean Hubbard would have to be a shameless liar, an insecure
asshole willing to shamelessly manipulate the press, shamelessly lie
about himself and his accomplishments, just for the good PR value! Not
our honest LRH, he would never do that!


[U.S. Navy wrote back to LRH]:
> "The records in this Bureau fail to establish
> Mr Hubbard's entitlement to the other medals and awards listed in your
> request."
> OUTPOINTS: SMOKING GUN, CONTRARY FACTS: This account in "Bare-Faced
> Messiah" is a "bare-faced" contradiction to another assertion from the
> same source, in Chapter 17, that a fidgety "LRH" had "his sixteen war
> medals" on display during a 1968 interview [see entry for 6 August 1968]
> in Bizerte, Tunesia, with two reporters from the London Daily Mail. This
> reeks of a botched intelligence operation.
> SOURCE: Bare Faced Messiah, Chapter 19

You have no smoking gun.

Alternate Theory 1: Hubbard knew the sixteen medals on the Apollo were
phoney, and didn't rightly belong to him, so he applied for real ones,
sincerely beginning to believe his own lies that he had actually
earned them. The Navy straightens him out on that matter.

Alternate Theory 2: Liaison office sincerely believes Ron's bullshit
tales, even though Hubbard knows they are lies. Liaison office sends
for the medals, not aware that Ron has already mocked up the fake ones
for the reporter's visit.

Alternate Theory 3: Liaison office involved directly with LRH in a
conspiracy to have unearned medals in-hand to impress reporters.
Liaison office is told to send the request to Navy to "document" that
they were "really" earned by Hubbard. Even thought Hubbard knows no
medals are forthcoming, he doesn't care, he already has medals. But
the outgoing document goes in archives, for posterity. No one ever
need know the actual medals were in-hand before request was sent to
Navy. Luckily, Russell Miller's research was thorough, and caught the
discrepancy.

Alternate Theory 4: Liaison Office personnel aware of fake medals.
They're sick and tired of Hubbard's fakery, hypocrisy and lying to
them, so they order the real medals, knowing Hubbard will be turned
down. Hubbard will be embarrassed, and stop lying.

> So I go to BFM, Chapter 17, and what do I find:

Let me guess, you found the Ace of Clubs?


> Hubbard affected
> an attitude of nonchalant indifference to events in Britain and did his
> best to charm the Mail team. He invited the reporters on board, showed
> them his sixteen war medals in a framed case behind his desk and
> politely answered questions for more than two hours."

> Also, in Chapter 19, I find out that BFM claims that Hubbard himself
> supposedly "authorized" the Apollo liaison office's request to the Navy:

And you think it impossible that Hubbard was self-hynotizing himself
to believe lies? Clearly he was self-hypnotizing from much earlier in
his life.

And if you accept that the "Admissions" documents are authentic (I do,
but I know you don't), Hubbard even says as much.

Could you be wrong about Hubbard? It would sure simplify a lot of
things.




> 1. If he wasn't entitled to 16 medals, where and how did he get them so

> that he had them framed behind his desk in 1968, as reported by two
> reporters from the London Daily Mail who interviewed him in person and
> saw them in person?

Perhaps a pawn shop, maybe? Or devout Navy sycophants on the Apollo
who really earned them, handed them over? Impossible? No at all.

(I believe that right here is were Ace of Clubs would jump in and say
"Im-fucking-possible! I'm laughing so hard at those suggestion, I fell
right on the floor!")


> 2. If he already had 16 medals, why did the liaison office of the Apollo
> send a written request for his medals?

Covered above in alternate theories.


> 3. Were either Gerry Armstrong or Jim Dincalci running the liaison
> office at the time this request went out?

Gerry, were you in the Liaison office at that time?


> 4. What had happened to the 16 framed medals?

I didn't take them.


> 5. Who forged the "authorization" from L. Ron Hubbard requesting medals
> that he had already had in his possession in 1968?

Assumes something not in evidence, that the authorization was forged.
Bad show, Kase/Ace/Lib.


> 6. What had happened to L. Ron Hubbard by May of 1974, since, obviously,
> he was not around to find out about this?

"Obviously?" What exactly makes it "obvious" that Hubbard didn't know?


> 7. So was Fletcher Prouty right in saying: "He [Hubbard] had a much more
> important career than they knew...

So you're saying Fletcher was gullible like you, and fell for
Hubbard's bullshit? The phrase "much more important" could mean
anything. It could mean that Prouty thought, like you, that Hubbard's
telepathic, OwE Tee, mind-control hypnosis work was more important to
the world than his military service during WWII.

It doesn't have to mean that he thought Hubbard was a naval
intelligence officer. Since he didn't say so, and since the navy says
he was not, and since Hubbard's naval exploits are fairly complete and
well documented, and that Hubbard was in a fighting service, not an
intelligence service, and since you have produced nothing but innuendo
to suggest otherwise, I think the best assumption to make, is that
Hubbard had no intelligence role.


> Furthermore there is great
> obfuscation among his purported 'military' records.

Yeah, by Hubbard himself. Hubbard's career in the navy was an
embarrassment. He drew a disability pension for his entire life. He
deluded himself, and fooled you into believing he was a war hero. He
wasn't. He was just a pathetic scam artist.

> Despite all that, he
> had a most unusual and important career...by military standards.

If he deserved combat medals, he would not be serving in intelligence.
If he was serving in an intelligence role, he would not be claiming to
have commanded a fighting vessel!

Get it through your fucking thick heads, Ace, Kase, CL. Hubbard lied,
and lied, and lied. He lied so much, he couldn't keep all his lies
straight. Then you Scientologist sycophants came along and stroked his
ego and licked his ass, and he liked that, a lot, so he made up even
MORE lies.

Now here you pathetic wretches are, trying to match the hard, cold,
documented reality with the myriad lies and self-serving, delusional
fantasies of LRH.

When are you going to pull your heads out? I hope, for your sake, that
it's soon.


Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid

Chris Owen

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
In article <A6F818D04AD8DE37.437EEC82...@lp.airnew
s.net>, William Barwell <wbar...@starbase.neosoft.com> writes

>
>Ask Owen about how he was recently recognized for his
>intelligence efforts on behalf of the British government?

Hardly intelligence - I was involved in media ops.

Chris Owen

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
In article <38f0d...@news2.lightlink.com>, Enzo Piccone
<en...@hermes.it> writes

>Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:x1HP7XAQ...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...
>
>: In article <85D5C...@127.0.0.1>, Kase Ossifer <Anonymous-
>: Rema...@See.Comment.Header> writes

>: >
>: >Hiya, "Chris Owen," or whatever your birth name is.
>:
>: Why haven't you responded to any of my comments about your original
>: questions on Hubbard?
>:
>: What's your real name and who do you work for - since I've been open
>: about myself why can't you be about yourself?
>:
>: >Well, your buddies over in the British Remote Viewing programme do.
>:
>: This confirms you as a certifiable loony.
>
>Since his first post, Kase Ossifer (Case Officer) has displayed all of the
>trappings of Randy McDonald's conspiracy-theory crew.

Yup. (Not sure who Randy M is, but this guy certainly seems to be a
conspiracy nut.)

>I was surprised, actually, to see them take you on on the subject of LRH's
>war record.

It was good for a laugh at least...

Keith

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
On 6 Apr 2000 01:41:57 -0000, Kase Ossifer
<6312...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>1. If he wasn't entitled to 16 medals, where and how did he get them so
>that he had them framed behind his desk in 1968, as reported by two
>reporters from the London Daily Mail who interviewed him in person and
>saw them in person?

When a person request a copies of their medals what they are referring to
is the orders for the medals. The DoD doesn't send the actual medals to
you just the paperwork. You can buy the medals anywhere.


>
>2. If he already had 16 medals, why did the liaison office of the Apollo
>send a written request for his medals?

Once again they were asking for the orders not the actual medals.

--
Best Regards,

Keith
------------------------------------------------------------------
9th Circuit Judge Fletcher: Then you're not contending that the---our
government's capacity to protect its communications is compromised.
What you're asserting is that what's compromised is your capacity to
eavesdrop on others.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Plakos

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to

Keith wrote:

> On 6 Apr 2000 01:41:57 -0000, Kase Ossifer
> <6312...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >1. If he wasn't entitled to 16 medals, where and how did he get them so
> >that he had them framed behind his desk in 1968, as reported by two
> >reporters from the London Daily Mail who interviewed him in person and
> >saw them in person?
>
> When a person request a copies of their medals what they are referring to
> is the orders for the medals. The DoD doesn't send the actual medals to
> you just the paperwork. You can buy the medals anywhere.

Not if your talking about the origianl medal awarded to the service
member."Official" medals of the U.S. Military can *only* be presented to the
recepient by a representative of he U.S. Government, they are *never*
purchased by the recepient. For example, an award for valor would be
presented by a commanding officer or other senior officer within the
recipients chain of command. What your refering to is the citation that
would accompany the medal. Once an individual has the citation posted to
their permanent Service Record, they would be entitled to purchase additional
copies to be worn with dress blues or whites etc., but *only* from military
stores. Hubbie did not do anything to deserve a medal, therefore no
citiation = no medal given.

The letter sent on his behalf requested original medals he claimed he was due
but had never received. It makes no mention of replacing lost medals. In a
case such as this, the applicants Service Record would be pulled to see what,
if any, citations had been placed on the record. In this instance, the Navy
found four citations (all routine stuff) and mailed him his medals. End of
story.

>
>
> >
> >2. If he already had 16 medals, why did the liaison office of the Apollo
> >send a written request for his medals?
>
> Once again they were asking for the orders not the actual medals.

Nope, not true. Go back to the study course and learn to read.

SP

realpch

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
Yes! That's the one! Is it still in existence? Do they accept
submissions from well wishers on behalf of florid writers?
Peach

Keith

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
On 09 Apr 2000 20:36:42 EDT, Steve Plakos
<38F1216A...@concentric.net> wrote:

>The letter sent on his behalf requested original medals he claimed he was due
>but had never received.

I see, I should stay clear of these wild conspiracy theorist posting on ARS.
It just didn't make any sense why someone would ask for the medals they
never received, when there is no way to know that you have them without
a citation or orders. A commander can say I'm giving you a medal, but
until orders and citation are made it is a lot of hot air. There have been
cases of people not receiving the Purple Heart or some Service Award,
but these awards listed here are way to high not to require documentation.
Even if it was intelligence work it is very easy to say for "outstanding
service in the Pacific Theater".

--
Best Regards,

Keith
------------------------------------------------------------------
"They really are unidentified flying objects," says Tim Weiner a
Philadelphia Inquirer reporter who dissected the black budget and
described secret aircraft in his definitive book Blank Check. "Sent by a
mysterious alien civilization - the Pentagon."
------------------------------------------------------------------

The Librarian

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


Ed, you little sweetheart darling! You sure know the way to *this*
girl's heart, you cute little sweet little fact-hungry HUNK, you!

I am SO happy you asked:

> Maybe Kase Ossifer will repost the Librarian's 1972-82 conspiracy
>time track of which he is so proud?
>
> Ed

Well, sheesh! I don't know why *he* would have any right to be "so
proud" of the Time Lines. I mean, I don't remember seeing Mr.
Rude-As-You-Please Kase Ossifer with *his* behind in any ARSCC Library
chair working and slaving alone, lonely, aching, needing, night after
night, week after week, month after month verifying FACT after hot, hot
FACT!

Oh, suuuuuuuure, Mr. Know-It-All Kase Ossifer is happy to enjoy the
*fruits* of a poor little librarian's breathless, sweat-dripping labor!

Well, to heck with *him*! (Unless, of course, he wants to play Stump the
Librarian--strip version. [Wink] Then the ARSCC Library door is *always*
open. Until I close it. [Wink])

Anywaaaaaaz. I am SO happy you asked that, Ed, not only because you are
*obviously* a man who likes his HARD FACTS, but because I am soooo
embarrassed by all these *stupid* DOOfussy little... well, GLITCHY
things that showed up in those Time Lines when I posted them the first
time. I mean I *appreciate* the work that The Coalition (hi, boys,
whoever you are!) put into creating the database, but, SHEESH, how the
heck is a girl supposed to look at little quotation marks and thingys in
ONE document, and know that when she transfers them over the Internet,
half the darn things are going to turn into little I-don't-KNOW-what's?

Ya' know?

Thirty-five years of Microsoft monopoly for *this*? SHEEEEEEESH!

Well, Ed, I *think* I've fixed all the little demons, so, just for YOU,
you big, gorgeous sweet HARD FACT honey, I'm reposting the lot.

And, Ed, you come back *ANY* time you want to play Stump the Librarian.

[Wink]

--<The ARSCC Librarian>

P.S. BTW, to you, poor little darling Chris Owen, please don't let that
crusty ol' Kase Ossifer get your goat. You are *so* right calling him a
"conspiracy nut" for hinting around that you had some connection with
intelligence agencies! I mean, the *nerve*! *YOU* of all people! God,
WHERE do these conspiracy nuts get their *weird* ideas? There,
there--don't you worry one little bit about it, you smart, beautiful,
erudite Oxford scholar! The fact that you *don't* have any connection to
intelligence agencies is all the fact you need to prove what morons
these "consipiracy nuts" really ARE! You can come lay your weary,
mistreated head on *my* bosom *anytime*!

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
*The ARSCC, like its compassionate and passionate little Librarian, does
not exist.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBOPEvWe1gRWXeKTRVAQFfdgP+PPZsXJHo3Hy/i8xM12hpvwA+wx3c6/kL
aC2vqQx2/t0oU19DBGE1HGZRQOFiibxMu9pA5A79lxgEB2oPte3nLV7qnTd2X9wI
oyEuIpkpXSUc1v32v1n+W4ynSfZ81PcOks5HRrNqRRG9akOehY91gF6K8XPoN/Fb
+iHctpZUl78=
=KHJ3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Keith Henson

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
The Librarian <Anonymous...@see.comment.header> wrote:

snip

> P.S. BTW, to you, poor little darling Chris Owen, please don't let that
> crusty ol' Kase Ossifer get your goat. You are *so* right calling him a
> "conspiracy nut" for hinting around that you had some connection with

I wonder if I am the only one who reads Kase Ossifer as Case Officer?

Keith Henson

kEvin

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In article <57EA5...@127.0.0.1>,
The Librarian <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote:

>P.S. BTW, to you, poor little darling Chris Owen, please don't let that
>crusty ol' Kase Ossifer get your goat. You are *so* right calling him a
>"conspiracy nut" for hinting around that you had some connection with

>intelligence agencies!

The nut part of the conspiracy nut charge comes from Herr Ossifer
promoting a wacky theory that Hubbard is vindicated of his lies about
his war record because of Hubbard's connection with intelligence
agencies and the need to hide his "true" record and then turning around
and claiming that such a connection, while it enhances Hubbard's
credibility, detracts from anyone else's. It's a nutty tack to take
in any argument, and with Hubbard's history of lies and Chris Owen's
record for meticulous accuracy, it's particularly wacky in this
context.

I'm not sure what help is available for ex-Scientologists[tm] who
still operate in wackyland when it comes to evaluating old man
Hubbard's outpoints with the truth, but I strongly urge the person(s)
operating as Kase Ossifer to get help.


kEvin
m...@primenet.com

mimus

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom9.netcom.com> fingered:

>The Librarian <Anonymous...@see.comment.header> wrote:
>
>snip
>

>> P.S. BTW, to you, poor little darling Chris Owen, please don't let that
>> crusty ol' Kase Ossifer get your goat. You are *so* right calling him a
>> "conspiracy nut" for hinting around that you had some connection with
>

>I wonder if I am the only one who reads Kase Ossifer as Case Officer?

Nope.

Spook jargon.

Chris Owen

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In article <85D5C...@127.0.0.1>, Kase Ossifer <Anonymous-
Rema...@See.Comment.Header> writes
>
>Hiya, "Chris Owen," or whatever your birth name is.
>
>So you actually are a salaried professional liar, then, as suspected?

Sayeth Kase Ossifer on Friday 7 April:

>Nahhh, mimus, that ain't what makes a shit-fly. It's idiots who
>make moronic ad hominem attacks while screamingly avoiding the
>facts.
>

>You know, idiots like you.
>
>There is salvation for you, though: just go back and address
>the facts. Try to calm down a little, first, though, okay?

Out of the mouths of babes...

Captain Nerd

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <8crnmc$1qc$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, Keith Henson
<hkhe...@netcom9.netcom.com> wrote:

> The Librarian <Anonymous...@see.comment.header> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > P.S. BTW, to you, poor little darling Chris Owen, please don't let that
> > crusty ol' Kase Ossifer get your goat. You are *so* right calling him a
> > "conspiracy nut" for hinting around that you had some connection with
>
> I wonder if I am the only one who reads Kase Ossifer as Case Officer?

I read it as: Der Käse Ossifier

Cap.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2

iQA/AwUBOPF3XrztfgpKlX7qEQJhtwCg7wlKMRAL0Xwb4M5h++uF0VHtvgwAnAmO
77Jsdq7JfV0zjd1/zl/MICj3
=n8b2

Mao Tse Tungman

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In article <85D5C...@127.0.0.1>, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
says...

>
> Hiya, "Chris Owen," or whatever your birth name is.

Only someone who is adopted would use the term "birth name" in a sentence.
It is sad that Scientology attracts the the innocent orphans of the world
who are just out for a little love and affection. The sadness I saw at the
Santa Monica franchise was touching. And frightening.


>
> So you actually are a salaried professional liar, then, as suspected?

No and neither are you, since you work for Scientology, and couldn't
possibly be collecting a salary.


>
> You know, none of us was really sure it could be flushed out, but I
> think you're due for a medal, yourself, for walking right into the
> loop, tugging on the string, and hanging yourself upside down like
> this.

It's odd how you people brag about your abilities to get people to walk
into traps. Real espionage is conducted in silence, and the perpetrator
has no ego to bruise or to brag. Stay in Scientology. No one gives a
shit.


>
> Ah, medal, hell! Tell you what - run down the street to the local
> surplus store, and buy yourself a KASE-full of goddamned medals, and
> put it on our ARSCC tab. It's on us, okay?

If you can't take criticism then what are you doing trying to rule the
world? And are you going to be our local magistrate when your cult
succeeds? What are your skills? How are you going to RPF me when I tell
you to "clean the toilets yourself"?

>
> And you can hang that case full of medals right up there above your
> desk in your spook office at the British Ministry of Defence.

What office?

<snip> rest of ill thought hate-schpiel

Tungman

Enzo Piccone

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:z6o2OHAs...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...

: In article <38f0d...@news2.lightlink.com>, Enzo Piccone


: <en...@hermes.it> writes
: >Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
: >news:x1HP7XAQ...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...
: >

: >: In article <85D5C...@127.0.0.1>, Kase Ossifer <Anonymous-
: >: Rema...@See.Comment.Header> writes
: >: >
: >: >Hiya, "Chris Owen," or whatever your birth name is.
: >:
: >: Why haven't you responded to any of my comments about your original


: >: questions on Hubbard?
: >:
: >: What's your real name and who do you work for - since I've been open
: >: about myself why can't you be about yourself?
: >:
: >: >Well, your buddies over in the British Remote Viewing programme do.
: >:
: >: This confirms you as a certifiable loony.
: >
: >Since his first post, Kase Ossifer (Case Officer) has displayed all of
the
: >trappings of Randy McDonald's conspiracy-theory crew.
:
: Yup. (Not sure who Randy M is, but this guy certainly seems to be a
: conspiracy nut.)
:
: >I was surprised, actually, to see them take you on on the subject of
LRH's
: >war record.
:
: It was good for a laugh at least...

An entire section of Operation Clambake is devoted to the origins of Randy
and co's on-going tragicomedy.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7301/

e...@some.where

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In article <38f22...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Enzo Piccone"
<en...@hermes.it> wrote:

> An entire section of Operation Clambake is devoted to the origins of Randy
> and co's on-going tragicomedy.

heh... that's a good description

-ef

Chris Owen

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In article <8ctcsi$5pu$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, Ceon Ramon
<ce...@u.washington.edu> writes
>
>I agree with Ed that Ace of Clubs, CL, Kase Offiser, and The Librarian are
>one and the same person. I've always believed The Librarian was a man,
>and it gives me a giggle when I see various male posters flirting with
>"her."

Since women are traditionally supposed to be more intelligent, it would
*really* disappoint me if The Librarian was female.

William Barwell

unread,
Apr 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/12/00
to
In article <38F14507...@aol.com>, realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote:
>Yes! That's the one! Is it still in existence? Do they accept
>submissions from well wishers on behalf of florid writers?
>Peach

Yes. I assume somewhere there is a website.
Not that I know for sure there is one.

William Barwell

unread,
Apr 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/12/00
to
In article <nPtr2WCn...@xemu.demon.co.uk>,

Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article<72E293C255CC7C68.1B4DCE71...@lp.airnews
>.net>, William Barwell <wbar...@starbase.neosoft.com> writes:
>>What I think happened was this, he had set up his
>>display of 16 medals and then realized he had
>>no record of having gotten them legit like.
>>So he decided that by grabbing his lying mini-biographies
>>from his books, he could hornswoggle some little
>>know-nothing naval clerk into on that basis, sending
>>him a handful of medals, and he could then use THAT
>>as proof he was deserving of these medals.
>
> Bill, don't US medals have "awarded to" and a name on the back?
> Then Hubbub probably sent him a photo showing them face upwards.


Not that I am aware of. And you'd never see the back in a frame.
kPope Charles

William Barwell

unread,
Apr 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/12/00
to
In article <8crnmc$1qc$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom9.netcom.com> wrote:
>The Librarian <Anonymous...@see.comment.header> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>> P.S. BTW, to you, poor little darling Chris Owen, please don't let that
>> crusty ol' Kase Ossifer get your goat. You are *so* right calling him a
>> "conspiracy nut" for hinting around that you had some connection with
>
>I wonder if I am the only one who reads Kase Ossifer as Case Officer?
>

I think of him, (her, it) as Officer Space-Case.

Lone Ranger

unread,
Apr 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/12/00
to
Kasey rote, obviously thinkin he was cute and makin some kind of point:


> << QUESTION TO POTENTIAL JUROR:
> Mr. ptsc, thank you for coming here today, and I'd like to find out a
> few things about your ability to impartially evaluate evidence. We need
> to establish whether there might be any predjudices or biases on your
> part that might color your view of the facts. We are considering
> evidence relating to a Mr. L. Ron Hubbard, who, as you know, is not here
> to say anything in his own defense, and so we would like your reasoned
> address only to facts in evidence.
>

And this from a socky who is obviously biased his ownself. Pot, kettle,
black. Bot, spittle, yack.

I wonder if OSA and the critics could ever get together and agree on an
objective evaluation. Nah, OSA would never go for it. Sigh.


Chris Owen

unread,
Apr 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/13/00
to
In article <2DCA61579A0C65C9.F4428F6A...@lp.airnew
s.net>, William Barwell <wbar...@starbase.neosoft.com> writes

Or, indeed, Head-Case. One has to wonder.

0 new messages