From: WCB Subject: Re: Will Scientology apologize for L. Ron Hubbard's fake war medals? Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:36:00 -0500 Message-ID: <11fd2lophoife12@corp.supernews.com> Muldoon wrote: > Hartley Patterson wrote: >> Muldoon brian9511@dslextreme.com: >> >> > Scientology mocks all genuine war heroes with its fabrications about L. >> > Ron Hubbard, the "war hero." Hubbard purchased a collection of World >> > War II service medals years ago, and had them photographed as his. When >> > the U.S. government finally forces Scientology to stop exploiting these >> > medals - will it then, finally, apologize? >> >> I had a vague memory of the CoS claiming stuff about the medals on >> camera, turns out it was on the '60 minutes' 12/22/85 program. >> Transcript: http://members.cox.net/batchild1/transcript/60min2.htm >> >> Heber Jentsch did an interview backed up by Earl Cooley as his Attorney. >> >> COOLEY: Are you aware of the fact that there are more than one set of >> military records on Mr. Hubbard? >> VOICE OVER: Church attorney Earl Cooley says that the official military >> records on L. Ron Hubbard are actually fakes. >> COOLEY: On--that his records, his military records, have been doctored? >> Are you aware of that? >> INTERVIEWER: By? >> COOLEY: By God knows whom. >> >> So I guess the official position is that after the CoS obtained the true >> records God knows who replaced them with fake records, the ones now >> available through the FOIA. The apparent discrepancies in the CoS record >> are the result of a massive coverup involving USA, UK and Dutch archives >> and the silencing of large numbers of military personnel. >> >> So no, they won't apologise. > > Isn't it against the law to forge government documents, such as old > military records? If you created them to defraud, yes. The claims that Hubbard's public records are a fake as expressed by Cooley came from an old buffoon named Fletcher Prouty. Prouty has a small bit of notoriety on the fringes of Kennedy assssination buffs. He was cultivated by Scientology as somebody who'd bloviate for them and was quoted from time to time in Freedom Magazine. He was not a Scientologist. One of his claims is that a marking on Hubbard's DD214 showed he was in military intelligence. But the marking really only indicated Hubbard's Navy reserve statute. Nevertheless, this ignorant nonsense gets repeated by Scientology. In the last decade, several people on ARS actually did get Hubbard's record's via FOIA, including xxxxxxxxxxxxxx if I am not mis-remembering that. The FOIA obtained records agreed with pubic version, which came out of the 1984 Armstrong trial. Display message Message 1626/1783 From arnie lerma Jul 17, 95 04:52:29 pm PDT X-Provider: NeoSoft, Inc.: Internet Service Provider (713) 968-5800 Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 16:52:29 PDT Subject: prouty To: churchbob-l@netcom.com Sender: owner-churchbob-l@netcom.com Precedence: list Reply-To: churchbob-l@netcom.com ------------------------------------- Name: arnie lerma E-mail: alerma@dgs.dgsys.com (arnie lerma) Date: 07/17/95 Time: 16:52:29 This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- ---------------Original Message--------------- : 4201 Peachtree Place, Alexandria, VA 22304 July 8, 1995 xxxxxxxxxxxxxt 3020 Fredson Place Falls Church, VA 22042-1830 Dear Patrick, I have your letter of June 26th and will see what I can do to respond to your questions. It's a puzzling letter; but I'll try to follow the order of items as you have presented them and in the context I believe you have in mind. One thing I must make clear is that my work with Scientology was almost 80-90% with its lawyers, or in other research capacity. I am not strictly aware of the facts of the religion known as Scientology. : a.) I can not recall ever having seen the 1993 "What Scientology?" book. Of course, the comment attributed to me could have been extracted from work &1 did for their 'Lawyers' while I was retained by them. I never knew the "end product" of that work. The lawyers got it. I will say that the item reads like my work. It is not religiously oriented. it is like saying "Scientology is a good university, or a good club, etc." I do not write about religion. b.) (second Part, same question) c.) I had never seen the pages 25-49 of "What Is Scientology" before. It's quite a bit of work; but if I may say so it does not go into enough of LRH, the man, that I had discovered in his military records. d.) I can not add a thing about p 440 and p 441. I had never seen them. e.) Same applies to p. 432. : f.) The "Internet" version of the "Prouty Affidavit." I do not possess an original of that work, since I submitted it to the law firm. However, the very fact that this version does not bear a signature concerns me. it can't be a true copy. In all that legal work I always had to sign the papers before a Notary before I gave them to the lawyers. Until, and unless the "Internet" source is able to produce a signed version, I'd say that the chances of additions and deletions, i.e. forgery, are very great. Otherwise, why would someone want it widely disseminated? It is simply a biographical, as differentiated from a religious document; and it is loaded with military career data that are derived. from Government records. MY belief right now, with no verifying documentation, is to be critical of this "forgery?" I'd have to see the signed copy. &.) You mention a copy of a letter sent to you by a Mr. Wenger. i have no idea who Wenger is. However, if you are : talking about the letter of Oct 4, 1987 to Mr. Brooke, I do recall that on the instructions of the legal representatives who had retained my services, I had prepared such a letter to present a more accurate account of Mr. Hubbard's military career. Of course it would be similar to the "Affidavit" because is was about the same subject. Both of these present biographical, and military material that I had discovered through deep research while working as expert witness for lawyers. At this Point I wish to correct a note I wrote in my earlier letter to you. The top intelligence official in New York who had been assigned there by President Roosevelt was Vincent Astor, and not Vanderbilt. LRH was sent to his offices. I just confused them in my off-hand letter. h.) Relative to LRH's academic career ... I have, or have had tons of material on that. The records, as I recall them generally support LRH's personal records, and in some places augment them with additional material. : I can not go back a dig all that out, unless it is important to you. If it is I'll discuss a contract with you, in the same manner that I have done with the lawyers and other related interests. I believe I still have the records, or know where to get them. i.) About, LRH's "war record." As I said in my earlier record to you, the church seemed to lack much of his true record. I discovered much more. You'll get a good idea of what I located in the "Affidavit" and in the "'Brooks Letter; but a lot has been omitted. I have no idea why the church has not done a better job with this subject. Again I could obtain much more data from old records and elsewhere, but not without a contract. It takes too much time. j.) Thompson was a most important man in LRH's life. The church knows this well. I do too. k.) Back to p.407, I'd like you to read that statement again ... carefully. There is not a religious word in it. it is simply what is says. it defines Scientology in a layman's sense. No "religious" words are used. : Of course I could provide more detail....on contract. This is highly specialized, difficult, and rare work. I worked years on it. and could do it again. It will depend upon how importantly and seriously you want this work. What is your interest? I repeat that this P 407 paragraph is certainly "neutral" if you differ with that point of view, let me hear Your own views ... in detail and specifically so that I can see now you approach such a subject. i believe that a non-biased view would agree with me that this is entirely "neutral." After all, my statement is about an organization that ... itself ... is not considered "neutral" or perhaps, even "religious" by many people. It is not an open and shut case. From your correspondence I am not quite sure what the basis of your interest is. In my own case, I was approached by a law firm from Great Britain many years ago. That's how is started. I could not recall, even then, whether or not I had ever heard of LRH or of the church I was a retired AF Colonel, a banker, and then was employed by AMTRAK because of my interest in the railroad. Nothing I had done had ever brought me into, or close : to any religious denomination ... except that before WW II I had been a professional singer and I had sung in countless churches of all denominations. The law firm had read my book,"The Secret Team", derived from my work in the Pentagon for 9 years. They wanted me to help with some subjects they did not know. This led to several similar requests by legal firms retained by the church. Then they wanted me to do the LRH "official" biography. -This is when I discovered the source of, and volume of WW II records on LRH. For example, I have some 1961-&1962 records of the American Ordnance Association (the oldest such organization in the country). I had discovered that in 1959 this most military of all military organizations from the point of view of the Military -Industrial Complex had awarded LRH an outstanding medal for 1959. Why to LRH from that organization? This plaque could not have been awarded by that organization for frivilous reasons... or for religious reasons. I note your occasional reference to the "Sheep Dip" process. I worked in the covert operations game for the nine years of my assignment in the Pentagon. When we assigned a military man to : the CIA, we "Sheep Dipped" his records by creating three chronologically precise and simultaneous files: the civilain file. the military file, the covert assignment file. They were all maintained with great care. That is "Sheep Dipping." You seem to be suggesting that the recards on LRH "invent or exaggerate academic achievements, uncommon herosim, or aquaintances, etc." I doubt you have seen his true records. Thev are phenomenal ...to put it mildly and I am making no reference to anything "religious" that may be attributed to him. That is another world. I was never retained for that area of interest ... i.e. the religious. I don't really understand the motive for your letters, and many of the things you write about you do not do in a specific way. I can understand what you are actually driving at. I have tried to help you and to answer correclv; but I still feel that I am not able to "lock on" to the subject you really are pursuing. I trust I make myself clear. I could pull out ONI files, and keep this going all night; but I don't know what you wish to know, or not to know. I hope the above is of assistance. : Sincerely Fletch L Fletcher Prouty -------------------- ----------End of Original Message---------- (END) Display message Message 1627/1783 From William Barwell Jul 17, 95 06:46:50 pm -0500 X-Provider: NeoSoft, Inc.: Internet Service Provider (713) 968-5800 Subject: Re: Prouty Letter To: churchbob-l@netcom.com Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 18:46:50 -0500 (CDT) Sender: owner-churchbob-l@netcom.com Precedence: list Reply-To: churchbob-l@netcom.com > > > > I have your letter of June 26th and will see what I can do to > > respond to your questions. It's a puzzling letter; but I'll try > > to follow the order of items as you have presented them and in > > the context I believe you have in mind. > > This letter just confirms my earlier thoughts about Prouty. The > guy is obviously full of his own self-importance. Sorry, but as > one who spent her married life surrounded by military types, I > think I've met a few dozen retired USAF colonels like this one-- > full of hot air and not much else. : > I have seen a number of reports on UFO experts relying on reports from military men from UFO critics who were in the military and knew that a whole bunch of military and intelligence types were whackos who became very self important and played the role of secret-knowing-insider with relish. Prouty strikes me as this type too. Mere theories and hypotheses are restated as vague facts that are 'known', but "we can't really say too much about them". You understand. Unfortunately, like a cop on a witness stand who too many jurors assume are truthful and diligent, all too many people think being ex-military or intelligence means being of sound judgement and capable. Prouty sounds very odd to me. And sounds like he is angling for somebody to buy some information off of him. > > f.) The "Internet" version of the "Prouty Affidavit." I do > > not possess an original of that work, since I submitted it > > to the law firm. However, the very fact that this > > > version does not bear a signature concerns me. it can't be : > > a true copy. In all that legal work I always had to sign > > the papers before a Notary before I gave them to the lawyers. > > > > Until, and unless the "Internet" source is able to produce a > > signed version, I'd say that the chances of additions and > > deletions, i.e. forgery, are very great. Otherwise, why > > would someone want it widely disseminated? It is simply a > > biographical, as differentiated from a religious document; > > and it is loaded with military career data that are derived. > > from Government records. > > > > MY belief right now, with no verifying documentation, is to > > be critical of this "forgery?" I'd have to see the signed > > copy. > > Plausible deniability at its finest. The guy's not going to admit to a > thing unless and until someone coughs up money for it. Then he'll tell > the person with the money whatever he wants to hear. > > > For example, I have some 1961-&1962 records of the American > > Ordnance Association (the oldest such organization in the > > country). I had discovered that in 1959 this most military of > > all military organizations from the point of view of the Military : > > -Industrial Complex had awarded LRH an outstanding medal for > > 1959. Why to LRH from that organization? This plaque could not > > have been awarded by that organization for frivilous reasons... or > > for religious reasons. > > The American Ordnance Association is NOT part of the US military. > They are a private "professional" lobbying group, like the AMA or > the NEA, looking out for the interests of ordnance officers and > ordnance manufacturers. They could no more award LRH a "medal" > than I could. They give out cute little "recognition" plaques and > the like. BFD. That's sure no proof that LRH was any kind of spy- > king-war-hero. It is odd. Maybe they hired somebody to teach their org Hubbard management technique and like the old bastard's hard nosed approach and so gave him a flaky award like so many 'industry groups' like to do? Where I work has over the years done several military projects and my boss has aquirred a few similar plaques simply for a job well done. Plaques and awards are easy to come by in the industrial-military complex. My boss by the way values his golf trophys far more highly. > : > I'd bet any money that LRH managed to beg that award out of them > for his "work" in identifying Communist infiltration of some sort. > Probably for fingering his wife as a spy or something. I would like to see this thing for myself before I believe it is what Prouty says it is. Hubbard purchased Saint Hill in spring 1959 and lectured there at a furious rate and wrote several clamhead books there. So it is hard to see what he had to do with any sort of silly assed munitions group. Hubbard moved to England in 1953. One wonders. > > > I note your occasional reference to the "Sheep Dip" process. I > > worked in the covert operations game for the nine years of my > > assignment in the Pentagon. When we assigned a military man to > > the CIA, we "Sheep Dipped" his records by creating three > > chronologically precise and simultaneous files: the civilain > > file. the military file, the covert assignment file. They > > were all maintained with great care. That is "Sheep > > Dipping." > > Having looked over Prouty's curriculum vita that was part of his > declaration, all I can say is that from the looks of it, Prouty : > was shunted around the Pentagon from office to office until he was > eligible for retirement. His Pentagon career does not appear to be a > steady upward progression, but rather lateral transfers for short > duration assignments. This is not at all uncommon practice. They try > to put these types somewhere where they can't cause any trouble until > they can get rid of them. My ex-husband was an assistant to the > Secretary of Defense--I know what I'm talking about--I've seen it > done many times. > Sheep dip still does not explain Hubbards's records. One does not construct sheep dip covers depicting a CIA man as a psychopathological liar, fool, and idiot. Prouty is blowing it out his ass here. Note he does not say he knows for sure Hubbard was sheep dipped. Taint true. Prouty is arguing by insinuation. > > You seem to be suggesting that the recards on LRH "invent or > > exaggerate academic achievements, uncommon herosim, or > > aquaintances, etc." I doubt you have seen his true records. > > Thev are phenomenal : I wonder where he gets that? Is he buying into LRH's forged DD214 and medals LRH bought and framed? Wonder if other forged stuff was around? ...to put it mildly and I am making no > > reference to anything "religious" that may be attributed to him. > > That is another world. I was never retained for that area > > of interest ... i.e. the religious. > > Yeah, well those "phenomenal" records are undoubtedly just more > figments of Prouty's active imagination. Pay him enough and he'll > do the same for your past (wanna be a famous spy?). > > >----------End of Original Message---------- > > Sorry for being so sarcastic with this, but I really think that > anyone who places any faith whatsoever in Prouty's words (pro or > con LRH) is getting into a whole heap o' trouble. IMO, the guy's > a nut case, pure and simple. > > Diane : Yes, something is wrong with all of this and obviously Prouty. I have seen the same techniques used by those who argue that the German death camps were not what they seem to be. Pope Charles SubGenius Pope Of Houston Slack! (END) Display message Message 1629/1783 From Diane Richardson Jul 17, 95 03:39:39 pm PDT X-Provider: NeoSoft, Inc.: Internet Service Provider (713) 968-5800 Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 15:39:39 PDT Subject: Prouty Letter To: churchbob-l@netcom.com Sender: owner-churchbob-l@netcom.com Precedence: list Reply-To: churchbob-l@netcom.com > I have your letter of June 26th and will see what I can do to > respond to your questions. It's a puzzling letter; but I'll try > to follow the order of items as you have presented them and in > the context I believe you have in mind. This letter just confirms my earlier thoughts about Prouty. The guy is obviously full of his own self-importance. Sorry, but as one who spent her married life surrounded by military types, I think I've met a few dozen retired USAF colonels like this one-- full of hot air and not much else. : > f.) The "Internet" version of the "Prouty Affidavit." I do > not possess an original of that work, since I submitted it > to the law firm. However, the very fact that this > > version does not bear a signature concerns me. it can't be > a true copy. In all that legal work I always had to sign > the papers before a Notary before I gave them to the lawyers. > > Until, and unless the "Internet" source is able to produce a > signed version, I'd say that the chances of additions and > deletions, i.e. forgery, are very great. Otherwise, why > would someone want it widely disseminated? It is simply a > biographical, as differentiated from a religious document; > and it is loaded with military career data that are derived. > from Government records. > > MY belief right now, with no verifying documentation, is to > be critical of this "forgery?" I'd have to see the signed > copy. Plausible deniability at its finest. The guy's not going to admit to a thing unless and until someone coughs up money for it. Then he'll tell the person with the money whatever he wants to hear. : > For example, I have some 1961-&1962 records of the American > Ordnance Association (the oldest such organization in the > country). I had discovered that in 1959 this most military of > all military organizations from the point of view of the Military > -Industrial Complex had awarded LRH an outstanding medal for > 1959. Why to LRH from that organization? This plaque could not > have been awarded by that organization for frivilous reasons... or > for religious reasons. The American Ordnance Association is NOT part of the US military. They are a private "professional" lobbying group, like the AMA or the NEA, looking out for the interests of ordnance officers and ordnance manufacturers. They could no more award LRH a "medal" than I could. They give out cute little "recognition" plaques and the like. BFD. That's sure no proof that LRH was any kind of spy- king-war-hero. I'd bet any money that LRH managed to beg that award out of them for his "work" in identifying Communist infiltration of some sort. Probably for fingering his wife as a spy or something. > I note your occasional reference to the "Sheep Dip" process. I > worked in the covert operations game for the nine years of my : > assignment in the Pentagon. When we assigned a military man to > the CIA, we "Sheep Dipped" his records by creating three > chronologically precise and simultaneous files: the civilain > file. the military file, the covert assignment file. They > were all maintained with great care. That is "Sheep > Dipping." Having looked over Prouty's curriculum vita that was part of his declaration, all I can say is that from the looks of it, Prouty was shunted around the Pentagon from office to office until he was eligible for retirement. His Pentagon career does not appear to be a steady upward progression, but rather lateral transfers for short duration assignments. This is not at all uncommon practice. They try to put these types somewhere where they can't cause any trouble until they can get rid of them. My ex-husband was an assistant to the Secretary of Defense--I know what I'm talking about--I've seen it done many times. > You seem to be suggesting that the recards on LRH "invent or > exaggerate academic achievements, uncommon herosim, or > aquaintances, etc." I doubt you have seen his true records. > Thev are phenomenal ...to put it mildly and I am making no > reference to anything "religious" that may be attributed to him. : > That is another world. I was never retained for that area > of interest ... i.e. the religious. Yeah, well those "phenomenal" records are undoubtedly just more figments of Prouty's active imagination. Pay him enough and he'll do the same for your past (wanna be a famous spy?). >----------End of Original Message---------- Sorry for being so sarcastic with this, but I really think that anyone who places any faith whatsoever in Prouty's words (pro or con LRH) is getting into a whole heap o' trouble. IMO, the guy's a nut case, pure and simple. Diane (END) Display message Message 1619/1783 From M. Council Jul 18, 95 10:06:36 am -0400 X-Provider: NeoSoft, Inc.: Internet Service Provider (713) 968-5800 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 10:06:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: council@luna To: churchbob-l@netcom.com cc: churchbob-l@netcom.com Subject: Re: Prouty Letter Sender: owner-churchbob-l@netcom.com Precedence: list Reply-To: churchbob-l@netcom.com Many people close to me growing up and throughout my life have been in intel; I still don't know the extent of some of my family's involvement, and I probably never will. I do remember my sisters calling my dad "secret agent man" and him getting VERY annoyed about it. We were told he was "vice-president of security" at the HQ of a franchised industrial cleaning service. Much later, I found out he was involved in busting industrial espionage, and explosives. You learn early to not ask questions! : Diane, I think you're right on the money here. Prouty is words-for-hire. He gave Oliver Stone what he wanted to hear about Kennedy. He gave LRH what he wanted to hear about himself. He is leading Patrick on, but since he doesn't know what Patrick's looking for, he's being vague until he finds out. Then a 'contract' will appear. --------------------------------------m. council, human being Hell, if you understood everything I say, you'd council@luna.cas.usf.edu be me. -Miles Davis ------------------------------------------------------------- (END) alt.religion.scientology #781813 (0 + 146 more) [1] From: Arnie Lerma [1] Letter from Fletcher Prouty - June 1995 - repost Date: Fri Mar 31 21:57:00 CST 2000 Organization: lermanet.com Lines: 135 June 1 1995 xxxxxxxxxxxxx (deleted street adress) Falls Church, Virginia 22042-1830 Dear Patrick, First, about your letter of May 26, 1995, I have not included my telephone number, because my severe deafness precludes comfortable and meaningfull conversations. I have not been aware of the "controversy about the war record of LRH." I am not and never have been a member of the Internet or Scientology. Once in a while folks mention some subject that included my name, --MORE--(17%) and it always comes as a surprise. I am surprised by the existence of what you term the "Prouty Declaration." Is it purported to be a single document, or is it a file of records, and how did my name get on it? It is a fact that I wrote, when I was employed by the legal representatives of the Church, or by their own researchers who were working for their legal staff, a considerable amount of LRH material that I located in various military files. My contact with the church, its people, and its legal teams was always on the basis of an outside "expert witness" or research analyst, etc. In other words I was retained, contractually, to do certain projects as directed by them. I am well aware of the fact that there are all kinds of arguments about the military carreer of LRH. I thought I had straightened that out. . . up to a point. He had a much more important career than they knew --MORE--(32%) at Church headquarters, and from the files available to those who could find them and interpret them properly. 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 know the intelligence business well, and some of its important peripheral areas and can tell what is real and what is not. At the conclusion of my last work for them I was on the brink of finding and interpreting a true golden lode of records. I has always believed that because I had pointed the way to their own in house experts that they would finish the job. The 1993 work that you quote gives a totally inadequate summary of his record, and may have been written that way on purpose. I am quite surprised, as a result of your current interest to learn that you are "unaware of any Navy records to support the claim that Mr Hubbard, etc." I know very well he served in Australia and in fighting off the western coast of Australia, and that he was --MORE--(49%) involved in many other actions. However much of his service was heavily cloaked in security coverage. Have you ever noted that he worked under FDR's chief of Intelligence Vanderbilt? The next paragraph of your letter gives some of the facts. 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 provided them with what they asked me to do. I found much more than they expected. Next you ask for further information. Many years ago I was asked to write the biography of LRH by the Bridge people. I worked on the project for years and even was invited to American Booksellers Ass'n meetings where I was featured as the "LRH Biographer' to be. It was during this active and deep project that I discovered the material you have heard about. Then LRH died, and things cooled off for a bit. I was busy and without their continued support, or retainer from Bridge, I had no recourse but to stop my work and --MORE--(66%) to get on with other things, such as my work for for Oliver Stone with the film "JFK" and my book about all that. I can not account for the Church's choice to conceal my findings. At the end you bring up an interesting point. You must realize I worked closely with everyone in the upper echelons of the Church and even was sent to that fine "Campus" in England, i.e. "St.----" name escapes me. At the same time I realized that there was quite a bit of infighting at the upper echelons. It had nothing to do with me; but I could not help but notice it. Some of my closest associates were so up-set that they left the Church. That period marked the end of my work there. I have sent "tons" of records to an old friend in the L.A. area who is still active. I'm sure I could answer a lot of your questions..if they were specific. I am totally neutral. I have no interest either way; but I am personally convinced that LRH was a most extraordinary man and that his true "biography" if --MORE--(82%) ever printed will be a blockbuster supreme. His "role" in the government was enourmous. Internet is just being "had" by including me in anything today. Your last note about "your statement What is Scientology?" does not ring a bell. It may be something erroneously attributed to me. It is not anything I recall...but then there could be much I have forgotten...since I was never associated with the Church...except as an employee. I find your note interesting, and full of more questions than it asks. Yours truly, (signed) Fletch L. Fletcher Prouty ------------------------- Ocr'd & uploaded by Arnie Lerma I have in front of me a clean xerox --MORE--(93%) copy of this letter with the clearly readable handwritten signature 'Fletch' I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak. The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers The internet is the liberty tree of the 90's http://www.lermanet.com - mentioned 4 January 2000 in The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD" End of article 781813 (of 781916) -- what next? [npq] -- When I shake my killfile I can hear them buzzing.