HBO to make film of Scientology book, hires 160 lawyers

[Angry Floof]

The fact that you ar branching off that issue indicates you see there is something in the evidence presented

Interesting. The topic at hand is a movie about Scientology and how many lawyers they had to hire, and next thing you know we're quibbling over the details of Hubbard's alleged Naval heroism.

A clever derail. Do they teach that in the classes you paid for?

Yep! They do.

Ask WP why Hubbard stopped calling himself "Dr."

 

[Keith&Co.]

There certainly is new evidence that would throw doubt on the original stories.

Not like this, there ain't.

Like I said there are a lot of questions but this puts him closer to the scene and sure there are a whole lot of reasons why people get blinded, where you did give some explanations.

Dude, your own quote pointed out that the conjuctivitis need not be explained as caused by combat.
So, that's not exactly new 'evidence.'
At best, it's more wiggle room for people to believe what they want to believe already.

The type of conjunctivitis he had was associated with this type of incident, which earlier researchers did not notice.

But if he'd gotten it in combat, or in any type of service-related event, it would have been brought up when he separated, and he'd have received some sort of compensation for it, nu?
It's not really a winning hand to find that researchers ignored evidence which doesn't really support a claim. Pointing it out is just a louder silence on the claim you're trying to support.

Anyway it sounds like you've come across some interesting people.

It's the bell curve.
If you come across enough people, then there will be bigger numbers at both ends of the curve.

But still, if there are six or twelve ways to cause a type of eye damage, the fact of the damage is not evidence for one of them.
I've seen a lot of people hurt in the service, many of them while the Nation was at war. Not a one of them were in combat at the time.

The fact is that the way the military works, only a very few are actually at the sharp end of the stick and poked into combat.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The fact that you ar branching off that issue indicates you see there is something in the evidence presented

Interesting. The topic at hand is a movie about Scientology and how many lawyers they had to hire, and next thing you know we're quibbling over the details of Hubbard's alleged Naval heroism.

A clever derail. Do they teach that in the classes you paid for?

Yes. They do. I have a Scientology book that teaches exactly that.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Not like this, there ain't.

Like I said there are a lot of questions but this puts him closer to the scene and sure there are a whole lot of reasons why people get blinded, where you did give some explanations.

Dude, your own quote pointed out that the conjuctivitis need not be explained as caused by combat.
So, that's not exactly new 'evidence.'
At best, it's more wiggle room for people to believe what they want to believe already.

The type of conjunctivitis he had was associated with this type of incident, which earlier researchers did not notice.

But if he'd gotten it in combat, or in any type of service-related event, it would have been brought up when he separated, and he'd have received some sort of compensation for it, nu?
It's not really a winning hand to find that researchers ignored evidence which doesn't really support a claim. Pointing it out is just a louder silence on the claim you're trying to support.

Anyway it sounds like you've come across some interesting people.

It's the bell curve.
If you come across enough people, then there will be bigger numbers at both ends of the curve.

But still, if there are six or twelve ways to cause a type of eye damage, the fact of the damage is not evidence for one of them.
I've seen a lot of people hurt in the service, many of them while the Nation was at war. Not a one of them were in combat at the time.

The fact is that the way the military works, only a very few are actually at the sharp end of the stick and poked into combat.

You started of in a very interesting manner but the evidence simply increases the likelihood of what he claimed to be possible and dampened the assumptions of those who didn't do their research properly in the first place.
I was born into a military family and I know how the army works

 

[whichphilosophy]

The fact that you ar branching off that issue indicates you see there is something in the evidence presented

Interesting. The topic at hand is a movie about Scientology and how many lawyers they had to hire, and next thing you know we're quibbling over the details of Hubbard's alleged Naval heroism.

A clever derail. Do they teach that in the classes you paid for?

If you read the thread I am addressing the bobbing and weaving around the points presented.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Interesting. The topic at hand is a movie about Scientology and how many lawyers they had to hire, and next thing you know we're quibbling over the details of Hubbard's alleged Naval heroism.

A clever derail. Do they teach that in the classes you paid for?

Yep! They do.

Ask WP why Hubbard stopped calling himself "Dr."

How does that relate to the military records which I presented. Nothing of course.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You started of in a very interesting manner but the evidence simply increases the likelihood of what he claimed to be possible

Increasing the likelihood of it being possible is NOT evidence that it happened.
You need evidence that it happened to counter claims that it did not happen.

You haven't provided that, or anything like that, but you're acting like you're winning.

 

[Rhea]

You haven't provided that, or anything like that, but you're acting like you're winning.

...sums up all religion?

 

[whichphilosophy]

You started of in a very interesting manner but the evidence simply increases the likelihood of what he claimed to be possible

Increasing the likelihood of it being possible is NOT evidence that it happened.
You need evidence that it happened to counter claims that it did not happen.

You haven't provided that, or anything like that, but you're acting like you're winning.

All investigations if done fairly look at the possibilities and there are no claims of absolute proofs in this research. Even more so the earlier research provided claims and conclusions which are now at best questionable.


One claim was for instance that Hubbard had lied about where he had been. However the new evidence puts doubt on that claim.
It's not a question of having to disprove a negative but since we are looking at history with a lot of missing pieces, then we are looking at the most likely scenarios.
Hubbard was promoted to Liet Commander for instance not left as Lieutenant. This was discovered in new documents. Therefore he could not have lied about being a Liet Commander if the official records state that.
He was sent home by plane because the plane records were discovered. The research will tell you the reason why only few returned back in this manner. Do you know why only some people went home by plane?

The nature of his eye injuries as portrayed by the earlier researches were wrong. You did provide some points to suggest that other reasons could have caused this. Nonetheless his eye injuries as properly defined move toward the possibility that these were injured in a war zone. The evidence also shows he was in that war zone.

Therefore the likelihood that he was injured in this area is stronger than to say he made it up because the earlier evidence claimed he was not in those areas and therefore lied.
Further, as you must well know that during the war with millions of men and women being assigned around the globe there would be a lot of instance where errors occurred or information was missing from the military records.

By the way you made some valid points but I didn't see you criticize the 'earlier research accounts.'

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

...he made it up because the earlier evidence claimed he was not in those areas and therefore lied.

I agree.

Further, as you must well know that during the war with millions of men and women being assigned around the globe there would be a lot of instance where errors occurred or information was missing from the military records.

See! There is evidence that he was in a war zone... and just because there isn't doesn't mean that it wasn't a mistake in the records. Yeah, kind of playing both sides of the coin there.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Therefore the likelihood that he was injured in this area is stronger than to say he made it up because the earlier evidence claimed he was not in those areas and therefore lied.

No.
You're confusing possibility and probability for nefarious purposes.
Being in a war zone makes it more possible that he was in combat, not more likely that he was in combat.

An injury that could be the result of combat, accident or failure to take proper measures during training or regular duties, is not more likely to be combat related, since accidents and errors still occur in war zones.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Therefore the likelihood that he was injured in this area is stronger than to say he made it up because the earlier evidence claimed he was not in those areas and therefore lied.

No.
You're confusing possibility and probability for nefarious purposes.
Being in a war zone makes it more possible that he was in combat, not more likely that he was in combat.

An injury that could be the result of combat, accident or failure to take proper measures during training or regular duties, is not more likely to be combat related, since accidents and errors still occur in war zones.

Possible still fits

See
http://scientologymyths.com/1943-07-15--med-malaria+combat.htm

The War record shows that the type of conjuntivitis actinic was not his own fault. So this would suggest any negligence would at least not be on his own part.

The record also says he was in the combat area

Definition =a military area where combat forces operate
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/combat+area

So he may have seen combat rather than he did not.

One article in SUNSPOTS (page 6) states Hubbard was injured in action

See
http://scientologymyths.com/sunspots.htm

So it would not not be reasonable to suggest the possibility of his being involved in action rather than stating he definitely was not.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

No.

You're confusing possibility and probability for nefarious purposes.
Being in a war zone makes it more possible that he was in combat, not more likely that he was in combat.

An injury that could be the result of combat, accident or failure to take proper measures during training or regular duties, is not more likely to be combat related, since accidents and errors still occur in war zones.

Possible still fits

See
http://scientologymyths.com/1943-07-15--med-malaria+combat.htm

The War record shows that the type of conjuntivitis actinic was not his own fault. So this would suggest any negligence would at least not be on his own part.

The record also says he was in the combat area

Definition =a military area where combat forces operate
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/combat+area

So he may have seen combat rather than he did not.

One article in SUNSPOTS (page 6) states Hubbard was injured in action

See
http://scientologymyths.com/sunspots.htm

So it would not not be reasonable to suggest the possibility of his being involved in action rather than stating he definitely was not.

The problem is, we know Hubbards where abouts during the war not only from his records, but his own admissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_L._Ron_Hubbard

Many of his own claims are contradictory. He claims to have been on the Edsall, but there is no record of Hubbard there. He was being sent to New York when that ship was sunk. And when did he train for service aboard the Edsall as a gunnery officer? When did he train to sail or command a corvette? His own claims about his eyes are contradictory, the story keeps changing. The stuff you linked to tries to excuse the claim that Hubbard was blind and crippled by insinuating he never made that claim, but was based on an illustration in a Scientology book. But Hubbard made that claim and it was simply false. Hubbo's own collection of tall tales is self contradictory, full of holes and has been debunked

 

[Angry Floof]

Possible still fits

See
http://scientologymyths.com/1943-07-15--med-malaria+combat.htm

The War record shows that the type of conjuntivitis actinic was not his own fault. So this would suggest any negligence would at least not be on his own part.

The record also says he was in the combat area

Definition =a military area where combat forces operate
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/combat+area

So he may have seen combat rather than he did not.

One article in SUNSPOTS (page 6) states Hubbard was injured in action

See
http://scientologymyths.com/sunspots.htm

So it would not not be reasonable to suggest the possibility of his being involved in action rather than stating he definitely was not.

The problem is, we know Hubbards where abouts during the war not only from his records, but his own admissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_L._Ron_Hubbard

Many of his own claims are contradictory. He claims to have been on the Edsall, but there is no record of Hubbard there. He was being sent to New York when that ship was sunk. And when did he train for service aboard the Edsall as a gunnery officer? When did he train to sail or command a corvette? His own claims about his eyes are contradictory, the story keeps changing. The stuff you linked to tries to excuse the claim that Hubbard was blind and crippled by insinuating never made that claim, but was based on an illustration in a Scientology book. But Hubbard made that claim and it was simply false. Hubbo's own collection of tall tales is sellf contradictory, full of holes and has been debunked

Absolutist, authoritarian belief systems such as the cult of scientology require this kind of desperate mental tap dancing.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Possible still fits

See
http://scientologymyths.com/1943-07-15--med-malaria+combat.htm

The War record shows that the type of conjuntivitis actinic was not his own fault. So this would suggest any negligence would at least not be on his own part.

The record also says he was in the combat area

Definition =a military area where combat forces operate
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/combat+area

So he may have seen combat rather than he did not.

One article in SUNSPOTS (page 6) states Hubbard was injured in action

See
http://scientologymyths.com/sunspots.htm

So it would not not be reasonable to suggest the possibility of his being involved in action rather than stating he definitely was not.

The problem is, we know Hubbards where abouts during the war not only from his records, but his own admissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_L._Ron_Hubbard

Many of his own claims are contradictory. He claims to have been on the Edsall, but there is no record of Hubbard there. He was being sent to New York when that ship was sunk. And when did he train for service aboard the Edsall as a gunnery officer? When did he train to sail or command a corvette? His own claims about his eyes are contradictory, the story keeps changing. The stuff you linked to tries to excuse the claim that Hubbard was blind and crippled by insinuating he never made that claim, but was based on an illustration in a Scientology book. But Hubbard made that claim and it was simply false. Hubbo's own collection of tall tales is self contradictory, full of holes and has been debunked

You're raising a different topic but nonetheless the research dismisses your claim about the EDSALL. I don’t intend to keep quoting the same information to you. You also don’t seem to understand the nature of his conjunctivitis which is shown on his medical records.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Possible still fits

See
http://scientologymyths.com/1943-07-15--med-malaria+combat.htm

The War record shows that the type of conjuntivitis actinic was not his own fault. So this would suggest any negligence would at least not be on his own part.

The record also says he was in the combat area

Definition =a military area where combat forces operate
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/combat+area

So he may have seen combat rather than he did not.

One article in SUNSPOTS (page 6) states Hubbard was injured in action

See
http://scientologymyths.com/sunspots.htm

So it would not not be reasonable to suggest the possibility of his being involved in action rather than stating he definitely was not.

The problem is, we know Hubbards where abouts during the war not only from his records, but his own admissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_L._Ron_Hubbard

Many of his own claims are contradictory. He claims to have been on the Edsall, but there is no record of Hubbard there. He was being sent to New York when that ship was sunk. And when did he train for service aboard the Edsall as a gunnery officer? When did he train to sail or command a corvette? His own claims about his eyes are contradictory, the story keeps changing. The stuff you linked to tries to excuse the claim that Hubbard was blind and crippled by insinuating he never made that claim, but was based on an illustration in a Scientology book. But Hubbard made that claim and it was simply false. Hubbo's own collection of tall tales is self contradictory, full of holes and has been debunked

Duplication

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is, we know Hubbards where abouts during the war not only from his records, but his own admissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_L._Ron_Hubbard

Many of his own claims are contradictory. He claims to have been on the Edsall, but there is no record of Hubbard there. He was being sent to New York when that ship was sunk. And when did he train for service aboard the Edsall as a gunnery officer? When did he train to sail or command a corvette? His own claims about his eyes are contradictory, the story keeps changing. The stuff you linked to tries to excuse the claim that Hubbard was blind and crippled by insinuating never made that claim, but was based on an illustration in a Scientology book. But Hubbard made that claim and it was simply false. Hubbo's own collection of tall tales is sellf contradictory, full of holes and has been debunked

Absolutist, authoritarian belief systems such as the cult of scientology require this kind of desperate mental tap dancing.

Your conclusion is not supported with a premise as I am quoting documented evidence by way of military records.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So it would not not be reasonable to suggest the possibility of his being involved in action rather than stating he definitely was not.

Mp. nut you keep leaning towards 'likelihood,' instead of possibility.
You offer evidence 'for' that's mostly 'incomplete evidence against.'

The record also says he was in the combat area

Actually in, or had he received orders to?

Definition =a military area where combat forces operate

And are combat force operations exclusively combat?

Welding is one of the possible causes of his eye injury. This is performed on vessels that have and those that have not seen combat. It's still possible he did not see cmbat, thus the claims of his wound do not increase the likelihood that it was a combat-related wound, even if in a combat zone.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Mp. nut you keep leaning towards 'likelihood,' instead of possibility.
You offer evidence 'for' that's mostly 'incomplete evidence against.'

The record also says he was in the combat area

Actually in, or had he received orders to?

Definition =a military area where combat forces operate

And are combat force operations exclusively combat?

Welding is one of the possible causes of his eye injury. This is performed on vessels that have and those that have not seen combat. It's still possible he did not see cmbat, thus the claims of his wound do not increase the likelihood that it was a combat-related wound, even if in a combat zone.

To further your point, welding injuries are more likely caused to bystanders watching the welding. However there is less evidence that Hubbard was exposed to this than the possibility that he was in combat.

This relatively recent body of evidence shows what Atak and others claimed cannot be held as conclusive.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem is that Hubbard lied about being on the Edsall, and this was attested in a court of law by Thomas Moulton who was second in command aboard the illl fated PC-815 and knew Hubbard. This claim is utterly false. And Hubbard made it and that cannot be dismissed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_L._Ron_Hubbard

In a 1956 lecture to Scientologists, Hubbard said:

I was flown in from the South Pacific as the first casualty to be shipped out of the South Pacific war back to the States. The war had been started in Pearl Harbor, and I'd been down in the South Pacific and – a lot of things happened down there. And the outfits down there were pretty well wiped out, as you can remember before the US and Great Britain started to fight and go back in. All right.

Most of the guys that were shipped out of there who had been wounded, were shipped out by slow boat. And I didn't, I wasn't that seriously done in. I hooked a ride on the Secretary of the Navy's plane; produced the right set of orders (I hope nobody ever kept them on file) and got flown home.[22]

In another lecture of the same year, Hubbard provided an alternative version of his return to the United States:

I picked up a telephone, called the Secretary of [the] Navy. See, and I said, "I'm tired of this place. I'd like to leave." And he said, "Yeah." I said, "Yeah, I've got some important despatches. As a matter of fact, we've got enough despatches here to practically sink the Japanese navy if they had to carry them. There's a lot of traffic and stuff like that, and so forth." So he sent his plane down and picked me up and flew me home.[23]

The US Navy's files do not record Hubbard spending any time on Java[1] and do not show any evidence of wounds or injuries sustained in combat.[6]

------

Thomas Moulton, Hubbard's executive officer on the USS PC-815, testified in 1984 that Hubbard had said that he had been shot in the Dutch East Indies, and that on another occasion Hubbard had told him that his eyes had been damaged by the flash of a large-caliber gun. Hubbard himself told Scientologists in a taped lecture that he had suffered eye injuries after having had "a bomb go off in my face."[6] He told Robert Heinlein, the science fiction writer, that "both of his feet had been broken (drumhead-type injury) when his last ship was bombed." According to Heinlein, Hubbard said that he "had had a busy war – sunk four times and wounded again and again".[68]
______

Hubbard asserted after the war that he had been "blinded with injured optic nerves, and lame with physical injuries to hip and back... Yet I worked my way back to fitness and strength in less than two years, using only what I knew about Man and his relationship to the universe."[66]

 

[Perspicuo]

using only what I knew about Man and his relationship to the universe."

Right, Man's uncanny propensity to be duped and then cheated out of their money and their minds.