In the same PDF of Hubbard’s records that we examined in this post there were a number of other documents that appear so often I finally decided to make note of it.
As my husband said in his post about FOIA requests of Hubbard’s records –
People who work for the CIA go under a different name than their real name.
Joseph Scheider was his real name – his CIA name was Sidney Gottlieb.
Irving Brown was his real name – his CIA name was Norris A. Grambo.
Thomas Braden was his real name – his CIA name was Warren G. Haskin.
It is a known fact that Hubbard worked for the CIA.
What was L. Ron Hubbard’s CIA name?
The CIA has refused FOIA requests on L. Ron Hubbard’s CIA file because of – “national security”.
For some clear examples of what Mike is talking about re: refusing to give out records, you can look at this: Government records of Church of Scientology of California vs Stansfield Turner and the CIA – for starters.
A couple excerpts:
…in Founding Church of Scientology v. National Security Agency, 610 F.2d 824 (D.C.Cir.1979), this court held that an affidavit stating that disclosure would “jeopardize (the agency’s) national security functions”
…In this case, the CIA has, in obvious response to the earlier teachings of this court, been at some pains to provide two lengthy affidavits which, while not disclosing the contents of the withheld documents, provide a reviewing judge with a wealth of information. The affidavits include a lengthy general discussion of the adverse consequences that could flow from releasing the information withheld. The release of any particular document, the CIA warned, could lead to one or more of the following harmful results: breaching agreements with foreign intelligence services, refusal of intelligence sources to share information in the future, revelation of intelligence-gathering methods, and disclosure of the identity of foreign or CIA intelligence operatives either directly or by inference from the content of the information.
You might also be interested in this article here in our CIA declassified document library, because it talks about a woman who was trying to get the OSS/CIA records of her father and the scientology cases were cited as support for why they refused her.
* * *
There are two other names with Ron Hubbard’s service number of 113392 that consistently show up in computerized records searches by personnel at the records center where his records are.
The following documents are all from PDF 10 Reference Correspondence from the records that “Margaret Lake” – whatever their real name is – obtained in 2013 from the records center, although god knows why she (or he) was able to get them either considering how many other people were refused. Must have been a change in the redaction or release rules.
This may be nothing, or it may be something. Whatever is the reason, this shows up far too often in Hubbard’s files to be ignored. So, I am going to post what I found.
Each and every one of these only ever lists two other names that have the same service number as Lafayette (Ronald) Hubbard.
Julius Mand and Morris L. Baxter
Starting with oldest first – (note: Hubbard’s social security number is 568-09-9422 so that’s not a factor in any of this with these other two names – I checked).
June 30, 1982
May 1, 1985
May 18, 1988
August 12, 1996
January 13, 1997
April 28, 2000
August 20, 2001
113392 – same number for three names.
In 1922, the Navy extended the service number range of officers to 10,000 and by 1925 had extended the range again to 100,000. The issuance of service numbers was based simply by date of commission within the Navy; by 1929, the Navy saw the need to extend this range again to 125,000. The cap of 125,000 had just barely been reached by the outbreak of World War II in 1941.
Hubbard’s number is 113392 so that puts him somewhere between 1929 and 1939 per wikipedia’s chart of number assigns/years.
That lines up with other information as to Hubbard’s real background.
Have we found two of Ron Hubbard’s intelligence cover identities?
What I do know is that the statistical odds of a duplicate number are astronomical. For example, Army service numbers numbers more than 7 million at one point, and even then there are apparently only six occurrences where one number was mistakenly given to six different soldiers.
Do we believe that those kind of odds happened here with Hubbard?
Written and researched by