Testimony of Thomas S. Moulton, Church of Scientology v. Armstrong, 21 May 1984 --------------------------------------------------------------- THE WITNESS: Captain Thomas S. Moulton, M-o-u-l-t-o-n. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETERSON: Q: Mr. Moulton, do you have a rank or position at the current time? A: I am retired as a retired captain. My license is still intact. Q: What type of license is that that you have? A: Master Mariner. Q: And where do you currently reside? A: In Georgetown, Maine. Q: And how long have you lived there?' A: All of my life practically. Q: And other than your license as Master Mariner, do you hold any other licenses? A: I hold radar endorsements, of course, on that. I am also a licensed emergency medical technician. Q: And when did you first get your Master's license? A: 1947. Q: And with a Master's license, what does that enable you to do? A: My license is endorsed as Master of any vessel, steam, or motor, of any tonnage on any ocean. Q: And how long have you held that license? A: Since 1947. Q: And at one time did you hold a position in the United States Navy? A: I did, sir. Q: And when did you first join the Navy? A: The end of 1940 or the beginning of 1941. I think it was January of 1941. Q: And prior to joining the United States Navy did you have any other experience on the high seas? A: Not on the high seas. I was a coastwise fisherman for a time. Q: For approximately how long? A: Off and on for two or three years. Q: And when you first joined the United States Navy in January of 1941, I believe, what was your first rank? A: Ensign. Q: And where did you first serve? A: I was sent to Jacksonville, Florida at the Naval Air Station. Q: And what course did you take at the Naval Air Station? A: At the Naval Air Station I sat before an examinations board to change the type of classification of my commission from aviation specialist to dock terminal service. Q: Where was that? A: Jacksonville, Florida. Q: And after completing the course of duty in Jacksonville where did you then go? A: I was then sent to Cambridge, Massachusetts. Q: What rank or position did you hold in Cambridge? A: I was then Lieutenant Junior grade. The Navy had taken over the Harvard yard and some of their buildings as a training school for senior officers. I was head of the Navigation Department there. Q: Were you an instructor? A: Yes, sir. Q: For how long did you instruct there at Harvard? A: For the first two classes when we reappointed our successors from the class graduates. I left there in the fall. Q: When you left Cambridge where did you then go? A: Miami, Florida, to the Sub Chasing Training Center. Q: At the Sub Chaser Training Canter, what the course of instruction that was offered there? A: Well, a certain amount of ship handling, so forth; primarily it was anti-submarine warfare tactics and quite high qualifications in sonar. Q: How long a course in this instruction was offered at the Sub Chaser School in Miami? A: As I recall., it was 60 or 90 days. Q: While you were at the Sub Chaser School in Miami, what year was that? A: That would have been 1942. Q: Do you recall the month? A: I left there just before Christmas I think. I think it was Christmas Eve. Q: So it would be safe to say late October is when you first arrived? A: I would think so, yes. Q: And while you were in Miami at the Sub Chaser School did you meet L. Ron Hubbard? A: I did. Q: Was he also attending school? A: Yes. He was in my class. Q: Did you know him socially? A: Quite well. He was a guest of my wife and me at dinner; we were his guests many times. We were quite close. Q: He was also attending the school? A: He was, sir. Q: And at school he was taking the came courses you were taking? A: Yes, the same class. Q: And do you recall his rank at that time? A: He was two stripes, full lieutenant. Q: And to your knowledge had he any previous naval experience before attending the Sub Chaser School? A: It was common knowledge that he had been in destroyers for some time before that. Q: You don't have the exact details? A: Other than hearing the instructors in the classrooms refer to it. He was used as something an authority in the classroom. Q: Do you know what his position was on these destroyers? A: I am told he was gunnery officer on the EDSEL. I don't know about the others. Q: You mentioned that you left the Sub Chaser School in December of 1942; where did you go from there? A: I was pulled out of the class a week or ten days ahead of time. There was a sub chaser being completed in Massachusetts that the captain had been taken ill on and they needed a captain. Because I was near the top of the class, I was pulled out ahead of time, I think a week or ten days. And I took over command of the SC-767. Q: Did you see any duty on that sub chaser? A: Yes, sir. I brought her - well, several patrols, quite a few patrols. I had her for several months. I don't remember just how long. I finally brought her to Miami and she was then turned over to the Brazilian Navy under Lend Lease. Q: Now then, patrols were along the eastern seaboard of the United States? A: Yes, sir, and offshore. Q: And at that time was there an imminent danger of enemy submarines in the area? A: There were sinkings all up and down at that time. We were so desperate for ASW vessels. Q: And ASW is? A: Anti-Submarine Warfare. Q: And when did you again have communication with L. Ron Hubbard? A: After my ship was turned over to the Brazilians - which would have been sometime in the early spring, perhaps March - I was assigned to a PC as executive officer. We started for the Southwest Pacific. but we were diverted en route to Key West and went through a week or ten day course in anti-submarine warfare at the fleet sound school. Then I was promoted, was senior to the captain, so I was detached and then I returned to Miami to a subchaser training center for reassignment, and I received a call from Ron Hubbard that his executive officer was either ill or had been transferred or something. I don't recall the details. Q: You recall at that time where Lt. Hubbard was stationed? A: He was in Portland, Oregon at the Albina Engine and Machine Works with his new ship being built, and although I had a chance to go probably as captain myself on the PC, he asked me an a particular favor would I come out for a time as his executive officer because he was in serious difficulties, and that I did do. Q: And the serious difficulties, was that as a result of losing his executive officer? A: Mostly that. His executive officer had been transferred for some reason and he had two young ensigns who were not very experienced. of course. He was also ill at the time. He was recovering from, I believe. pneumonia but I am not certain. Q: And then did you travel to Oregon? A: I did. Q: And when you first arrived in Oregon. did you meet with Mr. Hubbard? A: I did. He had just come from the hospital or wherever he had been laid up. I think that was his first day back to duty. Q: Did he seem to be in good physical condition? A: Other than recovering from this illness that he had had, yes, sir. Q: And when you took over duties, had the ship that Mr. Hubbard had been working on, had it been commissioned yet? A: No, sir. Q: What was the status of that ship? A: She was still in building. Q: And is that the ship that was later designated the PC-815? A: That's correct. Q: And were you also stationed there in Albina? A: Albina Engine and Machine Works was the name of the shipyard. Q: And that is in what city? A: Portland, Oregon. Q: Did you have an opportunity also to visit with Mr. Hubbard on a social basis? A: Yes, he and his wife and I went to dinner several times. MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, may I approach the witness? THE COURT: All right, you may. MR. PETERSON: Your Honor. I as showing the witness a photograph. Could we have that marked as plaintiff's next? THE COURT: 90, I believe. Q BY MR. PETERSON: Captain Moulton, do you recognize either of those two gentlemen? A: I do. Q: And who is the officer on the right? A: On my right? Q: The right-hand side of the picture. A: That is I before the beard. Q: And about what month and year was that taken? A: That was taken in 1943. I would think in April, perhaps March, but probably April. Q: And was that taken in Albina? A: It was taken in the shipyard in one of their offices. Q: And the gentleman on the left, do you recognize that gentleman? A: That was L. Ron Hubbard. Q: And is that the way he looked in April of 1943? A: Exactly. Q: And what was the purpose of taking that photograph? A: It was for publicity purposes for the shipyard, I believe. Q: It was actually taken in the office of the shipyard? A: Yes, it was. Q: And have you had that photograph in your possession since 1943? A: I have had the original of that in my possession, yes. Q: And I notice in that photograph that Captain Hubbard is wearing dark glasses; In that correct? A: That is correct. Q: And in all the times that you knew him in Portland did he wear dark glasses? A: It was necessary for him to wear them, yes. Q: And when you know him in Miami did he wear dark glasses? A: Yes, he did, the same glasses. Q: Did he ever tell you why he had to wear the dark glasses? A: Yes. Q: What did he say? A: He said that his eyes had been injured in the flash from a large caliber gun. I think it was a four or five-inch gun on a destroyer he had been on. The gun was fired prematurely. He was standing adjacent to the muzzle and he received a bad flash burn which did not impair his vision, but it was very painful for him to go around in any sort of light without the glasses on. I saw him try it on one occasion. Q: On this one occasion that he tried to go without his glasses, could you describe that? A: Yes. We were in a place in Seattle, I believe, known as the Seattle Tennis Club. There was this function, a dance or something, going on. And one of the ladies in the party was kidding him about wearing dark glasses in dim light at night. And he told her why. And for some reason, she thought that was a strange story. So to go along with it, he took his glasses off. Within five or ten minutes, even in that dim light, his eyes watered very badly - became red. And I think he said he had a very bad headache. He put his glasses back on and from then on wore them at all times except on the bridge at night in the dark. A: Now, at any time when you were with Mr. Hubbard in Portland did he have any complaints about pain in his low back or any area like that? Q: He frequently complained of pain in his right side and the back in the area of the kidneys which he said was due to some damage from a Japanese machine gun very early in the war. And from that he had considerable difficulty in urination. And upon at least one occasion I saw him urinating bloody urine. He had great difficulty in urinating. Q: Now, at some time I presume that the PC-815 was completed and ready for sea duty. Is that correct? A: That is correct. Q: And do you recall about what time that was? A: That would have been - I would think about - I don't know the exact date, but about the 1st of May; perhaps the last week in April of 1943. Q: And when the ship was completed, what did you and Captain Hubbard do at that time? A: We stayed in Portland for a week or ten days outfitting and conducted trials, builders' trials, during which time the propeller was damaged. And we came back and we drydocked to repair that. The pilot managed to hit a mud lump in the river or something on the trials. That was repaired; we finished outfitting and went down the river sometime about the 10th, 11th, perhaps 12th of May. Q: And when the trial runs and the outfitting had been completed, did you at that time receive any orders? A: Yes. We were ordered to proceed to Astoria for loading ammunition. And then we were supposed to go to Seattle to have radar installed and some other equipment. Q: Did you commence to proceed to Astoria to take on ammunition? A: Yes, we did. Q: Did you make it there? A: When we got to Astoria they only gave us a small quantity of ammunition for structural firing, the tests that had to be made. Q: What are structural firing tests? A: The main gun had to be fired a certain number of rounds, perhaps a half dozen or something. We had to roll ash cans from the racks on the stern and also fire the K-guns. Q: "Ash cans," are those -- A: Depth charges. Q: -- used in sinking submarines? A: That is correct. Q: What are K-guns? A: They were guns shaped roughly in the shape of the letter K that fired depth charges. There were two of them aft so you could fire depth charges on each side through the air some distance from the ship. Q: The ash cans, would they roll off the back? A: They rolled off two racks in the back. Q: Were there any other armaments on that ship? A: Yes. She carried a 40-millimeter gun; she had three-inch 50, I believe. I way he confusing her with another ship, but I think she had a three-inch 50. I know she had a 40-millimeter forward and I think the three-inch 50 aft. She carried two or three 20-millimeters; I think perhaps two. Q: After you had taken on the ammunition in Astoria, then you proceeded to test fire the guns? A: Not at that time. We were due to go to Bremerton to do this at the Navy yard in Seattle. There was a Navy plane that went down off the coast and all of us were ordered out to search for that ship or that plane. And when we came back in, our orders were then changed. And instead of going to Seattle because we were already late from this other thing, we would proceed to, I think it was, San Francisco. I have forgotten. I think it was San Francisco or San Diego, one or the other. And then we would conduct these tests en route. Q: Okay. The trip to Seattle and the Bremerton shipyards at that location. I believe you testified that you were going to outfit the ship with radar equipment? A: She was to get radar and also rocket propelled mousetraps which they did not carry at the time. Q: What is a rocket propelled mousetrap? A: They were rockets that could be fired from the foredeck. They were used in ASW attacks. They were a generation ahead of the depth charges. They later became standard equipment on all ships of that type. Q: Okay. So with the test amount of ammunition that you had loaded at Astoria, you then proceeded, I believe it would be south down the coast? A: We were bound south for either San Diego or San Francisco. I don't recall. Q: And do you recall the approximate date that you had commenced the trip south? A: It would have been, I would think, the last week in May. I am not certain of the date, perhaps the 22nd, 23rd. I am not sure. Q: And that is 1943? A: Yes, sir. Q: And when you say "we," how many other ships were in the group? A: We were alone. We were en route by ourselves. Q: And who was the captain of that ship? A: Ron Hubbard. Q: And that is the PC-815? A: That's correct. Q: And what was your duty on the ship? A: Well, I had several hats because there were only four officers and quite a few departments. I was executive officer. I was also the medical officer. I was communications officer, and I was also the engineering officer. Q: Did Mr. Hubbard also wear several hats? A: No, sir. He was captain or commanding officer. That was all. Q: That was standard? A: That was standard on all ships with reduced personnel. Q: And did you have any type of sonar detection equipment on that ship? A: Yes, sir. We had the latest sonar equipment at that date that was being used in anti‑submarine warfare. Q: Had you personally had any training on sonar equipment? A: Yes, sir, both in Miami and in Key West. I was considered an expert on it. So was Ron, of course. Q: And did you also have a separate officer or enlisted man who held the duty of operating sonar equipment? A: We had either two or three sonar operators. One or two were third class, and I think one was first class, or second, and this came under me directly under communications. I was in charge of the sonar. Q: And part of your training in the subchaser school in Miami, did you take instruction on the use of sonar equipment? A: Yes, sir. We had what today are known as simulators which were used in the Navy and in the Air Force too, where the computer duplicated a submarine and his motions, and submarine trained people operated the computer and our bridge crew would operate the ASW team equipment, and we had mock battles. Then, in Key West, we operated on live submarines with test firing equipment and conducted many runs there also. Q: When a submarine is detected on some sonar equipment. does it make a distinctive response or noise of any kind? A: Well, in the equipment of that day - I can't speak for what is used today, I am not familiar - you sent an outgoing signal and a pinging sound was reproduced as that signal went out. When the signal did not encounter any object there was no return, It was merely a series of pings which went on day and night when you were underway. On anything that was picked up in the beam from this, you received an echo coming back which you then had to distinguish as to whether it was metal, such as a ship, a submarine, a whale, a fish or just disturbances in the water. They all had characteristic types of echoes, Q: And part of your training was to distinguish between the different characteristics of the returning sounds on the sonar? A: A good part of our training was, a great part because that was vital to a successful attack. Q: And how could you distinguish the sound, for example, that would be made with sonar bouncing off of whale versus a submarine? A: Well. when the sonar beam hit the whale, he would naturally have blubber and so forth, and the echo that returned was not as sharp. If you hit metal, other than in bad conditions of sound reception, it came back as a much crisper, sharper echo just as though you had talked to a hard wall as opposed to a padded cell type of wall. Q: And disturbances, for example, bubbles or any other type of disturbance in the water; would that have a sound that was even different from that of a whale or a fish? A: They all had a most characteristic sound under ideal conditions. Q: And the sonar equipment on the PC 815, where was the receptor? A: The equipment was in a small alcove right on the bridge. You could draw a curtain across it so the light at night didn't bother the bridge crew. but it was essentially on the bridge in a little alcove. Q: Was there some scope on the sonar equipment also? A: There was the operating dial with an arrow which indicated the direction that it was being trained at at the time. There were numerous operational gauges along with it, but essentially it gave you the bearing that you sent the signal out on. And when it came back, then, of course, you had a receiver - much as a loudspeaker - where you could listen to the echo. The sound man heard the same thing on earphones. And I or whoever wanted to check it also had a pair of earphones which gave you better fidelity. Q: And on the trip south in May of 1943 as an officer you were usually stationed on the bridge? A: I stood a watch on the bridge, a four‑hour watch. Then I stood an additional watch because our two ensigns were not very experienced and usually when they were on watch, except under ideal conditions, I stood by on the bridge or in the chart room with one of them and Ron stayed back on with the other one. Q: And as you were proceeding south in May of 1943 at some point did someone raise an alarm that there was a possible submarine in the area? A: Yes, sir. Q: And to your recollection who first raised that alarm? A: Three of us did. Ron was on the bridge; I was on the bridge and the sonar man, of course. All three called out at once. All three of us did, but there was a return echo. Q: And when you heard the return echo what did you then do? A: I immediately went to the sound gear. I probably put on my headset. That would have been routine. And we proceeded to evaluate the echo. Q: And when you say "we", who were the other people on the bridge? A: The sonar man, Ron and myself. Q: And "Ron" is L. Ron Hubbard? A: That is correct. Q: And did you, after listening to the return sound on the sonar, reach a conclusion? A: After we had evaluated it, there was more to it than just listening to the return echo. You checked the width of the target. Because you knew the tapered width of the beam, you could estimate the length of the target that you were getting a return from. You also checked it for a doppler which would be an indication of whether the range was opening or closing. This, you detect in the sound. You listen for screw noises or anything else that could help you evaluate the contact. In this case, after evaluation, we had determined it was a submarine. Q: You mentioned you listened for screw noises? A: The propeller sound coning from a ship, for example, or a submarine as opposed to the sound made by dolphins, whales, so forth. They are all more or less characteristic. Q: The screw noises would be the sound of the propeller under water? A: That is correct. Q: Does a propeller under water have a distinctive sound? A: Very definitely. As a matter of fact, you can almost, if you are active in listening constantly and up to date in your practice, usually you can determine the type of ship it is. They all have a characteristic signature or sound. Q: And after listening to the sonar sounds for some period of time did you make an evaluation regarding the length of the target? A: We decided it was roughly the length of a submarine. It made noises like a submarine and it was behaving like a submarine. Q: Did you hear screw noises? A: We did. Q: And could you tell if the ship, the underwater target was coming toward you, away from you, or moving in what direction? A: We would have been able to know from the doppler effect on the sound as well as once we began an evaluation, sooner or later we would start a time plot and start plotting what the target was doing, whether it was stopped, whether it was moving, and, if so, what course. This was done both with what was then a highly classified attack piece of electronics, now, knowledge and obsolete. But it was then the very latest that very few people knew about. We had one of the earliest ones. And we kept that going for a plot along with our own manual plot with a stop watch. Q: And you had determined that the target was a submarine? A: Beyond any question. Q: Did you scan the area for any other under water ships? A: We had been conducting a routine search. Once we picked up on this target we concentrated on that, of course. Q: After making the determination that it was indeed a submarine, what did you then do? A: Well, we took some time ‑ it has been so many years I can't remember how long ‑ but we took some time to evaluate it. During that time we would know that a submarine would bear our pinging inside its hull. If he were friendly, he would have made recognition signals. We received no recognition signals; so we proceeded to attack. Q: What type of recognition signals would a friendly submarine have made? A In those days he would have fired a small rocket which gave one or more colored lights and ended up an a smoke signal of a distinctive color. Q: And you didn't receive any type of -- A: We received none, no, sir. Q: What did you then do? A: We commenced our first attack. Q: Was there any kind of an alarm sounded, or was the ship at that point already in readiness? A: Where we were, it was routine to go into what was at night time an assembly. an alert. known as Condition 2. We sounded the general alarm for general quarters. The attack, of course, could be started even in Condition 3 because everybody we needed was there. But with the general quarters, we obtained water tight integrity; alerted the engine room to manoeuvre and, of course, manned the guns. Q: And you said you commenced an attack; what did you do to commence the attack? A: We made a pass on them and dropped depth charges. Q: And do you recall how many depth charges? A: No, we were rationed because we only had something like 12 or 14 onboard. I think in our first attack, if I remember right, we rolled three or four and we fired the X guns, but I think if I remember right one of them didn't go off. After that we made a series of attacks over several days. Eventually our ammunition was replenished, but it took a lot of doing to get it replenished. Q: When you commenced the first run or attack on the submarine, were you out there alone? A: Yes, sir. Naturally we alerted the shore side people by radio that we were commencing an attack. Q: And do you recall the approximate location of your vessel at the point you commenced the attack? A: We were off the Oregon coast. I think it is called, if I remember right, Cape Meares. It was between there and a head called Tillamook. There is a beach in the area known as, I think it is Silver Sand Beach, something similar to that, and there is another landmark, Haystack Rock. We were somewhere off that. Our battle report would show the position, of course. Q: Approximately how far off the coast did this incident take place? A: I would have to refer to the battle report because we made so many runs over those days. We were, I would think, perhaps 10 or 12 miles, but that is purely my recollection. Q: 10 to 12? A: 10 to 12 miles - I would say, somewhere around there. MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, could we have exhibit 60? Captain Moulton, I am handing you exhibit 60. Do you know what that document is? A: I do, sir. Q: And what is it? A: That was our battle report eventually submitted after the action was over. Q: And when it was over, do you recall actually seeing that document before it was submitted? A: I helped write it. It was written primarily by Ron Hubbard, but naturally I contributed to it also as did the other officers. Q: And by referring to that document, can you give us a more exact location of where the incident took place? A: I believe no, sir. I see on the first page it says "Just inside the steamer track," but there is nothing more than that. I imagine it is further on. But to your recollection it was about 10 to 12 miles off -- A: I would think so. We were on approximately a hundred thousand curve because it was customary to steam that going up and down the coast. Q: You made a couple of runs dropping depth charges on the target? A: We made several runs that night. This happened that night, and over the course of the next three days or so, two and a half days, we made a great many runs. Q: What was the condition of the seas during the two and a half days of the attack? A: Sometimes it was not bad. At times it got quite rough, and it was difficult to transfer ammunition to us. I remember we had difficulty, but then it smoothed back down again. That is when we finally did get some ammunition brought to us. Q: In the two and a half days during the first group of attacks on the target, were you all alone? A: We had for the first day, perhaps into the second day, we were alone. The first night we were alone. Eventually they were one, two, I believe two blimps came out, and then we had an old Coast Guard cutter, and we had, I think. two SC's eventually assigned to us. Q: And what is an SC designation? A: That is the sub chaser. the smaller class. the same an I had had before. Q: And did they also join in the attack? A: One did, was a considerable help. The other one was very reluctant to do much of anything., He was there, but not voting, so to speak. Q: And what part did the two blimps take part in this attack? A: They had a different type of anti‑submarine detection gear, magnetic type of gear, and they confirmed all of our ‑‑ whenever we had a contact or we gained contact, we would give them the position. They would then pick it up on their gear and verify it or if they picked it up before we did, they would call us onto the barium range because after depth charge attacks, you lose contact and then you have to pick them up again, so we worked as a team together. And at least at one point ‑ I can't remember ‑ ­at least twice they dropped depth charges on the target. They verified along with the depth charges we dropped. Q: So the blimps were also equipped with depth charges? A: They had depth charges set for shallow surface. They didn't have the large deep water ones that we carried. Q: How were you in communication with the blimps? A: We had regular radio gear, ship to ship and ship to air. They had similar equipment, except very weak. I think it was only five or ten watts. For that reason, the shore stations could hear us, but they could not bear the blimps. Q: Could you personally hear any of the radio transmissions between the PC-815 and the blimps? A: Yes. Because a great many of them I made myself as communications officer. Throughout the action I was in charge of all communications. Q: And at any time in the communications that you had with the blimps did they confirm to you that the target was. indeed, a submarine? A: In their opinion it was. They felt so. Q: And how would they form an opinion that it was a submarine? Was it visual, or do they have certain type of equipment? A: I think ‑‑ I frankly don't know. I have never been aboard that type of blimp. How they evaluated, I have no idea; however, at one point when the submarine tried to surface on us, we all saw its periscope and what appeared to be perhaps the upper rim of its conning tower. And the blimps also reported up its periscope to us. They also reported it on another occasion further away when we had lost contact. They said they saw the periscope then. That one, we did not. We were a little too far away. I think. So they saw it, I believe, twice. We had it only once, Q: And they made a radio transmission of this location? A: They called us over and I imagine they dropped a smoke float. That is what they had been doing; each time they had a contact they had marked it for us. Q: Then you would proceed to the smoke float and start dropping depth charges? A: We would start ranging in that direction with our sonar and close on it until we picked it up. Q: You mentioned that you had made these attacks over a two‑and‑a‑half day period; after that what did you then do? A: I think the total time we were in action was something like 60 hours. We then returned to Astoria to the section base. Q: After you would make an attack on the target did you stop and try to make a visual observation to see if you had been successful in striking, or -- A: We were usually trying to recover contact with the sub. Naturally, we were looking for debris or anything else that would help us. We had a great many lookouts posted at general quarters; everybody was looking in certain assigned sectors, Q: What would a person on lookout be looking for to be able to ascertain whether or not a depth charge had either struck or in some way crippled a submarine? A: Well, if you had blown a big hole in him, you would naturally find, or hopefully find wreckage, bodies, or other equipment floating on the surface. If you had damaged him outside, such as perforating a fuel tank, you would see quantities of oil coming to the surface. If you damaged the screws or other equipment, you would hear this on the sonar by a different pitch and sound in the gear. Q: And this 60‑hour attack on the submarine, did you ever at any time make a sighting or a discovery of any other target in the area? A: Yes. Yes. On, I believe it was toward the close of the second day when we made ‑ we had lost contact with our submarine. And after one of the attacks when the water had been roared up. we were searching around to pick him up and we picked up a second contact which was not where it should have been at all if it had been ours. We swung our sound gear back and forth and determined that we now had two targets. We went through the same procedure and identified the second one as a submarine also. Q: And during the period of the 60‑hour attack and battle with the submarines, did you ever note any bodies or debris floating on the surface? A: We found no bodies or solid wreckage. On several occasions we had large quantities of oil surface which was noted both by us and by the blimp. There was also a semi‑solid yellowish sort of glutinous material. We never did identify what that was. We were too busy to stop and pick it up for samples. It spread over quite an area. but we never knew what it was. Q: Did you ever form an opinion on what you believed it to be? A: No, sir. But the oil we knew was oil, of course. Q: Did you at any time during the 60‑hour battle make a determination that there was any change in the sound of the screws on the target? A: Well, of course, they were speeding up, slowing down, and stopping and manoeuvring. But eventually we felt certain that we had damaged both of them. We were quite certain that we had completely wrecked the one who tried to surface on us. He never moved from that position after that for another day or no. The second one -- Q: By not moving from a position for a day or so, what did that indicate? A: We could pick him up with our sound gear. But he never changed position. Q: what did that indicate to you? A: We figured that he was long since past temporary damage, at had boon down so long I think he would have been out of air. He'd be unable to maneuver because early in that period, he had echo ranged on us. We heard the echo ranging clearly from his gear, and we were at that time fully expecting to have a torpedo sent at us, but the torpedo never came and we felt because of the angle that he was apparently at on the bottom, that he could not bring his stern or bow to bear on us to fire a torpedo. Q: And the other target, did you make a determination as to the ultimate fate of that target? A: In our opinion, the one sub was a definite sinking. We were fully decided on that. The second one we felt was either sunk or damaged so badly that he could not get away. Q: And at that point did you terminate the attack? A: No, we stayed around. I have forgotten how long. It would be in this report. We and the other ships patrolled the area for quite come time and act up picket lines and so forth to listen for any movement, We never heard any. Q: And did you yourself file a report an part of that exhibit 60? A: Exhibit 60? That is this? Q: Yes. A: Yes. I wrote nothing as elaborate as this. I merely wrote a short report. Q: Could you locate that report in exhibit 60? A: If it is here. Q: I think it is just after the report of Captain Hubbard. A: Yes, here in my report. Q: And would you look down in about the second paragraph, I believe, of that report. Actually it is in the paragraph 3, subsection 1. You indicate that the attack took place in April? A: No. That in an error on my part when I wrote it. That, of course, was May, Q: Why do you think that you wrote April instead of May? A: Well, I notice the report is dated May 25. This attack was over on the 21st. It was at least another day before we got into port. We were sent up to Seattle to report to Admiral Fletcher, and in all of this time we had had very, very little sleep. I was so tired I probably wrote half of this in my sleep. I have a habit of missing months and dates. That to why I keep a watch with a calendar on it because I never can remember dates. That is not a typographical. It is merely my fault in writing it. Q: In the action report I noticed there was an incident where I believe the 20 millimeter gunners had taken some shots that weren't directed toward the target but maybe directed in another direction; do you recall such an incident? A: I do. It damn near got me. Q: And could you describe briefly what that incident was? A: How it came about or why it was aimed where it was? Q: Both. A: Well, those 20 millimeters had a real flukey part known an a parallelogram. Was about yay big and it looked as though it could be put into the mechanism either way. In fact, it could be, but when it went in one way, you lost complete control of the trigger mechanism. This was a common fault that was later remedied in 20 millimeter guns, but in the early ones, that was common. And after a firing which we had done a day or so before, the guns naturally had been overhauled by very tired personnel and in the dark. We were showing no lights, and apparently this parallelogram, as we found it, had been put in backwards and for some reason the gun went off. Q: Could you have been firing at the periscope or the conning tower? A: Not at that particular firing. This one when the parallelogram was in, it was subject to going off at any fancy and if it did go off, there was no way to stop it unless you could run off and get it and rip off the magazine. Otherwise it would go until the magazine was exhausted. Q: And about how many rounds was in that magazine? A: Oh, I have forgotten, about 100 to 150. The magazine was about yay big. but there were a lot of them. seemed like 10 million to me. Q: When this particular 20 millimeter gun went off, where were you at the time? A: I was up about two-thirds of the way up the mast. Q: About how tall was that mast? A: I don't know, probably 65 feet, 70 feet. I was up there for better visibility. And to continue, these 20 millimeter guns had done so much damage to the ships they were on early in the war because they were a very hard gun to control, if you were in the harness wearing them and you happened to slip, there was no way you could get back on your feet again because the thing was making so much vibration and they frequently kept going. To accomplish some sort of control on the PC-815, she had one of the primitive methods that they put on to stop this. They had two cans, one that controlled the elevation and the other one controlled the horizontal train, and theoretically these could be set so that there was no part of the ship that you could hit directly with your fire. That was act by approximation in the yard. but until after you had made your trials, done your test firing, you were never sure of the setting and the thing never worked very well anyhow. Later on they built what was called a birdcage or mousetrap built out of pipe with all sorts of weird curving, so that no matter where the gun barrel was, it couldn't be depressed or swung where it would hit the ship. We didn't have that. I was at the mast and the gun went off and went the full round in the magazine. And I was much thinner then, fortunately. People who saw it say it missed me by about that far. Q: Indicating about ten inches to a foot? A: I would say about that. I was making love to the mast and was almost out to the other side. Looking down the barrel, it looked like it was coming right toward me. In the course of this, it did some small damage to the ship. The cans had never been given their final setting. And I think, if I remember right - it is a long time ago - I know we shot the antenna down. But I think it hit the insulator at the end, something of that sort, but outside of that, there was no damage from it. Q: Later on they corrected that problem on the ship? A: I believe, if I remember right, she had the bird cage thing put on her when she got down to San Diego. Q: And in reviewing the action report and accompanying documents, I noted that one of the admirals in the area had cast some doubt upon the fact that you had engaged in battle with an enemy submarine, do you recall the admiral making that assertion? A: I remember our meeting with Admiral Fletcher, who was quite disparaging at the time we had the meeting, perhaps understandably so. Q: Now, did he give you any factual reason why he believed that there were no enemy submarines involved in that attack? A: The only thing that I know was that at the point where we had been screaming for ammunition for several days without results from shore side people. as communications officer and with Ron's permission, I originated a message to the commander and chief of the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor. It was a very - well, I wouldn't write it today. I was younger then. But it was quite a nasty message asking why in thunder we couldn't get any help out there and get some ammunition, I coated this and sent it with a carbon copy so it would be equivalent to full copies to everybody on the coast, I guess. I did see the message that came back immediately from the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral King, with a carbon copy to me asking Admiral Fletcher what was going on out there and why he had not been told of an action taking place. I saw the carbon copy that went back from Admiral Fletcher to him where he said there was no submarine. I think he said "there were no submarines, repeat, no submarines in the area." This was quite a strong statement. But in view of the political climate on the West Coast at that time, I could see why he might have said that. And having said that he would not deviate from it. Q: Are there any other indications in that Action Report other than your report and Captain Hubbard's report that indicate that, indeed, the targets that were discovered were submarines? A: Well, there were statements taken from all the crew, I see they are here. I am sure some of the crew had mentioned that because some of them, I know, sighted the periscope. The sonar men who, in each case, two or three of them, were very definite in that they had the submarine on their sonar. And we did have, as I said, communications from the blimps. Q: Is there any other record that is kept as part of the action report, any testing or any read outs on equipment that also would indicate that the targets were submarines? A: Yes. Our attack recorder - our attack director made a recording, an electronic recording which anyone competent in reading that could use to determine what type of target it was. Because it would give the type of echo. its strength. general characteristics and you could plot courses and distances from it. It would also contain a record of an attack. our recordings were all turned over to Admiral Fletcher at that conference. We did not get them back. He called a man in on his staff to interpret them. The man was not a ASW man. He was, I believe, a three-striper or four-striper, but he was in Naval Aviation. And they were using a recorder, perhaps similar to this one. I never saw it, but he said he was not real competent to evaluate this. There were no submarine people there or any submarine people there at the time who could. Q: So there was no one there who could look at that and say definitely it was a submarine. A: I do know that these reports were later analyzed in, I believe, San Diego or, perhaps, San Francisco by another, I believe, Admiral Braisted, something like that. And he entered his comments concerning some, I think, 19 runs. Q: He mentioned that some of these runs were mushy; the echos were mushy and could have been due to fish or knuckles in the water bubbles, but that two may have been submarines. A: Well, that was sort of like saying a girl is a little bit pregnant. If the two may have been submarines, it is more than likely that the other 16 or 17 may have been submarines. THE COURT: We'll take a 15-minute recess. (Recess.) THE COURT: All right. We are back in session. The witness has taken the stand. Please state your name again for the record, sir. You are still under oath. THE WITNESS: Thomas Moulton. THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Peterson. MR. PETERSON: Thank you. Q: Now, you had mentioned earlier that there was some aspect of the political climate which I believe influenced Admiral Fletcher's conclusion; what was that? A: Well, I am sure that - without that it would have been - at about that time either just before this action or just after, I think it was just after you had the shelling of a refinery here somewhere in the Los Angeles area, I believe just up the coast. It was written up in Reader's Digest a couple of months ago, three months ago. At that time it caused quite a local panic, so I am told, and the press so indicated, and everybody on the West Coast apparently started a bunch of rumors, became quite upset about it. I know that the commanders of the various areas received a lot of inquiries from shoreside people. It wasn't a panic, but it was getting into that stage. It got so bad that I remember in Oregon that the papers there, there ware several articles. I saw one of them asking people to keep quiet, not start rumors and so forth, and I am quite sure that this was well known to all the commanders up and down the coast, and it was to their advantage. at least publicly, not to admit that there were submarines in the area and, of course, once Admiral Fletcher had sent this message to Admiral King, knowing how the Navy works, I am sure he wouldn't back down from it. Q: And later on in the summer did you again receive any indication that in fact the submarine or the two submarines had been sunk in the area? A: It wasn't that summer. It was some time after that. I was traveling up the Columbia River on a merchant ship and was talking with the pilot who came from somewhere in that area, I believe, in that Sand Beach or Silver Sand Beach. And I happened to discuss this action with him. He had been living there at the time - MR. FLYNN: I’ll object to this. THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection. Q BY MR. PETERSON: During the incident with the attack on the submarines. in your opinion, how did Captain Hubbard react? A: Well, he ran a very competent, extremely competent attack throughout the thing. He did a very fine job. And after the incident with the submarines in May of 1943 did the PC 815 continue on its voyage? A: We went back to Astoria for replenishment of ammunition. And at that time there was a new carrier, the first of the Kaiser carriers that came down from the Seattle area. And we went up to meet her and we picked her up in Port Angeles. We were detailed to escort her because she was very valuable, as the first one and it was felt at the time that there might be grave damage from submarines and from mining in the area. We escorted her to San Francisco where she took on stores and then escorted her front there to San Diego. Q: And at some point did you then leave the PC 815? A: Yes, sometime after we completed that escort. I would think within a week or two - I don't remember exactly. Q: And then from the PC 815 where did you then go? A: I was sent to the Amphibious Center in Virginia and took command – well, I went through the training program and took command of my first LST there. Q: And did you see action at the battle of Saipan? A: Yes. That was the last one. Q: What happened there briefly? A: Well, we were stranded on the - I had been the first ship to land there in the action on D-Day. And we were stranded on the reef for about 10 days. During that time the Japanese used to run dawn and dusk attacks on us. We were badly strafed and bombed and one thing and another and quite badly damaged. I lost a substantial part of my crew there. MR. PETERSON: Nothing further from the witness, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may cross-examine. MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN: Q: Sir, you have a rather remarkable memory after all of these years. I take it before your testimony today you refreshed your memory with regard to the Action Report which you have in front of you there? A: I had a chance to skim through it; that is all, sir. Q: Did you skim through any other documents such as the conference report of Admiral Fletcher? A: If that was his letter of transmittal from this, I saw it too, yes. Q: You did see the letter of transmittal from Admiral Fletcher? A: Yes, I did, sir. Q: Is that attached to the exhibit in front of you? A: I think that is where I saw it. It doesn't seem to be in here. Q: Now that in the letter that summarizes the results of the conference that Admiral Fletcher hold with regard to this action? A: Yes that is the one I am looking for, but I so far haven't come across it. Q: And that is where Admiral Fletcher stated that the action, in fact, never took place? A: Something to that effect, yes, sir. Q: And you can't find it in that exhibit? A: I am still looking, but I am also listening to you at the same time. Q: Now. the conference report in the transmittal of Admiral Fletcher would have been classified information and secret at that period of time; is that correct? A: This entire record and everything pertaining to it was classified secret at that time. It since, I see here, has been declassified. Q: So, Admiral Fletcher's notation that no such action ever took place would have been secret at that period of time; is that correct? A: Yes, it would have been. I think it said something in there instructing that it be forwarded only by registered letter if I remember right. Q: So if the political climate at the time in 1943 was one of fear on the West Coast, it would have been more helpful to that climate to disclose Admiral Fletcher's conclusions that there were no submarines; is that correct? A: I am not sure I follow you. It would have been very helpful for him to insist that he had none, yes. Q: But it would have been helpful to disclose his findings to the public that there had been no submarines? A: No, I don't think so, because I believe the entire action was secret at that time. Q: So, the public didn't know about it one way or the other? A: Other than people who lived along the shore and saw and heard the things. Q: When did you last see Admiral Fletcher's report? A: I saw it this morning, I glanced at it. That is why I am trying to find it because I would recognize it if I saw it. I had not seen it before I came out here. As I recall, it was dated June 23rd, and that was after I left the PC. I don't find it here, but I am sure it is in here. Q: Who first contacted you. sir. with regard to your appearance as a witness? A: Who first contacted me? Mr. - I think it is - Wittle, Tom Wittle. Q: And approximately how long ago was that? A: Last week or early, I think no, last week. I am sorry. Q: Had you had any prior contact with any representatives of the Church of Scientology at any time in the last three or four years? A: No, sir. not in over 15 years. Q: And they found you in Maine? A: Yes. Q: Now, did you know L, Ron Hubbard as a good storyteller? A: As a good storyteller? Q: A person who told stories. A: What sort of stories? Q: Well, did you know him to have any reputation at the time you knew him during World War II as a good storyteller? A: Do you mean jokes and things of that sort? Q: No; stories about incidents that had taken place in his lifetime. A: No, he was very reticent, as a matter of fact. Q: Did you consider him to be a very honest person? A: Indeed. Q: And he told you that he had injured his eyes from a flash burn when a gun unexpectedly went off; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: Did he tell you when that took place? A: It would have been sometime before Pearl Harbor, I don't know, I seem to remember he told me it was - it was on a destroyer, but I wouldn't swear to it after all of this time. Q: But you are clear that he injured his eyes from the flash burn of a gun? A: I am cleat that he said he did, yes. Q: When you were serving with Mr. Hubbard did you over see his medical records with regard to his eye condition in 1942 and 1943? A: No. sir. I would not have seen him after I left the ship. I have never seen him since then. MR. LITT: Your Honor, I - Q BY MR. FLYNN: I'm talking about the period now when you were with him. A: When I was with him, I don't remember him going to a doctor at all. MR. PETERSON: I object to Mr. Flynn showing the witness something. I have no idea what he is showing the witness. THE COURT: Just show counsel what it is before you show it to the witness. MR. LITT: Your Honor, the document that is being shown to the witness appears to be a Veterans Administration document from 1947. MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, let’s hear the question. He is showing the witness the document and pointing to things for the witness to look at before he has even asked his question. I think it is irregular. Why doesn't he ask the question rather than putting medical records in front of the witness who isn't a trained doctor? THE COURT: I don't see any big question. He has asked him the question. I’ll overrule the objection. You can answer whether he ever told you that. THE WITNESS: He did not, no. This was a hospitalization in February of 1942 which was before I knew him. He did not - it does not say in here that that was the original injury. This could have been an aggravation of an old one. It says “excessive tropical sunlight,” but it doesn't say this was the cause of his original trouble. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Does it say anything about a flash burn from a gun? A: No. sir. And with regard to his actual chronological medical history, in May 1942, this officer states, “While acting as intelligence officer for the Asiatic Fleet he exposed his eyes to strong sunlight and has had to wear tainted glasses ever since.” Did he ever tell you that? A: No, sir, he did not. MR. PETERSON: I am not sure I understand what “tainted glasses” are. THE COURT: For the record, it is what it in, I assume - Q BY MR. FLYNN: He told you that - THE COURT: He probably means “tinted.” Go ahead. BY MR. FLYNN: He told you that he was injured by a Japanese machine gun? A: Yes. sir. Q: When was that. sir. that he told you that? THE COURT: When did he tell him. or when did he tell him he was injured? Q BY MR. FLYNN: First, when did Captain Hubbard tell you that he was injured by a Japanese machine gun? A: This was while we were in Miami which would have been in the fall of 1942. It was the fall of 1942. Q: Is that - A: While we were in Miami. Q: Did he describe the circumstances under which he was injured by the Japanese machine gun? A: Yes, in some detail; not entirely. Q: What did he tell you? A: That he had been in Surabaya at the time the Japanese came in or in the area of Surabaya and that he spent some time in the hills in back of Surabaya after the Japanese had occupied it. Q: Now, Surabaya was where, sir? A: That is a port on the north part of Java in the Dutch East Indies. Q: So you understood from Captain Hubbard that he had been in Java fighting the Japanese and was hit by machine gun fire? A: Not quite as you put it. He had been landed, so he told me In Java from a destroyer named the Edsall and had made his way across the land to Surabaya, and that is when the place was occupied. When the Japanese came in, he took off into the hills and lived up in the jungle for some time until he made an escape from there. THE COURT: Sounds like the South Pacific, the “Tales from the South Pacific” by Kichener. THE WITNESS: I know of it. I haven’t read it. THE COURT: Anyway, go ahead. Q BY MR, FLYNN: When did he tell that this took place, Captain Moulton? A: He was there apparently on the 8th of December which corresponded to December 7th, the other wide of the dateline. Q: December 8th A: At that period when the Japanese occupied all of the Dutch East Indies. Q: That would have been in 1941 or 1942? A: '42. Q: So this would have been - A: Did I say 1942? I should have said 1941. THE COURT: Was that Pearl Harbor? THE WITNESS: That was at the time of Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was the 7th on one side and the 8th on the other side. The Japanese came in - I was not in that area at the time so I don't know the exact time that they occupied Surabaya, but it was within a day or two after that. BY MR. FLYNN: So he told you he was in the South Pacific in Surabaya when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor? A: That is correct. He had been landed by the Edsall and she was sunk shortly after that. He was, as far an I know, the only person that ever got off the Edsall because he wasn't aboard when it happened. She was sunk within a few days after that. Q: And Captain Hubbard told you all this? A: Yes, sir, but I also know that she was sunk. She is carried in the records as having been sunk with all hands. Q: And all hands were lost except Captain Hubbard? A: He was ashore at the time. Q: And that is when he was hit by the machine gun fire? A: Some time during his chasing up and around through the jungle before he made his escape. Q: Now, when you were working with Captain Hubbard, did you ever look at any of his records with regard to his military history prior to the time that you act him? A: No, sir. I would have no access to them. Q: So you believed Captain Hubbard at the time? A: Certainly. I had no reason not to. Q: Did he tell you exactly where he was hit by the machine gun fire? A: In the back, in the area of the kidneys, I believe on the right side. Q: And did he tell you what caliber machine gun it was? A: No, sir, he did not. Q: And it damaged his urinary system? A: Somewhere In the urinary system. I know he had a great bit of difficulty in urinating. Q: And did he till you how long he remained hiding in the hills with these machine gun wounds before he was removed from the combat area? A: I know that he told me he had made his escape eventually to Australia. I don't know just when it was. He apparently, he and another chap, sailed a life raft, I believe. to near Australia where they were picked up by a British or Australian destroyer. Q: And that would have been late 1941, early 1942? A: I would imagine it would have to have been early 1942 because it would take some time from December 7. Q: Now, Captain Hubbard gave you all of these details that you are giving the court today; is that correct? A: Well, I have no other knowledge except what he told me. Q: And did he tell you how far he sailed the raft? A: He told me he was picked up - again. I'm trusting my memory - but it was on the order of 75 miles off Australia. I know it was under 100, but it was somewhere around 75 because it was a remarkable piece of navigation. Q: And had he received any treatment for his wounds during this period of time? A: This, I do not know. He said that he was very ill in the jungle with the injuries. That is all I know. Q: With machine gun bullets in his back? A: I don't know if the bullets were in there or had passed through or what, I never saw the scars. Q: Now, did he tell you whether he was an Intelligence officer at that time or what type of duty post he had? A: No. He mentioned he had been on the Edsall. And that was all, and that he had previously served in other Vessels. Q: You believed this entire story, is that correct? A: I had no reason to disbelieve it. sir. Q: Now, let me show you exhibit 500-II and ask if you are familiar with this type of Naval document called “Report of Compliance With Orders.” A: This is a standard form, yes, sir. Q: You are familiar with those forms; is that correct? A: Yes. sir. Q: Now, that relates to the Lieutenant J.G. Lafayette Hubbard; is that correct? A: That is correct. Q: And it shows that he was ordered to Australia on November 24, 1941; right, and that he left on December 8. 1941 from the United States? A: Let me see. Received the orders on the 24th and he was dispatched on December 8th; however - Q: He arrived in Brisbane, Australia when, Captain Moulton? A: It says January 16; however, this could be meaningless. It is not to be relied on. If something you said just now is true - said he was an intelligence officer, I believe - if that is so, this would be meaningless. Q: That could be false? A: Not false, but an intelligence officer, as far as I know, has all sorts of spurious letters stating where he is sent to, when he got there. I did not know he was an intelligence officer. But if he was, this would be meaningless. Q: Now. what about this document, Captain Moulton; do you recognize what that is? MR. PETERSON: Can we have - MR. FLYNN: 500-JJ marked. “Confidential” at the bottom. A: Yes. Q: Do you recognize what that is? A: This is a Navy communication stating that there is nothing available for him there and that he is ordered to return to Com 12. I think that was the West Coast. Q: It says, “Lieutenant J.G. ordered returned via Chaumont; report to Com 12; unsatisfactory for any available assignment.” A: That would be routine wording, yes. Q: What is the date of that, Captain Moulton? A: This is dated - let me see - 16 February 1942. Q: That would be roughly a month after he was shot in the back with a Japanese machine gun? A: Well, it would be anywhere from six to eight weeks on up, yes. If we assume that happened in early December. Q: Let me show you this document from the United States Naval Attaché, Melbourne, Australia, dated February 14, 1942, exhibit 500-KK. A : Uh-huh. Q: Now, do you see the part that - let me read part of it to you. 'The subject officer arrived in Brisbane via SS President Polk. He reported to me that he was ordered to Manila for duty and asked for permission to leave the SS President Polk until a vessel offering a more direct route to his destination was available. I authorized him to remain in Brisbane for future transportation to his destination. By assuming unauthorized authority and attempting to perform duties for which he has no qualifications, he became the source of much trouble.” Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: “On February 11, 1942 I sent him dispatch orders to report to the commanding officer USS Chaumont” - that's C-h-a-u-m-o-n-t – “for passage to the United States. And upon arrival report to the commandant 12th Naval District for future assignment. This officer is not satisfactory for Independent duty assignment. He is garrulous and tries to give impressions of his importance. He also seems to think that he has unusual ability in most lines. These characteristics indicate that he will require close supervision for satisfactory performance of any intelligence duty.” Q: Did you see that? A: Does it say when - will you give me just a moment to read this? Q: Sure. A: This is dated, as I see, February 14. It says he arrived in Brisbane on the President Polk, but it doesn't say where he came from. Q: Well, doesn’t the other report of compliance with orders indicate that he cam from the United States, Captain Moulton? A: Not necessarily, it doesn’t mention the Polk. Q: Do you know whether the President Polk was a life raft? A: No, but I don’t know where he came from. It merely says he was on her on arrival in Brisbane. If he was on that run, she probably made a lot of ports in Australia. He may have ridden coastwise on her. I can't tell from this. I was not there. Q: I take it that you like L. Ron Hubbard. A: I served with him. I liked him very well at the time I served with him. It is a great many years ago. Q: And rather than believe those documents, you'd believe what Mr. Hubbard said? A: I never believe or disbelieve them. I merely pointed out that they do not state that he came on to Brisbane from the States. Q: Does it say anything about being wounded by Japanese machine gun fire? A: No, sir. Q: It states that he is garrulous and unsatisfactory for any assignment. MR. LITT: Objection - the document speaks for itself. It is argumentative. THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, I take it when you ware serving with him on the PC 815, you believed the machine gun story? MR. LITT: Objections asked and answered. THE WITNESS: You mean of his being wounded? MR LITT: This is the third time. THE COURT: Yes, it has already been indicated. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, you went from an antisubmarine warfare vessel to an amphibious vessel, an LST? A: Yes, sir. Q: So after the incident involving you and L. Ron Hubbard on the PC 815 in May 1943, you never saw anymore duty in connection with anti-submarine warfare vessels. Is that correct? A: Let me see. No, I did not, sir. Q: You were transferred out of that duty right after that incident? A: No it was, oh, I would say two or three weeks later. I had a request transfer for some time. I had taken it, as I told you, temporarily as a relief executive officer, Q: Now, so, I take it from the time where you dropped all these depth charges with the PC 815 and Mr. Hubbard, you never dropped any depth charges again on any supposed submarine contacts? A: That is correct. Q: Now, I believe you testified that you first heard the sonar contact and you evaluated it and determined it was a submarine? A: That is correct. Q: Would you turn to page 2 of L. Ron Hubbard's - A: Page 2? Yes, sir. Q: L. Ron Hubbard's report of this action. Now, in the second paragraph you find “Attack One”; is that correct? A: Paragraph 2, no, sir. Are we looking at different things? Q: Page 2. A: We seem to have a different copy or something. Q: We sure do. This copy was provided to me, Your Honor, by plaintiff's counsel. I see, simply a question of different pagination at the bottom of one page with a handwritten number and a typewritten page 2 at the top. A: Oh, I see. You didn't make that clear. I guess that is why I made a mistake. Q: I guess I didn't. Typewritten page 2. A: Correct. Q: You see where “Attack One” begins and concludes? A: Yes, sir. Q: And then right next to that, at this point you have dropped all but three of your depth charges; is that correct? A: Frankly I don't remember. We had dropped some of them. I don't remember how many we had left. We had very few to start with. I don't remember the count. THE COURT: Are those the ash cans or X guns? THE WITNESS: Well, the X guns fired ash cans and we also rolled them. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, incidentally, in your Naval career was this the only time that you claimed you sunk a submarine? A: The only time I claimed I sunk a submarine? It is the only time I sunk a submarine, yes, sir. Q: Is it the only time you ever rolled ash cans to sink a submarine? A: I rolled dummy ash cans on tame submarines for a period of two or three weeks from morning until night and in the night, also. Q: So this is the first time that you ever suspected a live enemy submarine and rolled ash cans? A: I had rolled them on tame submarines. Q: So this is the one and only time that you have ever rolled ash cans on supposed enemy submarines, this incident? THE COURT: I assume it was your men that rolled them and you ordered them? THE WITNESS: That is correct. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, you said in the third paragraph after you claim that you found or made solid contact with a submarine, the notation that you have rolled all but three of your depth charges as indicated by the next page at this point. “No one, including the commanding officer, could readily credit the existence of an enemy submarine here on the steamer track, and all sound men now on the bridge were attempting to argue the echo ranging equipment and chemical recorder out of such a fantastic idea." A: That is correct. Q: Now, this was after you had made the solid contact that you testified about. Is that correct? A: Well, using your words. I think you are twisting just a bit. To use an analogy, If you came down a dose of gonorrhea, it would be difficult to credit it, but the evidence is immutable. This is what happened here; who would expect a submarine off the West Coast of California? But you can't argue with a machine, your hearing. and your training. Q: Are you testifying that these are my words, or Captain Hubbard's words about a fantastic idea? A: I just wanted to clarify the way you ware wording it. I didn't know what you were saying. Q: All I did was write the words of Captain Hubbard A: We'll try it again and I'll try to answer. Q: Do you recall testifying that you first made sonar contact; you evaluated it; you determined it was a submarine and rolled depth charges? A: Certainly. Q: How many depth charges did you roll? A: I don't remember. It would be in the attack report. It would be somewhere in the gunnery report. Q: This statement of Captain Hubbard appears after attack one concluded; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: And that is where he says, “No one will argue for such a fantastic idea”? A: As I told you, the analogy. Let me point out that we never would have rolled the first ash cans as a matter of routine unless we knew what we were rolling it on. We didn't go around rolling them on porpoises. Q: That seems to be the question, Captain Moulton. A: Whose question? Q: Now. after you did this first attack on this fantastic idea, there was three depth charges left on the ship; is that correct, on page 3? A: Is that typewritten three? Q: Typewritten three. A: Where does it give the amount – oh, I see. Q: Only three depth charges were now left on the ship? A: At that point, yes. Q: “The next three attacks were therefore parsimonious”; do you see that? A: “ . . . with an eye to harass the submarine”; yes. Q: Now. one of the vessels that came onto the area, the SC 537, refused to even participate; didn't she? A: She participated very poorly, as I mentioned earlier. Q: She refused to cooperate because she didn't believe the soundings; is that correct? A: I cannot say it was for any reason. All I know is her actions were not consonant with the orders that were given to her. Why she did it, I cannot say. Q: Did Captain Hubbard exceed his orders when he made the initial firings of the ash cans? A: Absolutely not. This is war time. This is not playing games. You come across a submarine and he doesn't identify, you sink him if possible. You don't need orders from anybody for that. Q: He didn't exceed his orders by firing first on the submarine? A: No. He would have been very remiss if he hadn't done so. Q: Would you turn to page 18, typewritten 18? A: Yes, sir. Q: In the last paragraph just above the signature of L. Ron Hubbard, do you see the statement. “. . . although exceeding its orders originally by attacking the first contact.” A: Yes, sir. Q: “This vessel feels only that it has done the job for which it was intended and stands ready to do that job again.” A: Yes, sir. Q: Now, did L. Ron Hubbard - did you help prepare this report with L. Ron Hubbard? A: Yes, part of it, yes. This last paragraph, I don't recall. though. Q: About his exceeding hie orders? A: I still don't understand it. I think he was trying to perhaps explain something, but what, I have no idea. You do not need orders to attack a submarine once you identify it. Q: You never saw any further anti-submarine warfare duty after this incident? MR. LITT: Objection. Asked and answered. THE COURT: Sustained. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you recall seeing an object floating in the water that you attack with, I believe, your 40-millimeter guns? A: Yes, I remember that. Q: That turned out to be a floating log? A: Well, we thought perhaps - we eventually saw it, yes. We didn't know what it was when we opened fire. Q: Do you recall on page 11 taking an oil slick sample, but finding that the slick was too thin for samples? A: No. That, I don't recall. Q: That is on page 11. A: Typewritten? Q: Typewritten. A: What paragraph? Q: The fourth paragraph from the top. A: Oh, I see. Yes. I see that. Q: Do you recall that? A: Not I don't, frankly. But if that was diesel, that would probably be true. Diesel was very, very thin on the surface. Q: Now. do you see in the two paragraphs below that a report that the sub had surfaced off Sand Lake caused all vessels except the Bonham to go flying north to that position, but then it was determined that that was a fishing vessel? Do you see that? A: Yes, of course. I believe, if I recall correctly, that Ron sent them up there to investigate. That would be routine. Q: Chasing fishing vessels? A: Pardon me. You chased any contact on the surface until you identify what it is. We were in battle against a submarine here. Now, when you first picked up the supposed submarine contacts, how long after you had left port did you pick up these contacts? A: It was either - I believe it was the first night. Q: And that was the first shakedown cruise of PC 815? A: She was still on shakedown, yes. Q: So you had pretty much an inexperienced crew at that time. Is that correct? A: That is completely incorrect. Q: Well, had the crew seen any duty together prior to that point in time? A: Together? No, except perhaps by coincidence. Some may have come from the same ship. We had a very, very competent group of people on that ship, one of the best crews I have called with. Q: How long were you with them? A: I was with them, as you know, for what, two months, three months. Q: And in the very first night of the shakedown cruise you had - THE COURT: This in going to he argumentative, Counsel, THE WITNESS: The ship had been to sea several times before that, Q BY MR. FLYNN: Captain Moulton, after you left the ship, it proceeded down to the San Diego area? A: After I left the ship, I think that I told you, I am trusting my memory, I believe I left her in San Diego, but I am not certain. Q: Well, did you - A: I left her either in San Francisco or San Diego. I believe San Diego. Q: So the birdcage that you testified about with regard to that gun was put on in San Diego. Is that correct? A: It was supposed to have been put on at the first yard availability, to I would imagine it was done there. It was not on her at the time of our action. She still had the cans. Q: Now, shortly after this incident, in July 1943 do you recall whether Mr. Hubbard was relieved of command for firing on the Mexican coast? A: That did not occur while I was on her, sir. I wouldn't know. Q: You don’t know anything about that? A: No. Q: And do you know anything about Mr. Hubbard's subsequent Naval career after you served with him? A: No, I never saw him again. I have talked with him, but it has not been in 15 or 20 years. Q: And do you know whether or not subsequent fitness reports were made on Mr. Hubbard as lacking the essential qualifies - MR. PETERSON: I object to this. He's testified he has no knowledge. THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. THE WITNESS: This covers a period of time I don't know. so I wouldn't want to make a comment. BY MR. FLYNN: This is roughly two or three months THE COURT: I have already sustained the objection to the things that happened after. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Who paid your way out here, Captain Moulton? A: My expenses are being reimbursed by Mr. Peterson's firm, but I don't know who bought it. Actually, it hasn't been paid. It in on a credit card. Q: So you came out here voluntarily? A: Yes, sir. Q: Now you and Mr. Hubbard were never given credit for sinking or damaging any Japanese submarines; were you? A: I don't know. There is something quite odd about that and I have never gotten to the bottom of it. I believe we were. Q: Well, Admiral Fletcher in his report never gave you credit? A: I am talking about the Navy Department in Washington. We were allowed, so I was advised, to wear two battle stars on our American Theater ribbon which I wore as long as I was in the service. I was told that they had been allowed by Washington. Q: Now, you saw this report of Admiral Fletcher just before coming into the courtroom? A: Yes, sir. MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor. I would request the production of that. MR. PETERSON: It misstates testimony. He said he saw a transmittal letter. THE COURT: Whatever it was, let's produce it. MR. PETERSON: The only thing I have is a copy of some exhibits. THE WITNESS: Let me take a little time to go through that. I may - THE COURT: If it is part of that, lot's not worry about it. THE WITNESS: I think that is where I saw it, but I am not sure. Can you give me a page number, sir, from your file? MR. FLYNN: I don't think it is in there, Captain Moulton. MR. PETERSON: May I approach the witness, Your Honor? I think this is what you are talking about. MR. FLYNN: I would move - I would offer this, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, he can mark it as an exhibit. MR PETERSON: What number, Your Honor? THE COURT: I guess 91. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is this the document you were referring to marked "Secret" in the upper left-hand corner and signed - A: Yes, This is the letter. That is what I would call second endorsement. So it is a part of the letter transmittal. Our report was endorsed: first endorsement by somebody and then he was the second. And then it would go to someone else and subsequently it would end up and be sent back. MR, FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor. THE COURT: Redirect? MR. PETERSON: Yes, Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETERSON: Q: You mentioned that you had a Master Certificate; since the end of the war what has your last occupation been? A: Except for a short period ashore where I worked in engineering I have been working almost entirely in the Merchant Marine. Q: And were you involved in sailing ships off the Vietnam coast during the periods of the Vietnam conflict? A: I was captain of ships throughout most of the Vietnam conflict. Q: Have you recently retired? A: As of the 1st of this month, officially. Q: And during that period of time you have been sailing vessels? A: Yes, sir. Q: And during the remainder A: When did you get out of the Navy? A: I would have to check; either December 1946 or January of 1947. Q: From the period of time that you left PC 815 until the time you left the Navy did you serve basically in combat duty? A: Yes, sir, essentially. As a matter of fact, until the and of the war it was all combat, in command. Q: In command of LSTs? A: Two LSTs and two repair ships - one repair ship. The second one was after the war. Q: In cross-examination and reviewing certain documents that Mr. Flynn placed before you, you indicated that if Mr. Hubbard had been in Intelligence, that those particular documents wouldn't necessarily reflect the true factual situation. A: That is my understanding, sir. Q: That in your understanding of what happened with officers who were involved in Intelligence duty; is that correct? THE COURT: We are sure getting a lot of speculation. I don't know that there was any evidence that he was in intelligence work. THE WITNESS: I don't know that he was in intelligence work. Counsel said he was. THE COURT: Counsel said he may have said he was. THE WITNESS: I thought he said he was. THE COURT: He may have said he was. Hubbard may have said that Hubbard was in intelligence work. THE WITNESS: One of the documents that you were discussing said something about It too.: I think one of those that you showed me; didn't it, the letter from Australia? You mentioned it. MR. FLYNN: It is not my examination now. MR. PETERSON: May I see those exhibits, Your Honor? Q: Captain Moulton, in your experience in the Navy did you have yourself personal independent knowledge of how records were kept regarding intelligence officers? A: Yes, sir. Q: It was based upon that personal knowledge that you were answering Mr. Flynn’s question? A: That is correct. Q: And you said that it would not be unusual for certain dispatches or orders, items, to be put into a Naval officer's file if he were in intelligence operations; is that correct? A: This, we were told in instructions when we were taught how to keep Naval records. And as Captain, of course, I was ultimately responsible. It was common knowledge in the service, Q: Part of it was for security reasons so that a enemy intelligence couldn't ascertain where certain offers or certain people ware conducting intelligence operations; in that correct? A: I would think also to avoid letting people know that an intelligence officer was entering an area. THE COURT: What do you mean by "an intelligence officer"? Is that somebody that is working with the Office of Naval Intelligence? THE WITNESS: Or related. THE COURT: Or OSS, or what? THE WITNESS: I would say or any related organization. THE COURT: What about just a lieutenant commander in the Navy, a lieutenant JG? THE WITNESS: If his classification or commission was intelligence, it would he handled somewhat differently. At the time I knew him, his classification was DV(G). THE COURT: I thought he was aboard a destroyer. THE WITNESS: DV(G) would cover that. THE COURT: Was he an engineering officer, or what? THE WITNESS: No; a deck officer with the DV(G). THE COURT: That has nothing to do with intelligence, does it? THE WITNESS: Maybe yes, maybe no. A lot of intelligence officers carry DV(G) commissions. A lot of them carry special IV(S) commissions. They were changed frequently. I don't know, sir. It is speculation on my part only because another counsel mentioned that he had been in intelligence. I didn't know this. MR, PETERSON: Your Honor, the line of questioning is because Mr. Flynn was using certain documents and the witness indicated that it wouldn't be inconsistent if the man was in Naval Intelligence. THE COURT: I think we are getting out in left field. The witness isn't competent to testify about the way in which Naval Intelligence records were kept. He has some knowledge about some things. A lot of it is based upon what somebody might have told him. That is way out in left field. We have no solid evidence that Mr. Hubbard was ever an intelligence officer with Naval Intelligence. Maybe somewhere in archives, maybe Mr. Hubbard will come in and tell us he was an intelligence officer. MR. PETERSON: May I approach the witness, and ask him one question? THE COURT: You don't have to approach him. MR. PETERSON: I would like for it to be off the record. MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I don't understand what is going on now. MR. PETERSON: It is rather than taking a break. (Conference between plaintiff's counsel and witness.) THE WITNESS: Way I continue that with you for just a moment? MR. PETERSON: No further questions. THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, anything further? RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN: Q: Captain Moulton, you never worked in Naval intelligence, did you? A: I was assigned to intelligence duty at one point in my career. THE COURT: Well, do you have a CIC on board your ship? That is an intelligence operation, isn't it? THE WITNESS: I was stationed intelligence officer and chief of police for a time at the Bayonne Annex of the Brooklyn Navy shipyards at which time I had charge of security of the Europa when she was captured as a war prize, and I conducted considerable investigation for the Navy, as a result of which City officials were put in prison. Q BY MR. FLYNN: And did you create false records when you did that? A: That type of duty would not require any false records. sir. I was there openly. Q: So the answer is you didn't create any false records? A: No, sir. MR, FLYNN: No further questions. MR. PETERSON: I think the record now stands corrected, that he does understand and know Naval intelligence. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETERSON: Q: In that correct? A: To some extent, sir. MR. PETERSON: I have nothing further. THE COURT: You may stop down, sir. THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. Source:http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/warhero/docs/moulton.txt (pulled March 6, 2013)