Hubbard’s Hiding Spot

Last known home of conman L. Ron Hubbard.

Last known home of conman L. Ron Hubbard.

Scientology just dropped a bundle of money to buy back the desert location where Hubbard spent his final years hiding from the law.  And KESQ takes us out to the ranch for another superb report.

Scientology is turning a crime scene into a museum.  Fitting.  Some day people will tour the home and hear the truth about how LRH ran his destructive organization hidden away from the law as he let his wife rot in prison for covert actions Hubbard ordered against the US government.

Thanks again to KESQ.  Now let’s see if those elected officials have any balls or if they just ignore Scientology and let them continue their thuggish ways.

Explore posts in the same categories: Anonymous, News, TV Broadcasts

31 Comments on “Hubbard’s Hiding Spot”

  1. makesmesick Says:

    Thank you KESQ for exposing the cult of scientology and it’s actions. The pressure needs to be kept up on the criminal organization until it crumbles.

    Lron was a fraud and a LIAR, David Mistake is a squirrel and a criminal, and scientology is a lie and a trap.

    Can’t wait to see what the brainwashed/hired gun Tom Newton/Nigra has to say.

  2. slicolas Says:

    Well theres no denying that the RPF is a prison. After all KESQ has even filmmed the Cult’s security fences with the barbs facing inwards stopping people from inside escaping but not stopping people from the outside getting in. Plus the cameras on the property keeping track of the prisoners, plus pictures have been taking of the prisoners in their uniform, plus all the statements from those that have been in there, plus all the leaked documents of the RPF, what people have to do to get sent in there and what people do when theyre in there.

    And then the most important bit of information that $cientologists cant disclaim(even though its stupid to disclaim everything else that we know is true, yet they do anyway)Is its even written in that crap written by hubbard, Science of Survival. Chapter 21 pages 151-153. And a quote just so you get the drift is “Any person from 2.0 down in the Tone Scale should not have, in any thinking society; any rights of any kind”

    i just thought id bring up this known proof before Tom Newton or anyone tries to deny any of this exists. Or that any of this is made up. If you want to look up SoS and read yourself its quite clear.

  3. Benjamin Cisco Says:

    Yup. You got it right. One day this cult will be gone and people will tour this museum of horrors.

  4. slicolas Says:

    Well rereading my comment i got it slightly wrong. I called the RPF a prison and not a Gulag which it is. Only thing is Gulags seem like a better place than RPFs

  5. mikethemarcabian Says:

    KESQ is the best. Fair and balanced reporting. I wonder what Newton has to say about KESQ? Are they terrorists too?

  6. Gutless reporters like KESQ-TV’s Nathan Baca fail to wrap their minds around the fact that Anti-Scientology Activism is a criminal racket.

    Pathetically, these underpaid, self-serving so-called journalists opt for sensationalism over substance, taking everything the “critics” say as truth. Lies beget more lies and the deception continues….

  7. anonymous Says:

    KESQ did a nice job with this series.

    I would ask if you are criticizing the video, to point out any fallacies inconsistencies and back up your claim.

  8. I would question the validity of apostate/ former member/ “expert” testimony.

    This is not investigative journalism. It’s PR for the Anti-Scientology Racket. Nathan Baca is a jellyfish.

  9. Dan Trajhilio Says:

    Scientology’s argument is don’t listen to the formerly abused, they’re biased against us.

    No shit?!


    Anonymous-Double-Think fails. ha ha.

  10. anonymous Says:

    Specifically, tell us what is false or not valid about what this man said. More importantly, if you have evidence that can be verified, please present it.

  11. Uh, IT’S ONE SIDED, which is why Nathan Baca is NOT a Journalist.

    Scholars in the field of new religious movements confront many controversial subjects:

    * the validity of the testimonies of former members

    * the validity of the testimonies of current members

    * the validity of and differences between exit-counseling and coercive deprogramming

    * the validity of evidence of harm caused by cults, for example: post-cult trauma

    * ethical concerns regarding new religious movements, for example: free will, freedom of speech

    * opposition to cults vs. freedom of religion and religious intolerance

    * the objectivity of all scholars studying new religious movements

  12. CrazyDelaney Says:

    “* the objectivity of all scholars studying new religious movements”

    Some of them are clearly in the advocacy business.

  13. anonymous Says:

    Tommy Davis refused to comment, how can it be one sided?

    In fact, not only did Scientology refuse to comment but Baca backed up his findings with multiples sources and court documents. So, your analysis is not based on anything but pure conjecture.

    So I ask again, tell us what specifically is wrong with the report and back it up with verifiable sources.

  14. “Tommy Davis refused to comment, how can it be one sided?”

    The interview they did have was slanted. Baca refused to even consider Davis’ take on Anonymous because–oh the ironiy—the source of the information was anonymous!

    Nathan Baca is a jelly-fish.

  15. axelfoleygonnafightthatcrime Says:

    newton it doesn’t matter how you feel about baca or the ongoing series. i will tell you what is up. the cult of $cientolgy looks VERY bad. so agree or disagree it doesnt matter. that report like the other ten reports still got beamed into millions of homes and all over the Internet. either way newton talking shit about it after doesn’t really put the genie back in the bottle. its too late tom its out their and its looks bad for the cult. Belgium Germany France the 4 active cases against the church now plus ereverting else the public finds out from us and they belive us no matter what because the cult has such a bad history with the truth. people think the cult is a big joke, at the Oscars at the TV at the movies in the news in the parers or books or Internet. its all bad for you tom, if i were u i might switch cults. maybe join heavens gate. i here they need a self important issue douche who can fail constantly and hurt the church he is defending.

  16. Kenny Says:

    “The interview they did have was slanted. Baca refused to even consider Davis’ take on Anonymous because–oh the ironiy—the source of the information was anonymous!

    Nathan Baca is a jelly-fish.”

    lol, you idiot. Anonymous is not the other side of Scientology.

  17. TomNewtonEatsBigCock Says:

    Tom what are you gonna do now? At this rate the cult will be bankrupt within a matter of a decade. Yes a decade I said. But constant pressure and more young people raised on the Internet and who have free access to all this hard data will learn what is cult and what is not cult. Plus the bad economy for the next few years plus all the international court and other probs you been having. I think its almost over. Just stay applying the pressure and maybe the cult will crack within ten years? Time will move before you know it will be 2017 and the newly formed FBI cult watch group will raid RTC and arrest the new leader as DM will die from being a asthmatic dwarf douche who is a pussy and punches staff bigger then him only when he has 11 Sea Org bodyguards behind him to stand on their shoulders. David Miscarage of justice is only 5’3 in real life. I saw him at an event in 99 when my family was still kind of active. They use to throw out all the papers and private and sensitive material in locally placed garbage cans around the building and I stared stealing and leaking documents that a year later they instituted a new policy about having those mini shredders attached to the top of these grey garbage cans and anything important or sensitive would be destroyed before it go to the “big outside garbage pile” from which I and my sister stole literally hundreds of documents. Most were stupid nothing of interest papers but one out of every 50 pages of useless junk was one paper with lots of damaging info and I would re-release them to the Internet but its got so much legal and copyright probs I would be found out as my family is on the PTS list of semi active members who attend big events but not regularly participate yet the cult still considers full active members and if I leaked them I might get a Gerry Armstrong type of wake up in the near future cuz some of these have never been released by the gov…. even 7 IRS related papers that the FOIA request denied me. (they don’t have much other than list of lawsuits and the money and lawyers they were paying and how much it was costing each year to fund these suits versus the total possible profit if they could achieve tax status

  18. Artoo45 Says:

    A-D-T, impressive though your bold typeface is, it really doesn’t make your logical fallacies any less ridiculous. You remind me of American tourists in Europe, hoping that they can make up for in volume what they lack in language skills. Try all caps next time. That always adds to the culty ambiance.

  19. Artoo45:

    Nathan Baca is friends with Anonymous. His interview was slanted, and his own prejudices took precedence over the truth. See .


  20. Xenu stole my bike Says:

    I now firmly believe anonymous can and will take $cientology down.

  21. dr.fang Says:

    So, if Tommy Davis refused to comment, how can Baca be blamed for presenting a “one sided” story? He posted Davis’ entire interview last time so people can get the entire story and make up their minds.

    Tom, I think you’re being too clever by half (which is twice as clever as you’re capable of). I think you know damn well that the truth is getting out, and the only thing you can do about it is to try to cast doubt on those who are telling it.

    Indeed, I think Baca is being too generous to you. No doubt he is being overly cautious to build an air tight case so CoS will lose any lawsuit against him.

    It could easily be much worse…

  22. Tom Newton Says:

    Tommy refused AFTER his initial interview was sabotaged by Baca’s obvious allegiance to Anonymous.

  23. anonymous Says:

    Obvious allegiance! Let’s see some dox, Tom.

  24. anonymous443144 Says:

    It’s obvious that the C0$ is in a rapid decline and are just trying to save face about their criminal involvement.

    When news organizations run stories as much as they have been lately, it clearly is only a matter of time before Anonymous is celebrating our epic win against the Co$ and David Miscarriage while throwing Tom Newton under the bus (figuratively of course, not physically as I don’t condone violence or threats against criminals ;-P )

  25. celegar Says:

    My god Tom when it comes to scilons it doesnt matter how many claims that anonymous and even $cientologists themselves have proven they keep redenying it and when the proof is so overwhelming they say “So what?”

    Like Lisa Mcphearson, youre trying to claim that was debunked yet you forget at the time the documentation was out there and Mike Rinder admited it all.
    When it comes to child labour dispite all the many ex-$cientologists/freezoners that say its true they have been filmmed.
    When it comes to Xenu, dispite the years of released docs, ex-$cientologists/freezoners and the many hours of hubbard talking about it we have Tommy Davis coming on air and admitting thats its true saying “those beliefs are copyright and im tired of people bring them up”
    Dispite all the leaked docs on fair game the video footage of fair game, the court testimony of fair game, testimonies from ex-$cilons/freezoners. The head of $cientology in America and the then current spokesman admited it was true on television and confirmed that documents signed by hubbard were true! On air many times we’ve seen $cientologists deny it and on air we’ve seen those same $cientologists admit that its all true.

    The fact that youll deny any of what the very top people in $cientology have admitted to, either tells me you dont know, or that youre a liar always wanting to do damage control and never being honest. How can anyone trust a person like yourself who either denys facts proven again and again or doesnt have the gumption to do some research and find out whats true and what isnt?

    So the sources we have got these claims from are, ex-$cientologists, freezoners, family members, ex-PI, Ex-cops, current cops, lawyers, judges, the court system, FBI, documents, reporters, hidden cameras from inside the cult, documents currently being leaked, years worth of film footage, court testimonies, cult experts, your books and policy letters and the one youll be most foolish to deny, the very heads of $cientology admitting that its true.

    Try and look crediable will you Tom?
    also, this should be posted every time tom gets uppitty, it certainly seems to shut his got straight up.

  26. Artoo45 Says:

    A-D-T honey, like I said—all caps, all caps, it’ll make you seem crazier in a fun tinfoil helmet kind of way. Now you just seem crazy in a sad OSA zombie sock-puppet kind of way. Show us your proof that Baca is “friends” with anonymous. Li’l Davy and his fake navy are going down . . . and not in a good way.

  27. Xeero Says:

    On a more pleasant note, I’m really enjoying these KESQ reports. It’s nice to see some big media exposure like this, considering how once upon a time media wouldn’t dare say boo about it.

    And Tom/ADT, you’re absolutely right, that interview was sabotaged: Tommy opened his mouth.

    Tommy is the typical faithless liar with an agenda and the embodiment of what needs to go from scientology. He believes in that tech about as much as the paycheck he’s cut for it. So as a result he can’t possibly talk about his religious beliefs because I’d bet good money that he has none. Instead when one wants to engage in civilized discourse about it he takes to attacking in a manner that makes a message board look like a haven for basic human rights.

    Scientology is like feminism: nine times out of ten they don’t want fair and unbiased reporting. As proof of that you can look to the BBC report done some time back, the BBC asked to hear scientology’s side of it and the only way they would agree on that is if the BBC would only talk to their people when and how they deemed fit. That is not fair and unbiased journalism, and so the BBC declined and opted to speak with other people.

    Now I’ve no doubt you’ve got your own way of viewing that through your rose-tinted glasses, but I’ll leave you with a little food for thought:

    If only one person calls you an asshole they probably aren’t worth listening to. However, if thousands of people start calling you an asshole then you probably are.

    There’s a LOT more people out there calling the folks running Scientology assholes than the other way ’round.

  28. slicolas Says:

    Dam i wish i would of got back here sooner. With idiots like anon double think coming of with the usual damage control. I wonder why no scilon tried to challenge me on any of my points lol. Im loling cause i know the answer and thats cause they cant. Its plain to see and since the criminally convicted, schizophrenic psychopaphic, leader wrote it in his buiness books which he later called a religion for tax and court reasons its impossible to argue. Just glad i got in first 🙂

  29. dr.fang Says:


    How, exactly, was Davis’ interview “sabotaged”?

    Baca’s job is to report the truth. At what point did Baca stray from getting the truth? What did Baca say that Davis did not have a chance to correct him on?

    And what questions, if any, did Davis answer in good faith, and what questions did Davis try to divert Baca from learning the truth?

    Just why ARE those spikes pointed *inside* the fence, Tom? :-/

  30. Tom Newton Says:

    Baca concealed the truth by dismissing Davis’ information about the character, and crimes of Anonymous.

    He refused to admit certain evidence, while at the same time, acting upon Anonymous’ own bias. His journalistic integrity was compromised before that interview, when he began entering online chats with Anonymous.


  31. Relyt Says:

    Every time a news organization makes an actually unbiased investigation of Scientology, Scientologists call it biased, simply because it does not praise scientology, and asks critical questions of it. “Unbiased” to Scientologists, means that the journalist throws only softball questions to them, and talk about all the “good” things about Scientology. Any actual investigations into whether the answers are true or not, is considered “biased” to them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: