Your quote above includes this, which apparently infers there were no Japanese subs off Oregon during the war. At least it gives that impression:
"Indeed, there was no good reason why any Japanese submarines would have been in the Oregon area at the time. The US coast was near to the limits of their range and would have necessitated a long and extremely hazardous journey. When Hubbard fought his "battle" in May 1943, the Japanese Navy's main attention was on the battle for the Aleutians. Occupied by Japanese forces at the start of the war, the Aleutian islands of Attu and Kiska - administratively part of Alaska - were the only part of the United States to be have been occupied by the enemy. The Japanese submarine force was ordered to perform mogura or supply operations. It was a costly task, with three Japanese submarines destroyed in only two weeks. Ironically, one of these losses, the I.9, achieved the dubious distinction of being the only confirmed Japanese casualty of a PC-class subchaser - the PC-487, on June 6, 1943. One can imagine Hubbard's chagrin at hearing this news only a week after the conclusion of his own non-battle."
This seems to be an opinion not to be consistent with the Wikipedia article excerpt below::
See also: Bombardment of Fort Stevens
In what became the only attack on a mainland American military installation during World War II, the Japanese submarine I-25, under the command of Tagami Meiji, surfaced near the mouth of the Columbia River, Oregon on the night of June 21 and June 22, 1942, and fired shells toward Fort Stevens. The only damage officially recorded was to a baseball field's backstop. Probably the most significant damage was a shell that damaged some large phone cables. The Fort Stevens gunners were refused permission to return fire, since it would have helped the Japanese locate their target more accurately. American aircraft on training flights spotted the submarine, which was subsequently attacked by a US bomber, but it escaped.
Well I guess when one compares the time in May to the time in June and looks at the two disctinct and seperate points in times from the vast viewpoint from eternity, the two distinct points in time do appear to be one small spot of time, so then "at the time" could then be considered to mean either of the two distinct points in time, maybe even both.
Must have something to do with that inifnite valued logic that Hubbard was trying to dishpan out such that acceptable truths could then be considered to be true enough.
Or is it that truth as the exact consideration of time, place, form and event is only applied when people have to sit and write up O/Ws?