I would like to draw your attention to an article I wrote in 2012 (over three years ago) entitled “The Star Trek Conspiracy – Part One”
http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/star-trek-conspiracy-part-one.html
Lawrence R. Spencer (Editor and Publisher of the book “Alien Interview”) has recently commented on the piece to raise some issues with part of the article where I refer to his book. Here is the section from the original article:
“Curiously (and as a postscript to the “Nine” narrative), I recently sat up and paid attention to some strange factors highlighted in the book “Alien Interview”, which is built around the accounts of Matilda O’Donnell MacElroy – who claimed to have interviewed an alien during the Roswell Incident of 1947. The book has several references to the concept of the “Council of Nine” and mention of a symbol that was ‘shown’ to her by the creature. The symbol is used throughout the design of the book and is eerily identical to the Starfleet insignia. Was it inspired by “The Nine” or was the Starfleet logo simply used to embellish MacElroy’s account?”
Comment by Lawrence R. Spencer (Editor and Publisher of “Alien Interview”):
“Your reference to the book ALIEN INTERVIEW says that it mentions a “Council of Nine”. This is FALSE. There is no such reference in the interview transcripts with the Roswell UFO pilot, or by Nurse MacElroy who conducted the interviews. Further the “symbol” published in the book is a common symbol used the atheists. The original document I received from Nurse MacElroy did not include a drawing of the symbol of “The Domain”. She provided only a verbal description. I arbitrarily used the symbol in the book as my sole and single addition to the text. Lawrence R. Spencer. Editor and Publisher of Alien Interview”
Here are the follow-up comments (I had to split it in half in order to post) with my response to Mr Spencer’s original comment:
“RE: COMMENTS BY LAWRENCE R. SPENCER (part response)
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
This article was written three years ago at a time when I had not researched this subject as fully as I have now. I have not the opportunity (despite the amount of time) to redress the wording of this article. This does not constitute an “excuse” for not updating the article. I will address the points you have raised here and highlight the section in the article to refer the reader to these comments. I will also include a corrected addendum immediately after the section in question. I do not wish to alter the original section of the article as I believe in allowing the reader to view the article in its unrevised state. If I delete and alter this original article it looks like I am trying to “cover my tracks” and I will not do that. I believe in honesty and I wish people to see when I am in error.
The “false” information that you refer to was due to a pdf version of your book which had been re-edited by an anonymous writer who had included their own “information”. Unfortunately, I took this to be part of your original book. Since then, I have obviously discarded this version and obtained the original version of your book.
As you point out, there are no references made to a “Council of Nine” in your book.
Nevertheless, I do believe that there are some comparable themes/synchronicities in the material you published relating to MacElroy and other material published with accounts from those who have claimed communication with “entities” associated with “The Nine” (the “Nine” discussed by the likes of Andrija Puharich, Phyllis Schlemmer, and the like.) A number of “Nine” devotees have described communication with artificial/machine-like entities. In chapter one of your book, Matilda O’Donnell MacElroy describes an entity as “like the body of a “doll” or “robot”. There were no internal “organs”, as the body was not constructed of biological cells. It did have a kind of “circuit” system or electrical nervous that ran throughout the body, but I could not understand how it worked.”
She also says, “There was no verbal communication possible with the alien.” The ‘Official Transcript of Interview’ describes communication “THROUGH MIND /THOUGHT.” Alleged communication with entities claiming to be “The Nine” has been conducted in a seemingly “thought/mind” manner – via intermediaries and so forth. On occasion, these communications may have been conducted via electronic devices (i.e.: the telephone, etc.)
The inclusion of “a psychic research scientist” during the interview is comparable as psychics were heavily involved with alleged “Nine” communications AND the associated SRI research into psychic phenomenon.
CONTINUED IN NEXT COMMENT…
RE: COMMENTS BY LAWRENCE R. SPENCER (CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT)
…The following sections are also comparable:
“Airl told me her reasons for coming to Earth and for being in the area of the 509th Bomber Squadron. She was sent by her superior officers to investigate the explosions of nuclear weapons which have been tested in New Mexico. Her superiors ordered her to gather information from the atmosphere that could be used to determine the extent of radiation and potential harm this might cause to the environment.”
On page 139 of “The Only Planet of Choice”, the entity Tom (an alleged ‘Nine’ representative) expressed concern over the use of nuclear weapons and their effect on the environment.
To be honest these latter commonalities (thought communication, nuclear weapons, etc.) are inherent to many recalled accounts of alleged “extra-terrestrial” contact.
In your original comment you said “The original document I received from Nurse MacElroy did not include a drawing of the symbol of ‘The Domain.’” In the section of your book “The Letter from Mrs. MacElroy”, “This is the symbol of ‘The Domain’” The symbol I have referred to in my article – and the one you have used throughout the book – is shown on the same line directly after the word “Domain.” As you pointed out, “She provided only a verbal description. I arbitrarily used the symbol in the book as my sole and single addition to the text.”
I accept your word that this was an arbitrary choice. Yet it is unfortunate that it does infer that this is the symbol associated with “The Domain” referred to in the account. For the purpose of clarification, did this arbitrary symbol in any way match the description given to you by Nurse MacElroy? In any case the symbol is significant in the context of my article.
Whilst it may be a “common symbol used the atheists”, it is highly comparable with versions of the Star Trek/Starfleet logo. In fact, I would argue that if you showed the symbol included in your book to people (out of context, of course) there are a great many who would firstly mistake it for the Starfleet logo.
Whilst I am not trying to attach Star Trek to Nurse MacElroy’s account or your book, I can EVIDENTIALLY connect Star Trek to the Lab Nine phenomenon. In fact, despite the evidential trail beginning in 1974, there is a circumstantial trail that dates back to the very conception of the Star Trek franchise. It can also be demonstrated that those with a belief in “The Nine” had an influence over people like Gene Roddenberry and also over the shape of the Star Trek franchise.
These are the points that I should have made in this early article. The error here is that I should have said that I believe there is a commonality between some of the material in your book, Star Trek and (by extension) the Lab Nine phenomenon – even if it is purely circumstantial. For that oversight, I apologize. Fortunately, I have subsequently made these points in great detail in public talks and in my book “Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda”. I am currently updating this book and will include your comments, my own, and correct the original oversight. Once again, I apologize for any grievances this may have caused you.
Regards,
Carl.”
I would like to point out (as many of my regular readers will know) that I am not afraid to change my perspectives on things when new and more verifiable evidence comes to my attention. Even my book “Science Fiction and the Global Agenda” has a number of subjects that I have now revised my views on (including some of the Star Trek material.) I began writing the book itself two and a half years ago and it was published over a year ago.
I have attempted to cover new evidence in my recent talks and always try to post new evidence on this blog as it becomes available. However, naturally, there will always be oversights – especially in much older articles. As I pointed out in my reply to Mr Spencer, I won’t alter or remove older articles even if they may contain errors. My articles are a document of all I have written – warts and all. They are also an archive and providing people take the time to look, they will find the amendments in newer articles. I will try (although lord knows when as it is a hefty job) to add links in older articles to newer amendments for the sake of continuity.
I am currently finishing up a new edition of the book which will correct any oversights or changed perspectives (incorporating new evidence.) It is understandable that some things will creep in every now and again that need tweaking – particularly with a book the size of mine. I actually managed to get the date of the alleged Apollo 11 “moon landing” wrong in the first draft although how I managed that I don’t know!
In the past, people have contacted me and given my ear-ache over the non-inclusion of material that THEY feel I should post here and in my book. In most of these cases, they have wanted me to discuss disinformation and that I will not do. They have also wanted me revise my perspectives on persons or groups of questionable character and motive. I will not censor my work to suit the agendas of others. If I do, I may as well stop now and never do anymore research.
However, in the case of Mr Spencer, he has raised a valid point about the “Council of Nine” NOT being mentioned in his book. I understand the need for legitimate researchers to defend the integrity of their work – I try to do it myself. Although I was originally under the false impression that “The Nine” were mentioned, I am now aware of that error and am happy to apologise and correct the error here and in the updated edition of my book.The moral of this story – don’t trust dodgy pdf versions of books. It may end up costing a lot of money but the paperbacks are, at least, verifiable. When will I learn that people edit everything on the internet – even the most seemingly reliable sources? I should know better by now!
All the best,
Carl (The Truth Seeker’s Guide)
