HOAX: Lawrence Spencer's 'ALIEN INTERVIEW'

[Bill Ryan]

Hi, Folks:

THis morning I received another message from someone asking for my opinion about Lawrence Spencer's 'ALIEN INTERVIEW'.

Here is my standard reply to everyone who writes (and a lot of people have). This needs to be plainly stated on the internet, as this one seems not to be going away. I ask all members to cross-post this freely to other forums. The hoax needs to be cleared up... there's too much nonsense in ufology already.

-------------

‘ALIEN INTERVIEW’ by Lawrence Spencer



Unfortunately, this book is a hoax. This is definitive.

Lawrence Spencer is careful (presumably for legal reasons) to offer the written disclaimer that 'Alien Interview'. should be regarded as a work of fiction, but it does the UFO community (and the Scientology community - see below) no favors when Spencer maintained on subsequent radio talk shows, some with sizable audiences, that the purported "interview" really happened. It did not.

Conveniently, the claimed source, "Matilda MacElroy" is "deceased" - and Spencer "destroyed all the original documentation". So we'll just have to take his word for it... and his word, publicly stated, is that he is portraying real events. Sadly, his word is not very honorable, and he is lying. I don't often deploy that unpleasant word, but here its use is accurate and fair.

Any Scientologist with any experience will instantly recognize the very large number of terms and concepts directly borrowed from (and sourced by) L. Ron Hubbard.

These are literally too numerous to list, starting right at the start with "doll bodies", "what's true is what's true for you", "If you were looking for Hell, the Earth would suffice", liberal use of the term "Space Opera", the concept that the Earth is a prison planet, and much, much, much else. Find any friendly Scientologist and they will be pleased and intrigued to go through the book line by line with you. There's a smoking gun on almost every page.

Spencer has maybe made an unfortunate judgment, and written an interesting work of fiction (and don't get me wrong here: many of the metaphysical concepts, formulated by Hubbard, may be valuable and have a great deal of truth to them) - but has then fallen into the trap of using his idea of journalistic license to portray the concepts in the framework of a "true story".

This does not help genuine UFO research one iota, and further confuses the complex Roswell issue - in which real, elderly witnesses, with great courage at the end of their lives, have come forward to tell their very real stories. Spencer discredits and dishonors these fine people by what he has done. This is my issue.

Almost as an afternote: there are many other problems with the book - many of which are already cited by other reviewers. Use of the terms "carbon dating", "computer", "database", "alien" (the Roswell survivor was called an EBE, or Extraterrestrial Biological Entity), MacElroy being a "Senior Master Sergeant" - and more - are all anachronisms: the words or terms did not exist in 1947, and show clearly that this is recent writing. The date stamp is also wrong: the author uses the English notation of 9.7.1947 for 9 July 1947... a little slip, written by Spencer, who although American is very familiar with England.

Lastly, consider what the alien's name ('AIRL') is an anagram of.

The final nail in the coffin is this e-mail, written by Spencer himself in 2000:

**********

From: Lawrence Spencer
Sent: 07 November 2000 02:12
To: Graham Hancock
Subject: Your victory

Dear Graham,

Congratulations to you and Robert on your victory regarding the BBC 
attack! Well Done! I commend you on your courage and persistence.

I am the author of "The Oz Factors" (I sent both yourself and Robert a 
copy of my book last spring), so I certainly do have some first hand 
knowledge how the mainstream academic vested interests operate to 
suppress the truth. My book discusses this subject as one of the 12 
"Oz Factors" which prevent our civilization from discovering answers 
to the mysteries of our existence.

I have been a Scientologist for 31 years. A good deal of my book is an 
application of the principles of L. Ron Hubbard as regards the fields 
of study into which you and Robert have so bravely advanced. Perhaps 
the material in my book will be of assistance to you at some point in 
your research.

Keep up the good fight!

Very Best Regards,
Lawrence R. Spencer
author of "The Oz Factors"

**********

Read this book as the metaphysically fascinating work of fiction that it is. Spencer's post-publication behavior, however, elevates this "fiction" to the level of a dishonorable hoax, for which he should be ashamed. He could have handled this much, much better.

I'm a UFO researcher myself. If you want the truth, there are many other places to find it. And if Spencer wants to contact me, he can through Project Avalon or Project Camelot (bill@projectavalon.net).

I'd be interested to know privately what possessed him to go so far and to paint himself into such a corner, from which escape is now almost impossible without him continuing to deceive his readers.

Bill Ryan
PROJECT AVALON
PROJECT CAMELOT

[Celine]

Thank you for sharing this with us Bill.

Integrity is a very valuable commodity these days.

Nice to be pointed in the right direction

[Heise]

Hmm, it seems these types always lke to create hoaxes like these. rich Von Daniken did the same about those Chinese discs and the Dropa stories.

[Etherios]

Posted by Heise (here)
Hmm, it seems these types always lke to create hoaxes like these. rich Von Daniken did the same about those Chinese discs and the Dropa stories.

Come on Daniken isnt making up stories... he gives his viewpoint on facts. There are chinese discs and Dropa. What HE thinks they are is ... HIS view. This guy created the hole story from scratch.

Daniken might be wrong or might be right but at least he takes facts ... well almost all the books of him a read do that...

[frozen alchemy]

Interesting. I just came across this book this past week. Fascinating reading. While I know nothing about Scientology, I believe it's possible that the information from this book was available to L. Ron Hubbard and perhaps was the genesis for at least some of his material. Perhaps he channeled it, talked to someone who was there, who knows...saying Scientology negates this material is like saying the King James Bible negates the other versions.

I did do a little research about the anachronistic objections, though. Computers have been around in one form or another since jacquard looms. The first working, fully programmable, fully automatic computer dates back to 1941 and the 'Enigma' was described as a computer then also. The word 'database' seems to stem from the 60s, but I think a case could be made that it was in use before that in military terms. The 'Senior Master Sargeant' designation did indeed not come into being until 1958 but the writer states that she was retired with a generous pension; perhaps she was referencing the increased pay grade that she could have been awarded later on. Carbon dating dates (heh) back to the 1940s from what I can discern. The use of British dating standards may be also military (what I have usually seen is 10 June 2012, but the other way is not impossible) and the writer's husband was a Brit...). I don't know what Bill is referring to up above about the acronym "AIRL", all I can think of is 'Alien In Real Life' or 'Artificial Intelligence Research Lab', one of the acronyms listed for this.

I've had some experiences in my own life that make this book ring very true for me. For now, I'll take it, as with everything, with a grain of salt, but it seems far more probably true, or based on truth, then the recent Drake, Ben Fulford, David Wilcock or even the Tolec information. Truly a stunning work of fiction if not. Here's a link to a few radio interviews with Lawrence Spencer, I find him quite believable and sincere in his discussions:
http://www.alieninterview.org/
I'd be very interested if anyone on this forum has ever had the chance to talk to Lawrence, especially since he was called a liar and hoaxer here.

[ernesto]

I have read the book, and I must say that I found it trustable. In my opinion a coincidence cannot be a proof of plagiarism. On the other side a coincidence could be the evidence that supports the authenticity of the message, since two or more sources supports each other.
I have read carefully all the many diferent posts on the AI book:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post113274
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...s-is-a-hoax-BR
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...619#post514619
But I couldn´t find any evidence supporting the hoax theory in all those texts.
Finnally let me correct one mistake in the first text of this thread:
The word EBE is not mentioned in the book, instead the neologism IS-BE was used, to describe the real nature of all beings.

Ernesto