Wormwood
Member
Wormwood,
To be clear, I have no problem with people looking into these matters. I have no problem with people collecting data and faithfully and objectively reporting, categorizing, analyzing what people report. If Rodwell want to research people who claim to be alien contactees, that's fine. Maybe better than fine. It's probably a good thing to do.
My problems are;
1. When the researcher starts building a cult or religion around the data. Filling in the blanks and formulating far out explanations that she states as fact is not ok. It is a significant departure from the scientific method.
2. Not recognizing or not caring or, worse, encouraging the results of #1 to increase the number of people having the experience. This is mind control. It is creating a sociological/anthropological phenomenon. This is what cults do. It is also what psychopaths do.
For reasons I'm not going to go into, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I have studied psychopathology in depth (also known as sociopathy). Many cult leaders are psychopaths. The first thing they ask their dupes, whether in a cult or on a one to one scenario, to do is to suspend their previously held beliefs, their urge to question and discern and their own sense of reality in general. Rodwell asks us to do just that (she has said so in so many words). That is a huge red flag for me. What she asks us to consider and believe is a mishmash of a reality, constructed by her, that has no solid objective proof. It's more a little salting of truth here a little pepper of truth there, but no real meat and potatoes. That is another psychopathic tactic. Where is the peer reviewed analysis of the DNA of these "star children" proving that they are not totally human? Yes, yes, of course, our understanding of DNA is not complete so we're missing the aspects that show the alien DNA - and the govt steals the evidence when it is solid. How convenient! There's an answer for everything. Suspend critical thinking and just believe me as I spin my yarn. Psychopath!
If Skeptiko wants to approach Rodwell from an anthropological standpoint - something like how groups beliefs, cults, social movements form - or as a study simply in what people report - then, sure, go for it. However, taking on face value the explanations that Rodwell has concocted is ridiculous. IMO, once Rodwell has concocted such scientifically irresponsible mythology, she has lost all credibility and I call into question even the factuality of the basic reports form experiencers as she presents them.
If I hadn't had personal extended consciousness experiences I would still be convinced by a preponderance (though not beyond a shadow of doubt) of the evidence that NDEs are real, Remote viewing is real, Psi is real, life after death is real (based on ADCs) - "real" meaning there is an objective aspect to it and showing solid objective evidence (example: confirmed accurate report of resuscitation procedures). This because we have solid, non-invested people, like doctors and reputable scientists observing and investigating and every day people reporting these things. We have peer review (Like Bieschel). We have people like Radin who report what they find without developing complex mythologies around the findings and without taking mythologies on the road as money making schemes. Rodwell has created a career out of her mythologies. She is too invested to be objective.
Someone reporting alien contact - or that they are an alien hybrid - is in the realm of the subjective only. Again, there are no DNA samples, there are no photographs. The history of these things suggests it is culturally determined. The alien perception and explanation is relatively new in human history. But Rodwell goes well beyond that problem for reasons I have touched on above.
I get the feeling that she might be basing a lot of this on experiencer testimony. (That’s just a feeling and limited understanding of her work). As much as I value credible eye witness testimony regarding these matters, as I mentioned earlier in a response to Alex, I don’t trust anything these Aliens say, do, or show us.
I’m aware of several good contactee cases which have been thoroughly studied and documented by great researchers like Jacque Vallee etc, where the contactees are seemingly played like a fiddle, sent on bizarre missions, and were told totally nonsensical, innaccurate, and self contradictory things. I’m not here to call ET evil, but they are deceptive on an extraordinary level. I don’t know why but they are. I wonder if these people that Mary works with are being played. And, perhaps she is being played.
Take all that with a grain of salt as I haven’t studied her work. I do think Mary is a brilliant woman who has some good things to say. I suggest to people that we can trust the credible eyewitness testimonials, but that we can’t trust the scenarios or stories contained within as being representative of anything we can discern as real or true. Or, at least, that we can’t take them at face value.