Mary Rodwell’s 3,000 Cases Suggest Ongoing Genetic Manipulation |423|

#23
So, Jim, what's your take on Rodwell? I personally have an issue with lay people weaving what they think is science into their arguments, without actually knowing what the hell they are talking about.

There is a big problem with this approach. It is fundamentally intellectually dishonest, and because of that dishonesty it weakens what might be a legitimate argument. Rodwell, I think, errs in evoking scientific terminology to back up what is essentially an ethnographic inquiry. She didn't need to bring genetics to the table at all.

What we call 'science' has a well established place in our culture, but we too often are induced to believe that 'science' is the only means of validation knowledge and/or experience - which is so manifestly untrue. I think this is the trap Rodwell fell into. She could do an ethnographic inquiry and interpret it legitimately using a form of discourse analysis. Instead she switches between modes and gives reason to discount her work.

For example, her reference to genetics has distracted us already.

TESXC will, no doubt, frame this concern of mine in an eruditely technical fashion.

I don't have an opinion on Rodwell I didn't listen to the podcast. You can look at my first post in this thread to see my opinion on the issues (below). (I poked around here and there, I don't even remember where, to see what the issues were. I'm not really sure if I'm on topic or not.) I think I tend to agree with her on the issues but maybe not for the same reasons - everyone is down on her, but the one and only issue I looked into I found she was guilty of quoting an article from Nature where they first discussed the results of the human genome project. Is that her fault or the fault of the incompetent or disingenuous scientists? Don't the criticisms you make about her also apply to scientists who can't do an experiment twice and get the same results both times? Half of science is a fraud. Which half? Nobody knows. If the scientists know, they are not telling. What is the point of calling Mary Rodwell a liar when whatever science she quotes is just as likely to be a lie as the truth?

Every time I go to the grocery story I am are being subjected to psychological techniques developed by scientists to get me to buy foods that will kill me which scientists said were safe. I have much bigger problems to worry about than Mary Rodwell. I am not defending her or criticizing her as I said I have no opinion I don't know enough to have one.

Computers and cell phones are rotting the brains of us and our children. They were developed using scientific techniques to induce compulsive behavior. The tech companies executives don't let their own children use the products that are using psychology to influence us to buy. These same criminals who have blood on their hands now have the ability to pick the winners in our elections.

Whether Mary Rodwell is a problem or not is not something I have time to consider.

It would be interesting if she could relate sociological trends to what her research is showing and make testable predictions about future trends.

As far as fixing human DNA, I am all for it. A glance at the daily news is enough to tell you it needs major renovation.

I have little doubt humans are a created species because all species were created. Someone had do to it, why not space aliens? You would need entities that can interact with the physical universe but are not stuck around one planet.

I'm not sure it is possible for us to tell who are the good aliens and who are the bad aliens, or if their interventions are good or bad. You have to understand things from the point of view of the spirit realm to really understand what is happening on the earth plane. What might not seem to be in your personal interest might be for a higher good we know nothing about and cannot understand. Just the fact that we agree to incarnate here where there is so much suffering shows there is a huge difference in perspective about what is good for us in the spirit realm compared to the physical realm.

I think some kind of intervention in our civilization is necessary because human civilization is degenerating. People today don't understand the history of why things are they way they are and in their ignorance they want to change things that will result in us repeating the forgotten horrors of the past.



This is from a video that is no longer on youtube...


https://www.nbc26.com/news/national...ok-at-effects-of-cell-phones-on-kids-national


http://nypost.com/2016/06/18/our-cellphones-are-killing-us/


Sean Parker, the founding president of Facebook, said
https://www.axios.com/sean-parker-unloads-on-facebook-2508036343.html


These Tech Insiders Are Shielding Their Children From The Technology They Work With
https://www.sciencealert.com/tech-insiders-are-shielding-their-children-from-the-tech-they-work-with
 
Last edited:
#26
I'd like to raise another point. If aliens are manipulating us for good or bad it seems more likely that they are manipulating our non-material selves than that they are tinkering with our DNA. Maybe this is what Mary is really talking about.

David
 
#27
The data are interesting and I am open minded to what she describes, but as someone who worked for five years in genome research I cringed at her ignorance of the science - it does her no service. Francis Crick (the "co-founder of DNA", whatever that means) was absolutely not a believer in intelligent design, as the full quote at https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Francis_Crick makes clear (the first part is often mined by creationists to give the opposite impression, so perhaps she only saw that). And I don't know what she meant by the 223 genes that occur in homo sapiens and no other species. That's pretty unlikely, if only on the grounds that our genome is 99% identical to chimpanzee and 223 genes would be 1% of our genome. There was a claim in the original human genome sequence paper in 2001 that 223 genes appeared to have been acquired by horizontal transfer from bacteria (i.e. from other species) but even that now appears highly dubious (https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-017-1214-2). And the idea that the vast majority of our genome is "junk DNA" and that nobody knows what it does is decades out of date - there is now considerable understanding of the roles of much of what used to be seen as "junk", see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA. These things are not hard to check, and if she's going to make claims about genetics she needs to do her homework to be taken seriously by people with some knowledge of the science.
great. much appreciated. I have a lot to catch up on here. I think this area is really important and have booked a futrue guest to explore:
Hybrid Humans: Scientific Evidence of Our 800,000-Year-Old Alien Legacy

Bruce claims to be on top of the science. I would appreciate any thoughts / criticisms you might have about Fenton's work
 
#28
If we are the result of alien experimentation (I don’t subscribe to this idea but certainly do not rule it out), an interesting question would be, “how does this square and harmonize with the metaphysical information we get from channeled sources, NDEs, OBEs, religious saints and sages etc, which all tell us about our purpose here?”

On one hand, according to many metaphysical sources, we are here to love, grow, experience and learn. Would these “creator aliens” be in line with this purpose? Or is the aforementioned purpose unrelated to the creator aliens purpose? It seems strange to me that our creators (creators of our physical body of course) might have created us though some ulterior motive, while we (spiritually inclined folk) are totally engaged in something different which has nothing to do with our creators purpose. OR, perhaps our purposes are more closely linked than we would think.

Similarly one could ponder the metaphysical implications and purpose of the domesticated dog. We separately wonder what the spiritual purpose of a dog might be while at the same time we engineer them for a specific purpose of our own. But (those of us who spiritually aware) even if we breed a dog for a certain purpose of our own, we would likely simultaneously hold the idea that the dog has its own metaphysical right, implication, and purpose of existence which is separate from our implied physical purpose. But again, maybe these two separate purposes are more linked than I would think.

I’m imagining a scenario where aliens are creating physical vehicles for some unknown purpose. And on top of it I am imagining conscious beings saying, “these creatures (what we call aliens) are creating these physical vessels for some purpose. Let’s incarnate into these physical bodies which they are creating (for whatever purpose) so that we may learn, grow, and experience.” That seems odd to me. But if Mary is right, and all the metaphysical data we got from experiencers and sages alike are right, there’s may be some truth to this scenario.

Going to listen to the interview now
excellent! many good questions for upcoming interviews.
 
#29
Have only started the interview but there seems to be an issue here which may not have been directly addressed... what is the importance of the physical body as compared with the soul?
I am assuming that we have both and that they have different origins. And that genes apply only to the first.
good questions. thx.
 
#30
223 genes would be 1% of our exome, not our genome. There are an estimated 20,000-25,000 human protein-coding genes (exome). But you are correct, we have mistakenly frothed over this rather small and perfunctory segment of our genome. Protein interactions, post-synthesis, intron influences and epigenetics are much more important factors in speciation and ordination.

Our genome overlaps with Chimpanzee, via LUCA, save for thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. So we differ in genome (not 'genes'), about 1.2-1.4%, depending upon how you tally the latter two categories of variances. However, most science communicators also forget that ~7.5% of our human genome has not been sequenced.

Also, we must be aware that a critical portion of this differential is wound up in 43+ Human Accelerated Regions of our genome. These are not shared with any other species in GenBank.

Horizontal genomic transfer by virus (not prokaryotes) was popular in the early 2000's (Darwin's Radio, etc.). It remains an interesting topic, but does bear the burden of deductive evidence yet to be produced. However, to say that such as thing has been dismissed by comparative matrix 'bit scores', is a layman's approach to DNA comparatives. One frameshift shared between low-LUCA species, 'in context' will be white-crow falsifying in terms of horizontal transfer, but will not bear a high bit score and subsequently not pass Salzberg's bit score test (Plus, Salzberg also calls this 'horizontal gene transfer' and uses a Wittgenstein incoherency as the very basis of a scientific study - not good science, especially in a modus absens claim).

The issue would now be horizontal replication of single nucleotide polymorphisms and replication of the following. The phrase '223 genes appeared to have been acquired by horizontal transfer from bacteria' is not a coherent statement of genetics - and agreed - not even possible. The following variances are coherent potential transfer mechanisms, and not 'genes'.

Base Substitutions:​
Silent - single nucleotide (letter) change, does not materially alter the amino acid expressed​
Missense - single nucleotide (letter) change, alters the amino acid expressed​
Nonsense - single nucleotide (letter) change, results in insertion of a codon stop or methionine start​
Jibberish - single nucleotide (letter) change, results in a chemical coupling which is not A, C, T nor G​
Base Mispairing - any form of anti-parallel base coupling which does not conform to the Watson-Crick rule (A-C, T-G)​
Structure Changes:​
Insertion - increases a contiguous number of codon bases inside a gene, at a specific edit location​
Deletion - remove a contiguous number of codon bases inside a gene, resplice the new regions on either side​
Duplication - an insertion which is an exact copy of another codon segment of DNA​
Frameshift - an insertion or deletion which does not adhere to a triplet (3 letter) codon basis, thereby changing the frame of codon reference​
Repeat Expansion - an insertion which replicates one codon which is adjacent to the insertion point, a number of times​
Direct Repeat - replication of an identical codon sequence in the same orientation (5' to 3'), inside the same gene​
Codon Substitution - a non-frameshift segment of DNA is deleted and an insertion is placed into the splice where it resided​
Inversion - a segment of DNA is rotated from its 5' to 3' orientation, by 180 degrees​
now we're getting somewhere :) TES I would really like to pull you into my upcoming interview:
Hybrid Humans: Scientific Evidence of Our 800,000-Year-Old Alien Legacy
as Bruce Fenton claims specific expertise in these topics. I have set up a thread here:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...y-by-daniella-fenton-and-bruce-r-fenton.4401/
 
#31
Michael,

Can you elaborate on where you think she is making scientific arguments without knowing what she is talking about?

Thanks

Sure Jim. Essentially the DNA stuff. My take on it is that you actually do have to do a bunch of reading on the subject to know WTF you are talking about. I have read a bit, and while I think I get the drift there's no way I am talking about it in anything I write. My brother is into it and he is gentle with me. I thought that Rodwell erred in even raising it.

There was a comment that her research is 'scientific' and that's a load term that can be misleading. An ethnographic study is scientific in my view, but the materialists get upset about that - and I don't care. Even so it has to be methodologically sound. From what I gather the FREE study was a genuine academic study - and if Rodwell was part of that study it does not mean she can claim what she does is 'scientific' without being very clear about her method.

She several times referred to academic quals in ways that validly established her right to speak and be treated as a serious investigator. But I was bothered when she said she didn't interpret. I noticed a comment on the forum about it seeming like she accepted what she was told as true - and when she spoke she certainly interpreted what she was told. So that, to me, was a touch messy.

I got the impression that Rodwell wanted us to see her as a 'scientific' inquirer, but I felt she strayed into more journalism than formal inquiry. I do not want to seem as if I am trying to tear her down. I am familiar enough with her domain of inquiry to think she as something to say that is worth listening to.

I don't think she should have talked DNA, and in a controversial subject like this I think she should have had a clearer and cleaner articulation of method and approach. My sense was that she had an excellent ethnographic study here, but she (for me) messed that up with an ill-disciplined description of what she was about. So I'd have to add that maybe she doesn't sufficiently understand science.

Probably for most of her audience/market this does not matter.
 
#32
Two things:

- I have not had a chance to listen to the whole interview but I have heard her other interview and am very familiar with the whole alien abduction thing. Sorry to post without listening.

- I have not read anything anybody has posted. Sorry. Short of time. Again, sorry.

So, here's what I think about the whole thing:

- For a large number of reasons, I suspect something approximating the "Christian Apocalypse" is upon us. Note that I have not arrived at this conclusion through "faith" and reading the Bible but rather my long journey in this direction started with UFOs. This is very complex to explain. It involves personal synchronicities. Skeptiko has been important in this journey.

- I personally suspect that the hybrids are the "144,000" in the Book of Revelation who are very, very mysterious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/144,000

One piece of evidence to support this hypothesis is this video:

Please note the following:

- There is a comment about 4 down - Marge Robb. This is an important comment. Read it.

- Note that Apollo 14 was 1971 and it was Edgar Mitchell's flight! I suspect that this is not a coincidence. I also suspect it is not a coincidence that FREE has Dr Edgar Mitchell in the name (https://www.consciousnessandcontact.org). That's your link to all this abduction stuff.

- I am convinced, because of other dreams she has had, that the dreamer here (Amanda Christian) is the "real deal".

So, anyway, my 2 cents.
 
#33
Sure Jim. Essentially the DNA stuff. My take on it is that you actually do have to do a bunch of reading on the subject to know WTF you are talking about. I have read a bit, and while I think I get the drift there's no way I am talking about it in anything I write. My brother is into it and he is gentle with me. I thought that Rodwell erred in even raising it.

There was a comment that her research is 'scientific' and that's a load term that can be misleading. An ethnographic study is scientific in my view, but the materialists get upset about that - and I don't care. Even so it has to be methodologically sound. From what I gather the FREE study was a genuine academic study - and if Rodwell was part of that study it does not mean she can claim what she does is 'scientific' without being very clear about her method.

She several times referred to academic quals in ways that validly established her right to speak and be treated as a serious investigator. But I was bothered when she said she didn't interpret. I noticed a comment on the forum about it seeming like she accepted what she was told as true - and when she spoke she certainly interpreted what she was told. So that, to me, was a touch messy.

I got the impression that Rodwell wanted us to see her as a 'scientific' inquirer, but I felt she strayed into more journalism than formal inquiry. I do not want to seem as if I am trying to tear her down. I am familiar enough with her domain of inquiry to think she as something to say that is worth listening to.

I don't think she should have talked DNA, and in a controversial subject like this I think she should have had a clearer and cleaner articulation of method and approach. My sense was that she had an excellent ethnographic study here, but she (for me) messed that up with an ill-disciplined description of what she was about. So I'd have to add that maybe she doesn't sufficiently understand science.

Probably for most of her audience/market this does not matter.
I was hoping you would be more specific so we could fact check her. The bit about the 223 bacterial genes was an interesting surprise.

I am somewhat sympathetic to your point of view. I have felt the same way in the past. Academic qualifications don't impress me I knew many idiots with impressive academic qualification when I was in graduate school and when I worked as an engineer, and there are geniuses with none. The fact that so many academics are materialists is evidence enough that qualification are meaningless.. (I have a master's degree in Molecular Biology from an Ivy League university. I started working in labs as an undergraduate and my undergraduate research was published in Genetics.)

My point of view is that if there is something I don't understand (i think is BS) I have found it is usually a good idea to find out why the other person thinks the way they do. Sometimes there is something you don't know that will make sense out of what sounds like nonsense. Like with the 223 bacterial genes. On the surface it sounds like foolishness but if you probe deeper you find it was published in Nature.

One thing that happens frequently is that scientists use vocabulary in a very specific way and it is easy for a lay person to be talking about something real, but because they don't use the jargon correctly it comes out sounding like nonsense to someone with a better grasp of the lingo, even though in the layperson's mind, if you could look into it, you would see there is sense in what they are saying.

One thing I find about science journalism is that it is often misleading, so when I read something I try to look for the research papers and see what they really said. Similarly when I hear a lay person using science to back up their arguments if it's not something familiar to me I will look it up too. My expectation are pretty low to begin with, so may be I am more tolerant than other people. My low opinion of academic credentials and materialist scientists means I don't have high expectations for anyone. A confused layperson is no worse in my opinion than a professor like Lawrence Krauss or a genius like Stephen Hawking.

If you grade her like a professor grading a student on an oral exam you can fail her. If you consider that she has talked to a lot of people and has ideas that sound foreign, you will do more research and find out if there is anything to it. Maybe you will learn something interesting even if she is wrong. There is a thread on Alex Jones where I tried to explain that I liked his show because he showed his references and I often learned something by doing my own research starting with his sources. You can't do that with the mainstream news which is no more or less reliable than Alex Jones.

I looked at the youtube video transcript, found the part where she talked about DNA and watched that part of the video.

I would really like to ask her what she meant by multi-dimensional cells. Any idea?
 
Last edited:
#34
would really like to ask her what she meant by multi-dimensional cells. Any idea?
I am going to guess, because I am a dedicated metaphysicalist, that she means that a physical cell has a metaphysical aspect. Just to be clear here, I use the term 'metaphysical' to refer to what other folk call a whole bunch of things for the non-material dimension of our reality.

So a physical anything has a non-physical aspect to it. That means the 'cell' is multidimensional - but so is everything. Hypothetically a non-physical agent can tweak a cell's non-physical aspect and this will result in a corresponding physical expression. If you accept this basic model of reality - in which physical expression can be determined by non-physical influence, a lot of what Rodwell says make sense. This was the way of thinking I was trained in - so I have no problem here. For others it may be a problem.

And this is another reason I have an issue with Rodwell. What the hell does she think she is doing talking about multi-dimensional cells in the first place. She must know her audience will not know that that means. That's jargon and it is used carelessly or to impress - or both. Either way its disrespectful if you see yourself as a professional communicator.

Rodwell disappoints me because I think she has a story that should be told, but she's picking audiences that are not too demanding. I don't think she had adjusted her mindset to the Skeptiko audience. I mean we are not talking about her main theme - because she really didn't give us enough to grasp. And invoked science in doing so!

In my view she tossed us a bone with not enough meat on it because she is a person on a mission, not a researcher. I think she tried to dignify her work in the wrong way, and that's a pity. Her mission is actually very interesting.
 
#35
I have felt the same way in the past. Academic qualifications don't impress me
As somebody with a Doctoral degree, I completely agree with this. There is this prevalent notion amongst the populace that you cannot speak about a topic with any level of credibility if you don’t have formal education in the topic, as if schooling is the only way to learn about something.

I would even say that having a Masters or PhD does not (in and of itself) mean that one is necessarily much smarter than the average Joe.
 
#36
The stuff about 'star children' I get it, but let's put that in perspective. A 77 year old friend of mine insists she is from X, and I do believe her for complex reasons I won't go into detail here. So its nothing new. What may be new is that more kids are claiming this, but given this is maybe the first time this kind inquiry has been undertaken we really can't say that there is an increase - there is no baseline measure.
I thought the same. She locks in on those 'starseeds' who speak in tongues, or claim ET origins...I had heard of these kids in my earlier days...you know, when horses weren't in cars.
 
#37
And this is another reason I have an issue with Rodwell. What the hell does she think she is doing talking about multi-dimensional cells in the first place. She must know her audience will not know that that means.
By multi dimensional cells I think she might be thinking in terms of Theosophy, Micheal. This is a spiritual philosophy originating with a woman named Helen Blavatsky and is derived from Eastern Mysticism (as I understand) Their belief is that a human being consists of six (or maybe seven) bodies each of which belong in a separate dimension, one here, the others in the afterlife. If I remember correctly Blavatsky was not a supporter of Spiritism as she felt it interfered with the natural process of the human being's decomposition. As with Spiritism Theosophy is a set of beliefs which I think might better be termed, assumptions or maybe suspicions. Personally I'm gonna stick with the non religious instructions of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
#39
I would even say that having a Masters or PhD does not (in and of itself) mean that one is necessarily much smarter than the average Joe.
Yup, just means you got good marks on a complex research project. But you make a point that is pertinent with Rodwell. She is doing a complex research project, but nobody seems to be giving her any guidance on whether she is on the money. You will know that getting support to design your project is essential.

I am actually intensely interested in what she found in her many conversations. But I am intensely frustrated because she does not present her research finding in a way that exhibits the quality of discipline that makes her claims and comments easy to live with. That's not because they are controversial - just not delivered in a way that does not make her seem she's uncritically swallowed the claimed experiential coolaid. I wanted better.
 
#40
cross posting - a research article claiming evidence of intelligent design in DNA. Sometimes crackpot claims about DNA are based on actual scientific research.

The book references an article about this paper:

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.6739v1.pdf

The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code​
Vladimir I. shCherbaka and Maxim A. Makukovb*​
Department of Mathematics, al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan​
Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan​

It has been repeatedly proposed to expand the scope for SETI, and one of the suggested alternatives to radio is the biological media. Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store nonbiological information. Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic code. The code is a flexible mapping between codons and amino acids, and this flexibility allows modifying the code artificially. But once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known. Therefore it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature, if that conforms to biological and thermodynamic requirements. As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out. A statistically strong intelligent-like “signal” in the genetic code is then a testable consequence of such scenario. Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible way of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to store non-biological information.

I haven't studied the article I am posting it to show that when ordinary people have unconventional ideas and claim there is scientific evidence supporting their ideas there may be some actual scientific research they are referring to.
 
Top