Upcoming Interview with Mary Rodwell + Introducing Liz (Skeptiko's assistant producer)

#22
As far as my profile image goes, for privacy + personal reasons it will remain as-is; the internet can be a crazy place.
Correct - and everyone's circumstances are different. I used my real name when I joined because I thought it didn't matter, but in retrospect I think I'd have chosen a nickname too.

Nobody has recognised my face yet - not even my zoo keeper!

David
 
#25
I would also be curious to know her take on why some individuals seem to have regular reoccurring contact when others do not, specifically the cases of those who have no prior interest in ET or UFO phenomenon that experience multiple abductions throughout their lives.
This is an interesting question but should be placed in context - the same applies to various forms of spirit contact and psi phenomena.
 
#26
'm not sure location is at the heart of the matter. Each person's circumstances are different, regardless of where they happen to be
I guess I choose not to believe that anyone gives a damn about me. So I can show my face. I think place matter because that links to culture. Cultures vary., In some cultures paranoia is a viable strategy, not a disorder.
 
#27
I have to say that the more I see of the Rodwell video Alex put put up the more irritated I am by Rodwell's presumption that what she says and displays should be taken as gospel. I don't know if that's her intent, but I am bugged by claims that such and such is so, despite no supporting evidence.

I don't think that Rodwell is talking crap but I do get those who think she is. Performing to believers is one thing. Talking to a critically skeptical audience is another. Is there that other video? Let's see that.

A quick check of YouTube shows that Rodwell has a ton of stuff that has no doubt about her beliefs. How reliable? This is evidently a business for Rodwell. We must always have a healthy skepticism when people claim to be in possession of objective knowledge in a narrowly specialised domain make open and confident declarations about their schtick. Its how con artists operate.

I am not saying Mary is a con artist. I am saying the 'burden of proof' on her is legitimately strong. This isn't a case of saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I just want to see ordinary evidence. I am completely sympathetic to Rodwell, but, as an experiencer, I want her to demonstrate that she is legit.
 
#28
I have to say that the more I see of the Rodwell video Alex put put up the more irritated I am by Rodwell's presumption that what she says and displays should be taken as gospel. I don't know if that's her intent, but I am bugged by claims that such and such is so, despite no supporting evidence.

I don't think that Rodwell is talking crap but I do get those who think she is. Performing to believers is one thing. Talking to a critically skeptical audience is another. Is there that other video? Let's see that.

A quick check of YouTube shows that Rodwell has a ton of stuff that has no doubt about her beliefs. How reliable? This is evidently a business for Rodwell. We must always have a healthy skepticism when people claim to be in possession of objective knowledge in a narrowly specialised domain make open and confident declarations about their schtick. Its how con artists operate.

I am not saying Mary is a con artist. I am saying the 'burden of proof' on her is legitimately strong. This isn't a case of saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I just want to see ordinary evidence. I am completely sympathetic to Rodwell, but, as an experiencer, I want her to demonstrate that she is legit.
Furthermore, if you go to her website, it is very commercial - which is not encouraging.

David
 
#29
I have to say that the more I see of the Rodwell video Alex put put up the more irritated I am by Rodwell's presumption that what she says and displays should be taken as gospel. I don't know if that's her intent, but I am bugged by claims that such and such is so, despite no supporting evidence.

I don't think that Rodwell is talking crap but I do get those who think she is. Performing to believers is one thing. Talking to a critically skeptical audience is another. Is there that other video? Let's see that.

A quick check of YouTube shows that Rodwell has a ton of stuff that has no doubt about her beliefs. How reliable? This is evidently a business for Rodwell. We must always have a healthy skepticism when people claim to be in possession of objective knowledge in a narrowly specialised domain make open and confident declarations about their schtick. Its how con artists operate.

I am not saying Mary is a con artist. I am saying the 'burden of proof' on her is legitimately strong. This isn't a case of saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I just want to see ordinary evidence. I am completely sympathetic to Rodwell, but, as an experiencer, I want her to demonstrate that she is legit.
I've known mary for over 6 years. I've never experienced anything scammy about her. I've never heard anything scammy about her. In fact, I've consistently heard the opposite.
 
#30
I doubt whether it is censorship as such. Nowadays some youtube material is restricted to certain countries for copyright reasons - crazy really.
Hi David if you just check Youtube where you are it should come up. The link didn't work for me either but I knew it was available here because I watched it with friends a few weeks back.
 
#31
I have to say that the more I see of the Rodwell video Alex put put up the more irritated I am by Rodwell's presumption that what she says and displays should be taken as gospel. I don't know if that's her intent, but I am bugged by claims that such and such is so, despite no supporting evidence.

I don't think that Rodwell is talking crap but I do get those who think she is. Performing to believers is one thing. Talking to a critically skeptical audience is another. Is there that other video? Let's see that.

A quick check of YouTube shows that Rodwell has a ton of stuff that has no doubt about her beliefs. How reliable? This is evidently a business for Rodwell. We must always have a healthy skepticism when people claim to be in possession of objective knowledge in a narrowly specialised domain make open and confident declarations about their schtick. Its how con artists operate.

I am not saying Mary is a con artist. I am saying the 'burden of proof' on her is legitimately strong. This isn't a case of saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I just want to see ordinary evidence. I am completely sympathetic to Rodwell, but, as an experiencer, I want her to demonstrate that she is legit.
IMO, She is worse than a deluded fraud. She's dangerous in that she's implanting ideas in the minds of children and adults who may be suffering from mental health issues. Take this exchange, for example:


Mary:...I ask the client to dialogue with “them,” i.e. the ET’s, and ask “them” what, and why, the procedure was being performed. The answers would amaze you.
Tony: So your clients can dialogue retrospectively? This is very interesting if true, as it would tie in with quantum theory’s ideas of the non-linearity of time.
Mary: For sure. I was very surprised when my first client was able to do this, as it seemed that the information came from either a “deep inner awareness,” or as you say a way of tapping into quantum. I am still trying to unravel how this may happen in terms of science. All I know is that they seem to tap into answers for their questions when working in the altered state, whether this comes from a higher consciousness which some call the higher self, or the ET beings have left the information to be tapped into when needed.

It is very unethical to promote the idea that troubled clients are human alien hybrids with all kinds of special attributes and abilities and challenges. If a therapist wants to explore, say, "past lives" or "ET contact" with a patient as metaphor, with the expressed caveat that it is metaphor, then there could be some value there if the patient has a persistent history of insisting that his/her issues stem from such sources. You do not confirm for the patient that it's all objectively real and then go public with a mythological structure as if it is fact to attract more troubled people to your paradigm. That is being a cult leader and the consequences for the cult members will be the same as they always are.

I mean this is reckless and insane and I'm shocked that Skeptiko goes so far as to buy into it. I guess I shouldn't be surprised given Skeptiko's lack of standards of evidence for various conspiracy theories, but this situation really crosses a line. There's no evidence here at all to support what Rodwell is selling and it is fairly apparent to me that Rodwell is implanting suggestions into the psychologically vulnerable. That is not ok. She's a new age version of Dr. Mengele or just a different twist on MK Ultra. In other words, another phony guru cult leader seeking self aggrandizement and money.

Rodwell says that Melania Trump is sometimes a clone. She says that the government clones humans and downloads the consciousness of the original human into the clone. Right there with Icke's lizard people. Ah yep, nothing hinky about Rodwell. All sounds reasonable to me.

As for the argument that something must be going here because so many people are reporting it; I find it to be unconvincing. IMO, some people are truly experiencing something, but most are just mentally unstable. Borderline personality types, schizoids, psychopaths all report BS for reasons unfathomable to normal people. I witnessed one case (my first job out of grad school as a risk management leader for a psychiatric hospital) wherein a borderline personality claimed to have swallowed razor blades. There were even x-rays that showed the razor blades in his digestive track. Each day he'd be x-ray'ed and each day the razor blades had moved further down. The doctors were concerned about injury when the blades reached the colon. I doubted the whole story even though I had seen the x-rays. Common sense told me that the patient's throat would have been slashed open, as would have been his intestines. I theorized that if he swallowed the blades, he must have taped them heavily. The tape wouldn't show clearly on the x-ray. But I also figured he would have choked on the blades with the tape. Then it dawned on me....that day, when he was about to be taken to the x-ray room I had the doctors stop him and lift the back of his shirt (or maybe it was his gown - can't recall exactly). Sure enough. There were razor blades (which he shouldn't have on the unit, btw) taped to his back. Common sense is a valuable commodity when dealing with humans.

In the discussion from a 2013 Skeptiko interview with Rodwell, someone posted a video of Rodwell and her son interviewing a man who claimed to have been raped by an alien, in his sleep, who had very milky white skin. He claimed that two pubic hairs had been imbedded in the head of his penis as a result and that he had them analyzed and they were from a rare type of human with low pigmentation levels. Ok. So not an alien. Rodwell skips right past that little detail. But why would the hairs be imbedded in his penis? Makes no sense. However, borderlines are often cutting themselves and imbedding objects under the skin and then later making claims about them. Seen that too. IMO, this guy saw or knew a woman that matches the description, obtained a couple pubic hairs and worked at getting them imbedded in the head of his penis. Then he tells his story. It's so typical.

I also recall all the borderlines who had claimed to be victims of satanic cults when that was a thing. It was right there in their lengthy medical records. Years later they were claiming other events to explain their pathology. Yes, sometimes alien abduction.

25% of the population has a persistent mental disorder and are on medication for it (I know this for sure because I'm in the insurance data). 25% of the people are pretty stupid and can't understand themselves or the world very well. That's a fact of the bell curve. Just because people repeat stories means nothing. You have to know the history of these people.

Don't worry. I'm done. I won't do an emperor's new clothes on the forum discussion of the interview. Have fun, but my estimation of Skeptiko's seriousness has permanently dropped several levels.
 
Last edited:
#32
This isn't a case of saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I just want to see ordinary evidence.
Great statement Michael.

I am not in the business of declaring wrong, save for declaring wrong those who are in the business of declaring wrong.

Unless the issue broaches human ignorance or suffering, keep ontological silence. Because once we equip ourselves to discern all that is wrong, one will find then that wrong has switched sides. :) When declaring wrong, our burden shifts from discernment, to that of a necessary 100% correctness. A god-like burden.

So, 'demanding extraordinary evidence' or proof-gaming is indistinguishable from declaring 'wrong'. It is just dressed in costume. It too is a self-aggrandizement.

But Michael's asking for first level evidence for plurality, focuses on method - rather than state of being. Always appropriate. (As usual I am impressed with Michael's innate feel for ethical skepticism).

There was absolutely no reason to hold the 'science' presentation panel in the video, as her topic had not surpassed Ockham's Razor. Those in the panel were dealing in just as much propaganda-to-ignorance (or more) as she appeared to be. They were spinning an error of philosophy called simulans legatus.

simulans legatus – when purposely positioning one’s self inside a group of the most extreme members of an opposing group of thought, one can simply present a statesmanlike posture and akratically troll the community, thereafter highlighting only the natural absurd, abusive and fanatical extreme responses of the opposing side. All while maintaining a calm rational composure in contrast. A passive sales technique and method of misrepresentation of both your and their groups, capitalizing on combative habituation and the fact that there is always an extreme 8% in any group.​

Both she AND the panel, were sustaining human ignorance. But the panel's error was more grievous.
 
Last edited:
#33
There are multiple groups of "aliens" with different origins, characteristics, and agendas
Sometimes I wonder about this because they, at a minimum, seem to be complicit in similar behavior and (certainly) complicit in concealing themselves from the general public. Of course you could very well be right. But this makes me wonder if it isn’t more unified. Or perhaps, there’s some sort of overarching “rule” which is being enforced.
 
Last edited:
#34
I must say that whenever a guest mentions quantum mechanics, but seems to show no knowledge of that subject, I cringe back a bit. On the other hand, there are others like Rupert Sheldrake who clearly do understand QM. The problem is that referring to QM in a ψ context has become a cliche.
It is very unethical to promote the idea that troubled clients are human alien hybrids with all kinds of special attributes and abilities and challenges. If a therapist wants to explore, say, "past lives" or "ET contact" with a patient as metaphor, with the expressed caveat that it is metaphor, then there could be some value there if the patient has a persistent history of insisting that his/her issues stem from such sources. You do not confirm for the patient that it's all objectively real and then go public with a mythological structure as if it is fact to attract more troubled people to your paradigm. That is being a cult leader and the consequences for the cult members will be the same as they always are.
Sadly the frightening truth is that the medical profession know very little about mental health - basically because they try to stick with a materialist view of life, so I would not condemn others for trying different techniques. The medical profession never confirm that a troublesome voice is real, but there was a dissident video from a psychiatrist (somewhere back on this forum) in which he claimed to get much better results by asking patients about what those voices were saying and telling patients to answer back to their voices.

I mean heck, we don't know what consciousness is, but we accept that it possibly/probably survives death, goes on OBE's, gets reincarnated etc. and in that context is it so impossible that sometimes - maybe due to a brain malfunction - more than one consciousness gets attached to a body. The analogy with a faulty radio pulling in more than one station is pretty seductive.

I think once you leave the realm of ultra-materialism, it is impossible to cleanly separate experiencers from the mentally ill. Abandoning materialism pulls the rug out of arguments like that.
I mean this is reckless and insane and I'm shocked that Skeptiko goes so far as to buy into it. I guess I shouldn't be surprised given Skeptiko's lack of standards of evidence for various conspiracy theories, but this situation really crosses a line. There's no evidence here at all to support what Rodwell is selling and it is fairly apparent to me that Rodwell is implanting suggestions into the psychologically vulnerable.
Lots of people have said that about mediums, and I'll bet they still do even after Julie Beischel's experiments. There is no way to explore this subject without sometimes getting doused in BS!
Rodwell says that Melania Trump is sometimes a clone. She says that the government clones humans and downloads the consciousness of the original human into the clone. Right there with Icke's lizard people. Ah yep, nothing hinky about Rodwell. All sounds reasonable to me.
I don't believe that primarily because it sounds trite and simply conforms with the fashion of bashing President Trump. The ideal question to ask Mary, would be "How have you discovered this?".
As for the argument that something must be going here because so many people are reporting it; I find it to be unconvincing. IMO, some people are truly experiencing something, but most are just mentally unstable. Borderline personality types, schizoids, psychopaths all report BS for reasons unfathomable to normal people.
Well one way to fathom such people is to postulate (not unreasonably IMHO) that some individuals experience a lot of psychic phenomena and that throws them off balance. One again, if you reject the doctrine of materialism, how the hell do you draw a line between psychically sensitive individuals and those who are insane?

Some are more mad than psychic, as your wonderful razor blade story should remind us, but so what? Maybe he had tried to discuss the fact that one of his voices was telling him he must pretend to have swallowed razor blades because his body really needed X-ray therapy! He tried discussing this with his therapist, and was told to just ignore those unreal voices!
25% of the people are pretty stupid and can't understand themselves or the world very well. That's a fact of the bell curve. Just because people repeat stories means nothing. You have to know the history of these people.
I think in truth none of us understand ourselves half as much as we like to think. One way to persuade yourself that you understand the world is to become very materialist - which is possibly why that position is so popular.

I think Skeptiko should let people like Mary speak - just as it lets sceptics speak - but that doesn't mean it endorses what they say - indeed I have some people's interviews torn to bits on this forum. Science (and that very much includes medical science) has got into the mess that I think it is in, by asserting more authority than it really has, and trying to shut up opponents.
Don't worry. I'm done. I won't do an emperor's new clothes on the forum discussion of the interview. Have fun, but my estimation of Skeptiko's seriousness has permanently dropped several levels.
Well if you go, I am sure that a lot of people here - myself included - will be sorry to lose you, but honestly you can't just throw a hissy fit whenever a (potential) interview isn't to your taste. In this case the interview has yet to happen - so why not make some positive suggestions as to what Alex should ask this woman.

David
 
Last edited:
#35
I think Skeptiko should let people like Mary speak - just as it lets sceptics speak - but that doesn't mean it endorses what they say - indeed I have some people's interviews torn to bits on this forum. Science (and that very much includes medical science) has got into the mess that I think it is in, by asserting more authority than it really has, and trying to shut up opponents.
Totally agree here - as I do with your remark to Eric - we can't walk away from what we think we disagree with.

My issue with Mary stems entirely from the video I looked at. My personal sense is that the ET field is not something that can be safely a domain for people to make declarative statements - even if they are proven to be right. On the assumption that Eric is on the money with the assertion that Mary makes claims about cloning that demonstrates to me the danger of becoming a true believer and losing any sense of what is acceptable to others - on the basis for assertion rather than evidence. How does such a claim advance the cause?

Its not just a case of whether this is a true statement. That's another matter. Its whether making the claim is smart - whether it adds to a cause or moves into the area of power politics and in-house beliefs that actually have no discernible or usable grounds for validation. What I saw in the video was Mary saying 'believe me' on the basis of a self-asserted authority. No I won't.

Using Eric's clone matter as an example, if true, I don't buy the clone stuff. It may make sense to Mary, but it makes no sense to me. That's way too close to a conspiracy theory for me - and I am deeply resistant to such things.

I am sufficiently familiar with Mary's work to feel okay that she has valid and useful things to say and insights to report. But I have been reading on ET for a long time now, long to detect the warning signs of when knowledge, theory and opinion seem to collapse into a dogma - a belief. Again, not saying Mary has gone that way - but I see the warning signs. To do her justice I must spend more time reviewing recent video - and I will have time to do that later this week.

David, you are so right here. We must not turn our backs. If Eric is right, we need to look that situation in the face and call it for what it is.
 
#36
simulans legatus – when purposely positioning one’s self inside a group of the most extreme members of an opposing group of thought, one can simply present a statesmanlike posture and akratically troll the community, thereafter highlighting only the natural absurd, abusive and fanatical extreme responses of the opposing side. All while maintaining a calm rational composure in contrast. A passive sales technique and method of misrepresentation of both your and their groups, capitalizing on combative habituation and the fact that there is always an extreme 8% in any group.
TES, remind me never ever to play scrabble with you. Sometimes I read one of your paragraphs and think I need a therapy session with Dr Thesaurus. I know you use real words because I look them up. And I know you make sense because I reread your paragraphs carefully until they do. I am not sure I am always grateful for the work out - even when the effort is actually quite rewarding - and, at times, quite amusing.:eek:
 
#37
I must say that whenever a guest mentions quantum mechanics, but seems to show no knowledge of that subject, I cringe back a bit. On the other hand, there are others like Rupert Sheldrake who clearly do understand QM. The problem is that referring to QM in a ψ context has become a cliche.

Sadly the frightening truth is that the medical profession know very little about mental health - basically because they try to stick with a materialist view of life, so I would not condemn others for trying different techniques. The medical profession never confirm that a troublesome voice is real, but there was a dissident video from a psychiatrist (somewhere back on this forum) in which he claimed to get much better results by asking patients about what those voices were saying and telling patients to answer back to their voices.

I mean heck, we don't know what consciousness is, but we accept that it possibly/probably survives death, goes on OBE's, gets reincarnated etc. and in that context is it so impossible that sometimes - maybe due to a brain malfunction - more than one consciousness gets attached to a body. The analogy with a faulty radio pulling in more than one station is pretty seductive.

I think once you leave the realm of ultra-materialism, it is impossible to cleanly separate experiencers from the mentally ill. Abandoning materialism pulls the rug out of arguments like that.

Lots of people have said that about mediums, and I'll bet they still do even after Julie Beischel's experiments. There is no way to explore this subject without sometimes getting doused in BS!

I don't believe that primarily because it sounds trite and simply conforms with the fashion of bashing President Trump. The ideal question to ask Mary, would be "How have you discovered this?".

Well one way to fathom such people is to postulate (not unreasonably IMHO) that some individuals experience a lot of psychic phenomena and that throws them off balance. One again, if you reject the doctrine of materialism, how the hell do you draw a line between psychically sensitive individuals and those who are insane?

Some are more mad than psychic, as your wonderful razor blade story should remind us, but so what? Maybe he had tried to discuss the fact that one of his voices was telling him he must pretend to have swallowed razor blades because his body really needed X-ray therapy! He tried discussing this with his therapist, and was told to just ignore those unreal voices!

I think in truth none of us understand ourselves half as much as we like to think. One way to persuade yourself that you understand the world is to become very materialist - which is possibly why that position is so popular.

I think Skeptiko should let people like Mary speak - just as it lets sceptics speak - but that doesn't mean it endorses what they say - indeed I have some people's interviews torn to bits on this forum. Science (and that very much includes medical science) has got into the mess that I think it is in, by asserting more authority than it really has, and trying to shut up opponents.

Well if you go, I am sure that a lot of people here - myself included - will be sorry to lose you, but honestly you can't just throw a hissy fit whenever a (potential) interview isn't to your taste. In this case the interview has yet to happen - so why not make some positive suggestions as to what Alex should ask this woman.

David
David,

There has to be a point at which we separate the wheat from the chaff.

When you start telling parents that their children are not really autistic, but are indigo star children, there is a problem. There are well developed programs for treating autism. Can you or Mary produce any peer reviewed evidence that her re-labeling of the child has resulted in a cure or even improvement of the child's condition or general situation?

That's a good question for Mary; though I imagine she'll bob and weave - and lie - like any con artist feeling the net tighten around them.

No. Not stomping away from Skeptiko in a tiff. Just not going to comment on the interview discussion so as to not rain on the parade, piss in the cornflakes, etc......trying to be polite and respectful of others desire to discuss. I have nothing good to say about Brodwell.
 
Last edited:
#38
Totally agree here - as I do with your remark to Eric - we can't walk away from what we think we disagree with.

My issue with Mary stems entirely from the video I looked at. My personal sense is that the ET field is not something that can be safely a domain for people to make declarative statements - even if they are proven to be right. On the assumption that Eric is on the money with the assertion that Mary makes claims about cloning that demonstrates to me the danger of becoming a true believer and losing any sense of what is acceptable to others - on the basis for assertion rather than evidence. How does such a claim advance the cause?

Its not just a case of whether this is a true statement. That's another matter. Its whether making the claim is smart - whether it adds to a cause or moves into the area of power politics and in-house beliefs that actually have no discernible or usable grounds for validation. What I saw in the video was Mary saying 'believe me' on the basis of a self-asserted authority. No I won't.

Using Eric's clone matter as an example, if true, I don't buy the clone stuff. It may make sense to Mary, but it makes no sense to me. That's way too close to a conspiracy theory for me - and I am deeply resistant to such things.

I am sufficiently familiar with Mary's work to feel okay that she has valid and useful things to say and insights to report. But I have been reading on ET for a long time now, long to detect the warning signs of when knowledge, theory and opinion seem to collapse into a dogma - a belief. Again, not saying Mary has gone that way - but I see the warning signs. To do her justice I must spend more time reviewing recent video - and I will have time to do that later this week.

David, you are so right here. We must not turn our backs. If Eric is right, we need to look that situation in the face and call it for what it is.
Michael,
On Melania Trump specifically:
"Conspiracy and extraterrestrial life expert Mary Rodwell previously told Yahoo Lifestyle the possibility of Melania actually having a body double isn’t too far of a stretch.
“Anything is possible, probably even more than we think is possible,” Mary said.
“There is a lot of evidence to show they (the government) have been cloning humans for a number of years.”“So the possibility of replacing someone with a clone double is more than likely.”

She says that the govt clones people an then downloads the original person's consciousness into the clone.

She then goes on to explain that the X-files show was based on real cases.

I can't paste in the link because for some reason it doesn't take you to the exact article. Just google, mary rodwell tell yahoo melania trump is a clone
 
#39
Michael,
On Melania Trump specifically:
"Conspiracy and extraterrestrial life expert Mary Rodwell previously told Yahoo Lifestyle the possibility of Melania actually having a body double isn’t too far of a stretch.
“Anything is possible, probably even more than we think is possible,” Mary said.
“There is a lot of evidence to show they (the government) have been cloning humans for a number of years.”“So the possibility of replacing someone with a clone double is more than likely.”

She says that the govt clones people an then downloads the original person's consciousness into the clone.

She then goes on to explain that the X-files show was based on real cases.

I can't paste in the link because for some reason it doesn't take you to the exact article. Just google, mary rodwell tell yahoo melania trump is a clone
Yea that’s pretty bizarre. But then again reality is very bizarre, as are the things we discuss here. I guess what I would like to see is for her to present her case regarding these things. Maybe Alex can hit on it a little bit. Perhaps she has done so elsewhere. I don’t really know.
 
#40
Yea that’s pretty bizarre. But then again reality is very bizarre, as are the things we discuss here. I guess what I would like to see is for her to present her case regarding these things. Maybe Alex can hit on it a little bit. Perhaps she has done so elsewhere. I don’t really know.
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.
 
Last edited:
Top