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

#41
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.
 
#42
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.
Wormwood,
I seriously think that independent thorough psychological assessments of the people reporting things should be a key part of the investigations. I'm not singling out alleged alien abductees for this treatment. I think it should be part of NDE, OBE, psi, mediumship, etc studies at least in instances where eyewitness accounts must be more heavily relied upon than objective evidence and data.

I'm probably jaded, but I've just seen way too much in my lifetime to trust anything that anyone tells me if there is not a good way to independently verify. Bieschel did a good job all around and I'd say that there would be no reason to apply the psych profiling. Alien contact reports? Definitely need it. Satanic cult stories? Definitely, unless an actual cult has been busted by police and the claimant can be shown to have been a member. Originally, NDE reports by physicians and patients? No. However, now that NDEs are common knowledge in our culture the psych profile is necessary in some cases.

The popular delusions and hysterias of crowds is a real thing. It can never be ruled out once ideas go "viral".

I've wasted too much listening to various presentations by Mary Rodwell and I detect no brilliance or originality. It's all new agey gobbeldy guck that you can find being spouted by numerous gurus of the genre. Rodwell clearly has predecessors in the new age movement that she has borrowed from heavily.

Bottom line is that there is nothing scientific or even level headed about Rodwell. She is touring the world, making money, stating with certainty ideas about which no one could be certain and for which there is no proof that would stand up in a court room, let alone scientific review.

It's way too facile to hand wave away criticism as being a conspiracy by the materialist govt or brainwashed drones. That is classic gaslighting technique as applied by psychopaths. It splits the relationships into us versus them. It cuts the dupes off from the rest of society, family, etc and keeps them under control of the psychopath. The only reality becomes what the psychopath says it is. The psychopath wants you to suspend you objective critical reasoning. They are very good at doing that. They have proven techniques. Even intelligent people get sucked in, at least for a while.

Any time anyone presents a case and asks you to accept what they say based solely on them having access to secret information, you should immediately question their veracity. How would Rodwell know what "the govt" is doing in terms of cloning, aliens, etc.? How would she know that the X files is based on true events? Secret contacts in the government? Sorry. That doesn't do it for me. And isn't it strange that sometimes the government is this all knowing/all seeing body that spreads psyops disinformation blah blah blah, but when someone from the govt tells a Rodwell a story about aliens, well hey! That's the real dope! Wanting to believe is not a good thing. Using your critical faculties is.

And, again, I think she's doing harm to people, especially children, that need real therapeutic intervention by proven methods.
 
Last edited:
#43
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.
Possibly you know more about Mary Rodwell than I do - I'd never heard of her before this thread started. I'll let her speak and then say what I think. I am less certain there are such well developed programs to deal with autism - there are an awful lot of severely handicapped kids and young adults around nowadays,. Maybe this has something to do with it:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Vaxxed-Unvaxxed-Full-Presentation-2.pdf

David
 
#44
And, again, I think she's doing harm to people, especially children, that need real therapeutic intervention by proven methods.
Now this would fit the definition of ignorance to suffering. I missed this part, but treating our vaccine injured kids as 'Indigo Children' (another misdirection telling parents they are liars) would definitely fit the bill of 'harm and suffering'.
 
#45
Hey there Skeptiko tribe,

Alex and I thought it was time I popped in to introduce myself to the community... so, here goes!

Hi, I'm Liz :) I've been behind the scenes since May helping to produce the weekly podcasts, and it's been such an awesome + enlightening experience so far! Like Alex, I'm also in the San Diego area, and I am currently pursuing a PhD in parapsychology + paranormal sciences - so Skeptiko's content is right down my alley!!

I'll be proactively assisting with Skeptiko's social media/forum from now on too, so you'll be hearing from me much more regularly. Part of that task is giving you all the inside scoop on the upcoming guests we've got planned for the show, and find out if there are any questions or topics you'd like to be covered.

Alex will be interviewing Mary Rodwell very soon (the podcast will be up in the beginning of August). Her son released a YouTube documentary about her earlier this month, which you can check out here:

If you have any specific questions for Mary or her work, let us know here!

And if you have any ideas for future guests or ideas for Skeptiko in general, please don't hesitate to email me directly: elizabeth@skeptiko.com

I'm really looking forward to reading all of your thoughts + insights with the shows we've got coming up and interacting with this community of Skeptikonians (lol :))

- Liz
Enjoyed the documentary very much!

I assume this documentary was made before the NYT articles and the "tic-tac" videos and all of that came out... would really like to know what Mary's son, Chris, thinks of all that now that it has been in the news for almost 2 years.

Also, I hate how much importance they placed on the polygraph tests as we know a single polygraph isn't a reliable fool-proof method for ascertaining the truth of a witness testimony. It might add or subtract some amount of credibility, but the whole testimony should never ride on that alone.
 
Last edited:
#46
...we're we're smack-dab in the middle of a genetic engineering experiment... and we ain't the ones wearing the lab coats.
It is funny because kind of like Mary and her family, I have to walk a thin line with my wife and not go too deep into this stuff too often... but we were at a childbirth class this past Saturday with 4 other couples and at one point during the class one guy noted some unique aspect of human biology and then awkwardly threw it out there... "so maybe we're the aliens?" ..and then his wife gave him the look and slapped his arm, sighed, and shook her head... I could totally sympathize with him! lol
 
#47
thx Lizzy.

we're we're smack-dab in the middle of a genetic engineering experiment... and we ain't the ones wearing the lab coats.
Welcome Liz!

And I love Alex's quote here... What do you do, when the lab mice obtain and test dynamite and start tampering with their own genes? I guess you hide and decide what to do next.

The periodic table, and the second codon of DNA - to me constrain this pathway to a reality of having occurred over and over and over again in the Cosmos. I suspect what is occurring here is nothing new. I would hope that ethical Galactic best practices have already been established.
 
#50
Thanks - yes I did, but I had utterly forgotten. Here is that comment:
I found Mary's account of the autistic child who explained to her mother that she had somehow willed her disability, very disturbing (which is not a comment on its veracity) and I wondered how the mother was able to handle such a concept. It does feed into a very strange concept of what life on earth is all about.
I rather think I am unlikely to feel good about her this time :(

David
 
#51
Alex, this is a discussion about what to ask Mary when you interview her.

I think you should at least ask her how many people she has treated, and how many have benefited. I guess you should warn her that you will ask that question - otherwise she can just say she doesn't have the data to hand. If she still says she doesn't know, that rather implies she either doesn't keep any notes or never follows up how people are getting on.

Also ask her for her evidence that any of what she is saying is true. TBH I'd feel more comfortable if she weren't selling this service.

Since she is your friend, just blame any unfriendly questions on us!

David
 
#52
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.”
Hi Eric

The first bit is just plain careless and pointless in my view. Saying something (anything) is possible is just sloppy and lazy (as is reporting it). There's no clear connection between the discription of her (and I challenge the assertion that she is an 'expert' in either field asserted) and Melania having a body double - and who cares anyway. Its just mindless fluff. This kind of stupid journalism could also badly misrepresent what was said, so we gotta be fair about that.

The second bit bugs me. What evidence? I know people claim there is evidence, but their claim there is evidence isn't evidence. If you aren't prepared to put up evidence, don't claim it exists. I am sometimes guilty of saying there is evidence for a thing, knowing I will have to go back to pull it together. But this is a big thing, so I'd want more than some dudes who claim to have worked in some dark area of the military say they were involved in cloning. That's not evidence that is sufficient to base a claim of fact.

Also the idea that a clone somehow grows at a hugely rapid rate is just sci fi, so far as I am aware, so unless a clone is created when you are born I don't see the sense in the claim we can be replaced - why? And, for those of us who are not materialists, there is the basic problem of assuming a clone is going to have the character, behaviour and personality of the 'original'. There is a sci fi fantasy that a clone is going to be a compliant instrument of its 'creator'. I am a sci fi fan from way back - the kind who used to argue about the believability of a story with other fans. It mattered to us whether an author had created a believable fiction.

For the the clone theory/conspiracy just doesn't cut it for believability for good fiction, let alone reality. I don't believe there is any evidence for cloning humans. I have read claims in the past and they have not been convincing and they do not make sense to me. As always i am happy to be shown to be wrong. But for now I call BS on cloning.
 
#54
Also the idea that a clone somehow grows at a hugely rapid rate is just sci fi, so far as I am aware, so unless a clone is created when you are born I don't see the sense in the claim we can be replaced - why? And, for those of us who are not materialists, there is the basic problem of assuming a clone is going to have the character, behaviour and personality of the 'original'. There is a sci fi fantasy that a clone is going to be a compliant instrument of its 'creator'. I am a sci fi fan from way back - the kind who used to argue about the believability of a story with other fans. It mattered to us whether an author had created a believable fiction.

For the the clone theory/conspiracy just doesn't cut it for believability for good fiction, let alone reality. I don't believe there is any evidence for cloning humans. I have read claims in the past and they have not been convincing and they do not make sense to me. As always i am happy to be shown to be wrong. But for now I call BS on cloning.
Michael,
Exactly.

A little critical thinking goes a long way when faced with a psychopath that is trying to dupe you.

How would a clone that they started developing in 2015 or 2016 be a full grown middle aged woman two or three years later?

Even if we accept (with no evidence) the proposition that the government is cloning humans, by what scientific knowledge has the capability to accelerate human growth and maturation several fold been achieved?

How is the consciousness of the original "downloaded" into the accelerated development clone?

That Rodwell can say this stuff with a straight face should concern anyone that is tempted to take her seriously. How can we trust anything she is saying about her subject?

Why isn't anyone hitting Rodwell and her ilk between the eyes with these questions?

Love to hear her bob and weave if someone did.

Similar are Rodwell's and other's claims that these "star children" can read and speak alien languages. As best I can figure, the only way to demonstrate that they are speaking an alien language would be to have an alien confirm that the children are speaking his native tongue. Otherwise the claim is idiotic. The recordings of these languages sound like morons that don't even understand linguistics well enough to do a good fake language. Are all the star children speaking the same language? That would be something to take notice of. But of course, there is no proof of that occurring offered.

Rodwell would have done well in 1920s era carnival barking, selling tickets to enter the tent and see the amazing wolf boy for 20 cents.
 
Last edited:
#55
That Rodwell can say this stuff with a straight face should concern anyone that is tempted to take her seriously. How can we trust anything she is saying about her subject?
David Icke says a lot of things that seem outrageous to me. However, he also makes videos about subjects where I heartily agree with him. I find that while it’s worth thinking that something someone says seems to be nonsense, it doesn’t mean that I should dismiss everything they say as being nonsense.

Stephen Hawking was recognised as a world class genius. He also said that physics no longer needs philosophy, which a lot of people think was dumb, including me. Loads of bright people think weird stuff, who’s judging? If you don’t like what people are saying, don’t listen.
 
Last edited:
#56
David Icke says a lot of things that seem to outrageous to me. However, he also makes videos about subjects where I heartily agree with him. I find that while it’s worth thinking that something someone says seems to be nonsense, it doesn’t mean that I should dismiss everything they say as being nonsense..
1. Just because you agree with someone doesn't mean what they are saying is true or accurate
2. What Icke is doing is a classic technique used by psychopaths and con artists. They "pace" you by telling you some reasonable or quasi-reasonable things that they have calculated you want to hear and will agree with. That's the hook. Then they start blending in the outlandish stuff, but you're hooked and you dismiss the outlandish statements and behaviors as aberrations from an otherwise smart agreeable person. They have fed your ego just the right diet to make it come back for more. What you don't realize is that stuff you agree with is the con and the aberrations are actually the real person. They really enjoy the confusion they cause within you to the point of finding it hilarious. This is sometimes referred to as "duper's delight". It gives them a sense of power over you - a well deserved sense of power because they have, indeed, caused you to suspend your own judgment and adopt a crazy person as an ally, friend, investment partner, lover, whatever.

Stephen Hawking was recognised as a world class genius. He also said that physics no longer needs philosophy, which a lot of people think was dumb, including me. Loads of bright people think weird stuff, who’s judging? If you don’t like what people are saying, don’t listen.
Ah, Steve. So open minded, nice and reasonable. I hope you don't take candy from strangers too.

Intelligent and sincere men can come to different conclusions when looking at the same data. That is categorically different than a lying scumbag psychopath scamming people.
 
Last edited:
#57
You can have a discussion with reasonable people. But I don’t place you in that category Eric.
I reckon you put a load of people off posting here.
Me included.
 
#58
So I have had a bit of a trawl through YouTube and checked out some of Mary's videos.
  1. Essentially I don't have any fundamental issue with Mary's core ideas - at least in the sense that I do understand them and some I definitely agree with.
  2. But I also get that if you are not familiar with the core precepts that she accepts, a lot of what she says can seem to be ludicrous and intellectually offensive.
  3. This problem arises the you dip into a talk to true believers - folk who have drunk the same kool aid and speak the same language. This was my problem when I viewed the link posted. I was not a true believer and I was not about to buy claims made with no preceding argument.
  4. In true believer mode Mary says things I just don't buy. In that mode it is easy to stray outside a discipline of critical self-reflection - which she claims for herself - but if she's not in the company of people who push that, its easy to slip into a degree of carelessness (which I think she does, like any true believer).
  5. Mary's been in in this game a long time. She has covered a lot of stuff that now may seem to her like entry level ideas and may think she can pass over them to get to the real meaty stuff. That's fine with true believers who have been on the same trip.
  6. Mary is into 'star seed' children. She has clearly spoken to many and has formed a POV based on her contacts. But for that to make sense generally that requires a set of presumptions that those who are not true believers may not accept.
  7. Because of my background I get what she's on about. But I know that not a lot of folk on the forum will think that in a sympathetic way. That is to say that in 'true believer' mode Mary assumes her audience accept multiple propositions as true. Some of those propositions I accept as 'thought to be true' by others - but don't hold then as true or untrue myself. Familiarity with a proposition means you don't have to wrangle with it when you hear it.
  8. Some of Mary's propositions require knowledge and acceptance of ideas/beliefs that are likely to be unfamiliar to some members of the audience - and it would be an error to proceed as if they are, prima facie, acceptable.
  9. The key to Mary's upcoming chat on Skeptiko is that she fully understands who the audience is and that she is able to maintain the discipline in her comments to ensure that they are pitched to that audience.
  10. It will be Alex's job to make sure that she keeps to that discipline.
  11. Keeping Mary aware of her audience is probably more important than the questions.
 
#59
So I have had a bit of a trawl through YouTube and checked out some of Mary's videos.
  1. Essentially I don't have any fundamental issue with Mary's core ideas - at least in the sense that I do understand them and some I definitely agree with.
  2. But I also get that if you are not familiar with the core precepts that she accepts, a lot of what she says can seem to be ludicrous and intellectually offensive.
  3. This problem arises the you dip into a talk to true believers - folk who have drunk the same kool aid and speak the same language. This was my problem when I viewed the link posted. I was not a true believer and I was not about to buy claims made with no preceding argument.
  4. In true believer mode Mary says things I just don't buy. In that mode it is easy to stray outside a discipline of critical self-reflection - which she claims for herself - but if she's not in the company of people who push that, its easy to slip into a degree of carelessness (which I think she does, like any true believer).
  5. Mary's been in in this game a long time. She has covered a lot of stuff that now may seem to her like entry level ideas and may think she can pass over them to get to the real meaty stuff. That's fine with true believers who have been on the same trip.
  6. Mary is into 'star seed' children. She has clearly spoken to many and has formed a POV based on her contacts. But for that to make sense generally that requires a set of presumptions that those who are not true believers may not accept.
  7. Because of my background I get what she's on about. But I know that not a lot of folk on the forum will think that in a sympathetic way. That is to say that in 'true believer' mode Mary assumes her audience accept multiple propositions as true. Some of those propositions I accept as 'thought to be true' by others - but don't hold then as true or untrue myself. Familiarity with a proposition means you don't have to wrangle with it when you hear it.
  8. Some of Mary's propositions require knowledge and acceptance of ideas/beliefs that are likely to be unfamiliar to some members of the audience - and it would be an error to proceed as if they are, prima facie, acceptable.
  9. The key to Mary's upcoming chat on Skeptiko is that she fully understands who the audience is and that she is able to maintain the discipline in her comments to ensure that they are pitched to that audience.
  10. It will be Alex's job to make sure that she keeps to that discipline.
  11. Keeping Mary aware of her audience is probably more important than the questions.
Michael,
So I'm a true believer in personal survival after physical death. I have a some theories about how it works, what it means, etc. Sometimes I make declarative statements about all of that, though I have been qualifying those lately with an "IMO". It's all my guess based on my thinking given what we know, given what other sources, some ancient, have to say about it. But I'm the first one to admit that I'm putting forth a best guess.

I notice that you, as a professed contact experiencer, are usually cautious about coming to conclusions and/or how those conclusions would be viewed by others if you formulated some and presented them. I really appreciate that. It makes me want to hear what you have to say. It makes you credible to me.

That Rodwell won't qualify and steps forward as true believer with The Truth is an aspect of her presentation that I find disturbing. The same goes for conspiracy theorists. They connect a few dots, convince themselves that they know what is going on and then march forth to evangelize us the poor schmucks living in the dark. Nothing will unconvinced them even when there are glaring flaws in their logic, evidence, etc.

I've always had an aversion to preachers, missionaries and messiahs.
 
Top