Interesting full length documentary showing a son’s search for ’empirical evidence’ regarding the existence of aliens whilst his mother, Mary Rodwell, works as a UFO Counsellor. The focus of the film is more on the relationships between mother and son.
Here are Mary’s own comments about the film:
My Mum Talks to Aliens
Aired by SBS Australian TV shown originally on 30th November 2010.
23rd Dec 2010 and March 7th 2011
Mary Rodwell comments :
Due to the huge response from the public and media, My Mum Talks to Aliens. I have been continually asked what I thought about the show.
The filming was over 9-10 days in 2010. We went to a number of locations in Australia, which included a trip to Adelaide, Sydney, the National Archives in Canberra to view UFO government files and also a trip to Wycliffe Well in the Northern territory. Much of this material didnâ€™t make the final cut. After the filming, I had no further input and I only saw the final production a few days prior to the show being aired by SBS Australia.
My comments below, contained my thoughts on the finalized documentary, and it contains replies to comments brought up by the public, the media or by participants of the documentary.
My first issue is regarding the documentary title , â€œMy Mum Talks to Aliensâ€ A journalist commented in interview, â€œ you donâ€™t really talk to aliens at all, do you?â€ Which of course is correct, I help people with encounters, how that can be translated into I communicate with extraterrestrials is beyond my comprehension!!! And seems to be more of a production strategy to make me appear strange, or flaky, as if my line of work was not enough! I had questioned this â€˜title â€˜ for some months and I had been told by the production team, that it was a â€˜working title, â€œ not the final. To my dismay this proved untrue. My primary issue at that time, as now, that it immediately puts me at a disadvantage in terms of my credibility. It does NOT reflect either my research or how I support individuals with encounters. I can only assume this title was used to incite public interest in the program. For me I felt it compromised the integrity of my professional reputation and research.
As regards the UFO/ET content and my research, many of the viewers felt that there could have been more evidence presented of the extraterrestrial presence. It is important to note the primary purpose of the documentary was not an expose on the UFO /encounter phenomenon, but to highlight the relationship between my son, in relation to my work with individuals with encounters. It explores the conflicts that arise from my working within a phenomenon that is outside of â€œacceptedâ€™ consensus reality. This issue, is one that many of my clients experience when having encounters, and feel they are unable to share their experiences with close family and friends, because of fears of rejection or disbelief.
My son Chris was in the role of open-minded scientist /skeptic who wanted to see for himself what it was that convinced me, that people with encounters were having a genuine and real human experience.
The main aspects of the documentary that caused the most comments from the public were :
â€¢?The debate in Canberra
â€¢?The failure of Greg to pass the polygraph
â€¢?The lack of whistleblower testimony which shows the â€˜cover upâ€™ by governments to this phenomenon.
My comments as to the above are:
The debate in Canberra
The debate organized by the production company was â€˜supposed â€˜ to emulate a debate, similar to one I participated in, at Oxford University in the UK, in 2006.
Both debates had similar themes, but the differences between the two were significant, and contributed to the final outcome. Firstly I won the debate at Oxford University, however the Canberra debate I was not successful.
*In Canberra, the topic was treated primarily with amusement and derision by the opposing speakers. At Oxford University the invited speakers took the subject seriously.
* Canberra, I had 8 minutes to present my data. At Oxford University I was given 25 minutes.
* Canberra , the audience contained many students of the speakers in opposition to the motion. The students at Oxford were NOT students of the speakers.
I received many emails that were very upset by the attitude of the academics in the debate. Emails of support came primarily from those with encounters but also some who did not, well as academics themselves, horrified at this disrespectful behavior shown by their colleagues.
The debate at Canberra, highlighted that many of the academic, scientific community, are still confronted by such enigmas as this phenomenon, and can demonstrate a very limited mindset. Derision, a good excuse for ignorance.
Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized.
In the first it is ridiculed,
In the second it is opposed,
In the third it is regarded as self evident
Note: RE the debate: I made an error when speaking about Hon Paul Hellyer (Ex-defense Minister of Canada). In my statement , I had meant to clarify that it was Paul Hellyerâ€™s reading of the book â€œThe day After Roswell; by Col Corso, and personally checking the veracity of Corsoâ€™s statements, convinced Hellyer of the truth concerning the cover-up of the extraterrestrial presence. In that book, Col Corso, held a high level security clearance and his job was to disseminate alien technology from his position in the White House. Technology that we now know of such as fibre-optics, the digital computer chip, Teflon etc.
The failure of Greg to pass the polygraph
The failure of â€˜Greg â€˜ to pass the polygraph was not explained in the documentary and was left hanging as to why this occurred, without a reasonable explanation. I had an in-depth discussion with the facilitator of the polygraph, which was not included in the final edit of the documentary. The testing for the veracity of subconscious recall IS NOT within the mandate of a polygraph. Normally testing by polygraph is not for â€˜subconscious recallâ€™ only conscious recall. Greg, did have conscious recall of seeing UFOâ€™s both as a child and as a seaman in the Navy. But when he was questioned on his hypnotic regression, ie subconscious recall, in hypnosis, he found it hard to be as certain, because he was not consciously aware, being in a trance state during that encounter. This is why he failed the polygraph test. This did not mean the encounter didnâ€™t occur, just that he couldnâ€™t be as positive due to how he had recalled the event in trance.
The lack of whistleblower testimony which shows the â€˜cover upâ€™ by governments to this phenomenon.
Finally the lack of significant UFO evidence in the documentary was due to the length of the show. I had personally hoped to have whistleblower testimony, which is very compelling. Chris was shown DVD verbal testimony by many credible witnesses including pilots and astronauts, and military personnel but this was not shown.
Finally, statements by the voice over that are incorrect.
* It stated that the scientist who did the DNA testing on theâ€™ Hair of the alien,â€™ re Peter Khouryâ€™s Encounter, was a biochemist, this is incorrect. It was in fact a scientist who specialized in genetics. The Scientist was unable to go public, due to his employment. I am told that he may well make himself known in the near future.
The â€˜voice overâ€™ statement that my son may think of me as â€˜delusional, is incorrect. My son has never implied or believed, I am delusional.
In fact I want to thank my son Christopher for sharing this journey with me. He demonstrated a courageous and loving heart and I am extremely proud of him. He was aware that by doing this it would challenge our relationship as it does any family with diverse beliefs or perspectives. But he had enough belief in our love and respect for each other to take that risk. I treasure the respect and love he demonstrated throughout this process , which shows what a very special person he is.
I also want to thank Greg and Peter Khoury for their courage, and honesty , by sharing their extra-ordinary experiences. Both these individuals have already helped so many people by sharing their stories to give them courage to own theirs.
Also Megan Hazelwood for her permission to show?her footage,?taken in the UK,?and which was?was so compelling and extraordinary, and had a huge impact on those who viewed it.
The huge response from the public, and media was overwhelming. Over 1,000 people tried to access the chat line after the airing of the show. I received over 200 emails and phone calls. This still continues.
The response to the documentary was extremely positive and have made me grateful for this opportunity because it achieved my primary purpose, which was to publicize the phenomenon, and highlight support.
I enjoyed working with the production team who were very considerate, and made the experience one I will treasure.
Again my grateful thanks to all involved. The positive support from the public has been most appreciated, and I hope that this will encourage more of those with encounters to own their experiences.
Latest posts by Reena (see all)
- Spiritual Awakening Support Group in South London – Interested? - December 9, 2018
- Dr Eben Alexander – Life after death is real and consciousness survives death of the body - March 11, 2016
- Bashar – profound speech (video): you, now and eternity - January 25, 2016