Validating retrievals – finding objective proof that some of our experiences are genuine is no doubt a very important topic for some of us on this board. For argument’s sake, there are two types of retrievals. The first type (which I will call “personal”) is where we search for a particular person who we think is in need of assistance. A third person (living) may have requested this service from us.  The second type (“anonymous”) is where we request to perform a retrieval for whomever spiritual guidance or helpers direct us to.
  The personal retrieval is relatively easier to validate than the anonymous retrieval especially when we don’t know much about the person we are retrieving, but the third person does. Bruce Moen’s breakthrough validation in his 2nd book is a perfect example of a successfully validated personal retrieval. I’ve read a few other cases on this board that seem to fall into this category. To the retriever, these experiences are very convincing. Validations of this type are relatively straightforward, as they mainly require asking the third person various questions about the deceased after the retrieval.
  Validation of an anonymous retrieval is a far trickier proposition. In my own experience, I’ve had an extraordinary difficult time validating these type of retrievals. My one exception involved a WTC victim (see Conversation Archives). One possible explanation for this poor record is that some or all of my retrievals are figments of my imagination. Another possibility, which is at least true for me, is that my psychic hearing is not accurate enough to pick out exact names. Suppose though, that you or I get the right name and some extra information, there is still one big problem: the lack of information about deceased individuals on the Internet.
  The first source one might consider in validating an anonymous retrieval is the Social Security Death Index (http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi). There are many SSDI interfaces on the Web. The link above provides free listings for your searches and also has a Soundex feature. The Soundex feature lets you type in a last name, and then it searches for names that also sound like this name. This is a great feature for somebody like me! The main drawback of SSDI – and this is key – only people who have received at least one Social Security benefit in their lifetime are listed in this database. This is a big problem if your retrievee died young!
  The other source I have looked at is the search of obituaries. If you know where the retrievee passed away, you can try searching the online newspapers that serve that particular location. If you are unsure where the retrievee died, the Obituary Daily Times (http://www.rootsweb.com/~obituary/) is a good place to try. The main drawback here is that it is far from a complete database of obituaries of people who have died in America. The database is maintained and expanded by volunteers. My gratitude goes out to these volunteers who may one day help one of us validate an anonymous retrieval experience.
  I just wanted to share with you what I’ve learned so far about objective validations. BTW, I have not included the “emotionally” validating aspects of a retrieval experience, which are very important to others and me, but I think this is covered well elsewhere in the forum. I welcome any additional information on this topic and/or comments.

Thanks for reading,
-mike

Alysia,

Just after after our team work had ended I had the opportunity to check out a retrieval posted at this board. There were names, a place, an unusual cause of death. And it was in my area. A really good opprtunity! I spent about two days  reading the archives, old news papers etc. The result was negative. The data did not seem correct. I believe that maybe less than 1 of 100 published 'true' retrievals of unknowns can be confirmed by data given during the retrieval. Because of pure fantasy, too little data, transmission problems, a mixture of data from different sources - not least our own memory. So I dont think retrievals of unknown is a good way to prove the afterlife. Retrievals of known people, where we should be able to create a stronger bond, should have better chance to reveal good stuff, but they will probably not be accepted as 'evidence' since we know the deceased.

Another thing: I think about publishing our two retrieval stories again, but edited for critical reading. I think the process revealed things of interst for many readers.

By the way, yesterday evening I got the idea of offering a spiritual (and human) service from this board: Assisting in delivering Christmas greetings from the deceased to the livings posting here. Each willing participant could choose somebody she/he feels he/she she/he (like that sound ) - is willing to assist in transferring a spiritual message to. Tuning in to him/her and expressing an intense wish to send a message, when in spiritual mood - like I did when I received your ungiven name. It could be repetead on several occasions when relaxing to faciliate it. If there comes up something that the messenger feels is positive and specific (not just blaha blaha or a common phrase from an anynomous spirit), words, an image, a name, a sound, a smell, whatever, he/she writes it down and at just before, or at, Christmas Eve post it here under a title like "A Christmas Greeting? to ...". Such a message could very well be pure fantasy, but it also could be genuine and give relief or joy to the recipient. Perhaps it could turn into an annual spiritual event here - if appreciated. What you think?


Ciao

Carlos

I think best result would be by picking somebody one feels sympathy for and wish to assist.

I could post a call for messengers and we will see if there is interest enough.

Carlos