I've been reading a book called 41 Signs of Hope by Dave Kane. Dave Kane is the father of Nicholas O'Neill, who was the youngest person to die in what we around here refer to as the Station nightclub fire. A bad fire caused by use of pyrotechnics in a nightclub act  in a place built of firebox tender caused the club to go up in flames. 100 people died.

(if you are into details, wiki does OK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire)

Dave Kane writes that the family started getting messages from Nick right away. So he wrote this modest book about it. An easy read. Fun to read.

What struck me is that the things that mean so much to Dave and his wife and to other family members would have no meaning for me.
________________

In the posts/thread on orbs, there is a small discussion about what orbs are. There is some argument that they have personal meaning. I look at them for a more scientific view, and argue that digital cameras have some flaw that causes these dots of light to appear. I don't think they are good for objective analysis. (Orbs on the oldfashioned film type cameras may, though). However, it does occur to me that orbs in a particular picture could have personal meaning for someone.
http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1197413866

It is just that I can't use orbs in digital cameras to prove anything. And I can't use all the signs that Dave Kane sees as proof, except in his case they are so pervasive, well it does make you take notice.

So how could personal messages be used to provide evidence? We notice those things that have personal meaning to us, but how could that be "quantified"?

I am also wondering if that will be a problem in the experiments to see if the NDE experiencers will see random pictures. What interest could they have in random pictures? But I can understand their interest in dudes in white or green poking on their bodies.
http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1222133676
__

I recommend the book, especially to anyone who is grieving for someone. (and I got it on interlibrary loan from Mansfield MA public library; we do have a great library system.) BTW, Nick wrote a play as a teenager, called They Walk Among Us, about young people who die and return as guardian angels. They didn't find the play until after Nick died, and yes they did produce it.

I've wondered about this too.  I've had some signs from the other side that would have only meant something to me, and some that would probably have impressed others, had they been there,  but no one was.

The one I think of in particular is the one where I was driving through a small local town, which nudged some old memory of John (this wasn't too long after he died), and I said, out loud but to myself, alone in the car "Will I ever see you again?"

Immediately as I said it, the tape popped out of the tape player all by itself (had never done this before, wasn't the end of the tape, was driving slowly over smooth roads, so not a bump), and the song that was on when the radio came on was just at the line "When I get where you're going, I'm going to greet you with a kiss" (not exact, but very close). The song is referring to meeting after death.

Now, had someone been in the car with me, they'd probably have at the least been pretty freaked - but there was no one.  Sort of a "when a tree falls in the forest" sort of thing...

Very much so - it doesn't really come through in a written description, but the timing flowed so smoothy, I could feel him there, and it was just so "John"...

But, in the "account for personal interest" category, yeah, how do you put that across to someone else?

"You seem to be strongly, to use a 1970's term, 'left-brain dominant' -- always looking for the facts of the matter. "

I don't see that the "right-brained" folks are any closer to providing answers.

I see not being able to take into account the personal factor as a hindrance to what Parnia et. al. are trying to do, though they aren't necessarily trying to prove/disprove NDE's, as they have asked these questions in the context of more basic questions about the nature of conciousness.

Yet reading Kane's book, I was struck with the personal nature of what he considered evidence. It was evidence to him! The number "41" kept popping up in many ways. Now, this looks like serendipity to me! But I don't doubt it is meaningful to Kane.

Bruce always talks about getting the evidence in an afterlife encounter of a piece of information that wasn't known before. This is a pretty left-brained approach. It must be useful.

But the personal isn't always full of information. So much of the ebb and flow of daily life is mundane. But it builds up. We don't have to explain things to the ones we live with because they have heard our explanations before. They know the background and whether what we do/say is consistent with what we've done/said before. Sometimes the messages are a continuation of a conversation we've been having for a long time. Those are the things that may be the most personally convincing.

So when Parnia et. al. want to put pictures that can only be seen from the ceiling in their experiment, I am curious as to how they choose pictures that are going to have any ability to attract the attention of someone who suddenly finds him or her srlf floating on the ceiling and highly focused on what is being dome to his or her body. On the other hand, Something personally important might be noticed. But we have no way to take the personal into account.

So what outcomes might be possible? if you could get some indication, in left-brain terms, that something was going on, at least people might feel free to openly discuss what they experience. Up to recently in the modern age, that hasn't been possible.

I'd say you've done retrievals Alan. just from reading your various posts. if you're aware that the person is dying, and like you did with the woman, you assisted her, that is a retrieval.

as well, we have had a few people come and go that report they've done a retrieval but didn't know that there was such a label for this action as they just considered someone needed a bit of help and so it's natural for them to assist.

we must all seek proof of afterlife, until we are satisfied we have found it. that may take an entire lifetime, or just one moment in time.

love, alysia

Alan

Interesting picture.

Interesting experience.
But I am wondering how it relates to this topic?