NDE Embellishment

Anybody here familiar with Keith Augustine knows he has been debated heavily by NDE proponents everywhere, and even though he is one of the most well versed skeptics I've seen, his arguments still fall flat. But nonetheless, I found this quote interesting from him

‘‘Rense Lange, Greyson, and James Houran have
even found suggestive statistical evidence for embellishment. . . . [T]he
longer the delay between having the experience and reporting it, the
more intense the NDE that was reported. . . . The authors suggested
longitudinal studies to definitively determine the extent of embellish-
ment in NDEs.’’

I bring this up not because I believe it to be true, but rather an example of him "jumping the gun". Maybe even cherry picking. In a response to Augustine, Bruce Greyson amongst others pointed out that this study has been answered by a follow up study he did but Keith conveniently skipped over. Along with the fact that three different studies before the one he references showed evidence of no embellishment over time either. 

Greyson (2007) recently tracked down 72 NDErs who had
completed the NDE Scale in the 1980s and had them complete the
scale again, without referring to the original scale administration.
Scores did not change significantly on the total NDE Scale, on any of
its 4 factors, or on any of its 16 items. Correlation coefficients between
scores on the two administrations were significant at p , .001 for the
total NDE Scale, for its 4 factors, and for its 16 items. Correlation
coefficients between score changes and time elapsed between the two
administrations were not significant for the total NDE Scale, for its 4
factors, or for its 16 items. Thus NDE accounts in this group were not
embellished over a period of two decades, and the consistency of the
accounts did not diminish with increased time.

Just to discuss it, the old "confabulation" or "false memory" explanations are just absurd to me to explain even the majority of NDEs. Period.

Anybody here familiar with Keith Augustine knows he has been debated heavily by NDE proponents everywhere, and even though he is one of the most well versed skeptics I've seen, his arguments still fall flat. But nonetheless, I found this quote interesting from him

I bring this up not because I believe it to be true, but rather an example of him "jumping the gun". Maybe even cherry picking. In a response to Augustine, Bruce Greyson amongst others pointed out that this study has been answered by a follow up study he did but Keith conveniently skipped over. Along with the fact that three different studies before the one he references showed evidence of no embellishment over time either. 

Just to discuss it, the old "confabulation" or "false memory" explanations are just absurd to me to explain even the majority of NDEs. Period.

I can’t say I find him well-versed. I’ve read a lot of things he’s written and he’s seldom read any of the evidence supporting survival for instance. Imho he argues from a technical standpoint and doesn’t know the research unless it supports his angle. I think he just likes the sound of his own voice.