NDE Multimedia Resource Thread

Graeme O'Connor is a children's doctor (paediatrician of course) at Great Ormond Street hospital, in London. More than a decade and a half ago, during a night out (trying to forget about his anxiety issues/various problems), he had an unusual NDE when his heart stopped in a nightclub/bar, due to an error in mixing alcohol with special K (Ketamine I think it was likely to be but not sure). 

I've listened to this video several times, I found it both down-to-earth and straightforward as well as containing some uplifting spiritual insights.

The research into children's NDEs is promising in one major respect: children are far more likely to survive cardiac arrest and be in relatively good health afterwards (depending on what other medical complications there may be). That increases the numbers of experiences possibly able to be studied. But there are many difficulties: being a child of any age can be an extremely vulnerable part of life and adults don't always know best how to do what is right. Difficult territory.

Edit: I mentioned I'd listened to the video - my usual habit is to have the sound on while I'm doing something else such as cooking or eating. Now I've got round to watching it I paid more attention to his comments on 'orb actions' (at about 16 minutes).

Sorry, my opinion is that it's nonsense. Just ordinary photographic artefacts caused by dust or fluff or a tiny insect drifting by. Whenever I look at a photo or video showing these effects, I ask the question: where is the light source? Light is the key factor. In this case there seems to be a candle, but is that the only place where light is coming from? It looks to me as though there is a ceiling light, probably a very nearby and intense source of light illuminating the table. Anything passing through that beam of light could be rendered highly visible. The wide-angle lens of the phone camera gives immense depth of field so the artefact which would usually be too blurry to see, is a just-out-of-focus tiny something, passing just in front of the lens.

Sorry, I just get irritated by this stuff, it is misleading people, maybe not wilfully but certainly with too much emphasis placed on the mundane and trivial. A speck of dust - oh, look it's my deceased friend - no it isn't.

What I try to say to people, to let them down more gently is that people may see pictures in the fire or images in a cloud formation, it's fine, there can possibly be some significance. So in that sense, an artefact on an image might convey something. But these blobs are just too plentiful, it's as if every time we see a cloud or a naked flame we start claiming it's the dead come back to visit us. What I'm saying, I think is that it devalues and distracts attention away from the more unusual and striking phenomena, the things which keep us pondering for years.

On the other hand, a little later he talks about seeing an apparition of a man - he described his appearance, top hat on, 6-foot tall, blond hair etc. Now that is interesting. That's what I mean about not getting distracted by trivia, there are significant things which deserve attention such as this apparition.

Sorry, my opinion is that it's nonsense.

(orbs) I tend to agree, Typoz ! I don't rule it out but I suspect many people are fooling themselves. Maybe I should remove the video and just leave the link to the children's NDE's up. That's a real experience, whether or not it's an experience of something else. Hence scientific.

(orbs) I tend to agree, Typoz ! I don't rule it out but I suspect many people are fooling themselves. Maybe I should remove the video and just leave the link to the children's NDE's up. That's a real experience, whether or not it's an experience of something else. Hence scientific.

Well, I don't think there's a need to remove it. I liked the video, he did have an NDE and that part was profound. Later on, some of the things he says I liked and agree with, but other areas are just things he's read or picked up from other videos, he's not only talking about his NDE, it's a bit of a modern new-age (Brian might appreciate this) set of ideas, a kind of dogma which is starting to crystallise and harden.

My personal opinion is that NDEs are great at breaking through ideas which are just taken for granted. They are not so good when used to prop up a new set of ideas which begin to be taken for granted. I think I said this before, some time ago, these things need to be rediscovered, new and interesting, not dull repetition of something from someone else.

it's a bit of a modern new-age (Brian might appreciate this) set of ideas, a kind of dogma which is starting to crystallise and harden.

Yes, one could certainly argue that ! 

Talking of orbs showing up, this video played automatically after another one I was watching. I would have normally clicked it off immeditately as being probably nonsense and if it wasn't well I didn't need to know, anyway. But when I saw the woman (a lawyer) I knew instantly it was worth watching. Don't ask me how I knew lol (bias probably)

Anyway this woman's husband died and began to make himself lively. She wasn't convinced until he gave her some ...what appears anyway to me (maybe I'm being naive) to be bordering on proof which maybe you (or someone else) could give your/their judgement on (whats app etc is it or isn't it possible?) I'm assuming she's honest, BTW so that's the first variable out of the way.  It's defintely worth a watch !

Woman's Husband Dies And Communicates With Her Secrets From The Other Side (youtube.com)

This is an excellent interview with Dr Michael Sabom, who collected some of the most striking data ever, in his (the first ever 1976—1981) prospective study of near death experience.  The interviewer does a very good job of "setting up" the pertinent issues for Sabom, who goes on to deal with them quite precisely. 

Many who believe themselves to be justifiably sceptical of the out of body, near death experience, are actually unaware how remarkably evidential this study was. Not only was it  conducted when most people knew nothing or very little about the subject,  it also presented the first ever prospectively collected veridical out of body experiences (from his patients during their cardiac arrests), who could have had no brain function at the time and very little idea (due to the relative 'newness' of cardiopulmonary resuscitation)  how to retrospectively reconstruct those events as some kind of post resuscitation delusion.

Naturally the Pam Reynolds case is discussed and even more interesting to me, some of Gerald Woerlee's "explanations" (about 26.00) which Sabom regards as absurd, although he does refer to Woerlee as a nice guy. My personal opinion on this is that Dr Woerlee may be affable (even quite charming) but I do not believe his intentions, including his opinions on the case were ever honest or even remotely plausible. Others may disagree, of course. 

A Doctor’s Fascinating Investigation of Near-Death Experiences (ft. Dr. Michael Sabom) (youtube.com)