What are the signature techniques used by Brian D Smith in his mediumship research?

I don’t actually practice mediumship myself, and I don’t “test” mediums in a lab the way a researcher like Gary Schwartz might. I’m an engineer by training, so my approach to mediumship is more about method than mystique.

Here are the key techniques I lean on when I look at mediumship evidence:

1. Pattern recognition over many readings
   I’ve interviewed and sat with hundreds of mediums and experiencers. I look for consistency:

   1. Specific, verifiable facts the medium couldn’t reasonably know
   2. Repeated themes (personality, quirks, shared memories) across different sittings
   3. Hits that are uniquely meaningful to the sitter, not generic “anyone” statements

2. “Engineer’s mind” filtering
   I constantly ask:

   1. Could this be cold reading, social media, or guesswork?
   2. Was there any way they could have researched this ahead of time?
   3. Are the “hits” specific enough that chance is unlikely?

3. Correlation with broader afterlife research
   I cross‑check mediumship content with:

   1. Near-death experiences
   2. Deathbed visions
   3. Spontaneous after-death communications
      When different lines of evidence tell a similar story from different angles, that’s powerful.

4. Ethical and emotional calibration
   A “good” medium isn’t just accurate—they’re responsible. I pay attention to:

   1. How they handle vulnerable sitters
   2. Whether they avoid predictions or fear‑based messages
   3. Whether the sitter leaves more peaceful, not more dependent

So my “signature” is less a proprietary method and more a blend of: skeptical questioning, long-term pattern watching, and honoring the emotional impact on grieving people.

Is there a specific angle you’re curious about—like how to spot a genuine medium, or how I personally decide who to recommend?