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:

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

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

• “Engineer’s mind” filtering
  I constantly ask:

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

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

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

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

  • How they handle vulnerable sitters
  • Whether they avoid predictions or fear‑based messages
  • 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?