“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(John Bradley, of Williamsport, PA, was a witness to the session. John has witnessed quite a few sessions and read much of the Seth material. Indeed, John was the first to witness a session, on February 18,1964. The last session he witnessed was on February 24,1965. See Volumes 1 and 3. John was in an excellent mood tonight.

(The session was held in our front room, and was free from interruptions. Once again Jane spoke at a fast rate; several times I had to ask her to slow down. As is often the case with witnesses, her delivery was much more active. Although her eyes remained closed for the whole session, her voice was loud and at times quite a bit deeper than usual. She was very restless in her chair, changing position often. It will be remembered that John’s entity name is Philip.)

(Seth dealt with one of John’s past lives and his connection with medicine in an amusing way during the 21st session, of February 3,1964. John knocked on our door during the session, but since we had not yet begun having witnesses, we asked him to return later. As soon as the door closed behind John, Seth went into a rather lengthy rundown on him, much to our surprise. At that time, neither Jane or I had seen John very many times.)

On the other hand, I did watch with some amusement as the scene was enacted in a small room, and as the ghosts were supposed to materialize in the doorway. I do therefore on the one hand somewhat appreciate Ruburt’s reaction. In one of my more friendly moods, I might indeed have tried a materialization of my own that would have frightened the poor woman out of her wits.

(The other friend being Bill Gallagher. Bill and his wife Peggy have witnessed the 158th, 161st and 162nd sessions.)

(John Bradley has witnessed the following sessions: 37, 54, 63, 70, 95, 135, and 166, the present one. In most of these Seth has dealt with John’s connection with Searle to at least some degree, making the type of predictions he makes in this session. To sort out the rather complicated pattern of these predictions would require a study of the above sessions. To date John has agreed with their content, but most of them are of such long range that little has yet developed against which to check.)

(It might be noted that I again detected traces of what I call a brogue in Jane’s manner of speaking this evening, and thought it more pronounced as the session wore on. She does not have this characteristic usually. This brogue had been quite pronounced at times during the 162nd session, witnessed by Lorraine Shafer and Bill and Peggy Gallagher, and I have noted traces of it during subsequent sessions.