“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(“A small circular object with something on top of it, perhaps like a stem.” See the tracings on page 309. The postmark on the back of the object is of course small and circular. The small triangular design mentioned earlier is just above the postmark, to the right, and is of a line, or stemlike, design. The triangular design does not quite touch the postmark, but the two words just beneath it, Natural Color, do run into the postmark, uniting the two designs.

(“A geometrical figure.” Again, the triangular design, topped by the square containing a dot, just to the right and above the postmark on back of the card. Also—are circles, regarding the postmark itself, geometrical figures? Such a definition also includes the rectangular postage stamp.

(Question: “What’s that about a geometrical figure?” “No. An equality. A balance. A balanced arrangement.” This data came after I had to repeat the question because of traffic noise. See the interpretation of the geometrical data page 313. All of the geometrical figures on the back of the object are balanced—the circular postmark, the small triangle and square just above and to the right of the postmark, and the rectangle of the postage stamp.

Connection with the mails, and postmark. Connection with November 6. A small round form that seems to be like a postmark or vaccination mark.

[...] At the moment she remembered something small in a left-hand corner on an envelope; of a building of some kind; and of something round like a postmark or vaccination. [...]

(“Connection with the mails, and postmark.” [...]

(“One, two, three, or three of a kind,” can be the July 3 postmark date on the envelope. [...] “A border” regarding the test object does not ring a bell, but “Horizontal lines that are similar to each other,” are the postmark cancellation lines. [...]

[...] Note the error, 1985, in the postmark; I thought Seth might comment on this but he did not. [...]

(“A small round circle suggesting a postmark.” In the upper right-hand corner of the object is the page number, enclosed in a circle, and in approximately the position of an envelope postmark.

[...] I am not sure, but when taking the data from Seth I wondered whether this could be connected to the postmark data. [...] I used a period after the word postmark however in the notes, so consider the red and blue separately. [...]

[...] A small round circle suggesting a postmark. [...]

[...] Made out a New York postmark and the first names of a couple, and their last name, now all forgotten. [...]

(Both letters of January 25 from F. Fell to Jane, although on different-sized paper, bore fold marks that revealed either one could have been enclosed in the experimental object, which is an envelope front from F. Fell, postmarked January 25. [...]

[...] The connection here with the envelope data is the January 25 postmark on the experimental object; Jane discusses the book on the Seth material in letter #4, written on January 25. [...]

[...] And again, the connection here with the envelope object is the January 25 date on which Jane wrote letter # 4, and the January 25 postmark on the object.

(“A small round object, with some inscriptions resembling a postmark.” Jane said she saw within a small round object, with horizontal lines running across it; she thought of a postmark on an envelope, with the cancellation lines, but knew this wasn’t it. [...]

A small round object, with some inscriptions resembling a postmark. [...]

[...] It was more offset toward the upper right corner, hence her postmark reference on page 321 also. [...]

[...] Also, the object was mailed to us from Ridgewood, NJ, as shown by the postmark. [...]

[...] The envelope object is postmarked Ridgewood, NJ, which lies on the outer rim of the commuter towns attendant to New York City. [...]

(Had Seth stated something about a round design or print, rather than object, we could have considered the circular postmark on the object itself.

[...] There is no oval shape just within its borders however, either literal or implied, although there are several oval shapes within the picture on the card, as well as the circular postmark on the back. [...]

[...] As noted on page 17, the last two letters of the month are missing within the circular postmark on the back of the card. [...]

[...] Perhaps a Florida postmark. [...]

[...] Perhaps a Florida postmark.” [...]

[...] Note: Cohen’s letter is dated October 13—yet according to Tam’s note on it, and postmark, he didn’t receive it until October 21—8 days later.