[cgbg]

I think the only area where you and I differ on this is I am not sure what a “reliable witness” could be in these types of situations.

Everybody brings their beliefs/prejudices to the table.

My view is that their experiences are as good as we are going to get from homo sapiens.

The concept of “objective analysis of what is really happening” is a myth imho.

[RoosterRedux]

Well, I don't exactly know who would make a reliable witness either, but I usually start with corroboration by a doctor or nurse present when the NDE occurred (corroboration of something that the experiencer could not have seen--in the ER for example--without an OBE).

And then I weigh the language and descriptions used by the person who actually experienced the NDE (if they were analytical in their observations, for example, and used precise language instead of vague descriptions).

I am always suspicious when people try to "sell" their experiences.

[RoosterRedux]

The concept of “objective analysis of what is really happening” is a myth imho.

This is exactly what makes a good witness in a trial. A person whose testimony is the result of careful analysis and observation is deemed more reliable than that of a person who isn't.

It's pretty easy to tell the difference.

That said, a witness who sounds reliable still may be wrong...and a person who sounds unreliable may be correct. So there's that.