No matter what you have read about this story and choose to believe, as the saying goes, “the proof is in the pudding.” Morey Bernstein never once in his life said that this story was proof of reincarnation. Not even close. He said that it definitely warrants further invesigation into the phenomenon. At the time the book came out, the western world was against any idea of reincarnation as it flew in the face of western thinking The discreditors of the story never once found any way to show the story was a fraud. In fact, the discreditor happened to be a Chicago TABLOID!!! The woman allegedly named Bridey Murphy who lived across the street upon further investigation turned out to be the mother of the TABLOID’s owner. The person below me mentioned occum’s razor (the simplest solution tend to be correct) Think about that. In fact, when a more credible Chicago paper picked up the TABLOID’s story, it had to cut out a whole bunch of arguments because they were just way too outrageous. ex: When Ruth Simmons was a girl she had a park accross the street which she played in many times. This explains why she would have said she lived in “the meadow.”
Now that is just ridiculous, especially when a hand-drawn 1800’s map of the city Cork, the area in which Bridey lived according to Ruth’s sessions was called “The meadow.” Now Ruth, living in America her whole life, and having never even heard of the town called Cork, recalls an area of only a couple square miles in the 1800’s in Ireland. None of this was made up. Everything Ruth said under hypnosis has been verified and seems to be real and not a hoax. Read the book and don’t read anything trying to close your mind to one of the first and most amazing cases of age-regression ever told.