Apparently not carefully enough.
It’s telling where you saw fit to begin and end your quotation above. Here’s the same quote in context.
Second, her perception of details concerning the area surrounding the emergency room entrance were of details that "common sense would dictate"—such as the fact that the doors opened inward, accommodating paramedics rushing in patients who need immediate attention (31). Moreover, she was brought into the hospital through this very entrance—albeit at night, but the area was well-lit—and could’ve picked up details about it from normal sensory channels then (31-32). The fact that rushing ambulances would traverse a one-way driveway, too, is something anyone could infer from common sense. Finally, Maria’s hospital room was just above the emergency room entrance for a full three days before she had her OBE, and “she could have [easily] gained some sense of the traffic flow from the sounds of the ambulances coming and going” and from nighttime “reflections of vehicle lights” even if she never left her bed.
As we can see, the investigators aren’t claiming that Maria saw the shoe upon her arrival to the ER, but only that she might have gained knowledge of the comings and goings of the ER entrance by ordinary means. I’ll leave it to you to reread the article to find out how Maria may have learned about the shoe in a non-floaty kind of way.
At this point I’ve pretty much reached my limit in correcting your misperceptions (if not outright distortions) of the shoe case.
Have a good one.
