 THE
'CROSS-EXAMINATION' OF J RANDI BY LAWYER VICTOR ZAMMIT
A significant number of people said that the very
successful 'cross-examination' of closed-minded skeptic
Prof Stephen Hawking by litigation lawyer Victor Zammit
was a lot of fun and very witty. They strongly suggested
a cross-examination of that closed minded skeptic J Zwingi
Randi (picture, right) who has a notorious reputation attacking
the paranormal, attacking the mediums and psychics.
For those who never heard of J Zwingi Randi before, below
is a very brief 'cross-examination' on just a few  issues.
For decades closed minded skeptic Randi is on record for
organizing hoaxes - to fool, mislead and deceive innocent
people. He has viciously attacked mediums, psychics and
afterlife investigators. This is a cross-examination on
 just
some of the things he has said, done and implied.
He continues to deny the existence of the paranormal even
when there is objective and repeatable evidence for the
paranormal and the afterlife produced by scientists and
empiricists - and lawyers.
This hypothetical cross-examination would be fairly close
to a real 'cross-examination'- the information is taken
from what Randi has ALREADY STATED ACCEPTED and IMPLIED.
Some very minor flexibility and embellishment consistent
with Randi’s beliefs and record have been used for
easier reading and understanding of the script. Words in
caps are there for emphasis - which is critical during cross-examination.
Part
1 Scientific Frauds?
Victor:
Your full name is (formalities completed ...)
Victor: Tell us, do you claim to have a one million dollar
challenge?
Randi: Yes, I have …
Victor: You have publicly conceded your expertise in deception
and hoaxes; is this one of your very grand hoaxes?
Randi: No, it’s not …
Victor: So what does the applicant have to do to get the
alleged million dollars?
Randi: He or she has to demonstrate some psychic skill,
mediumship or any other phenomena which cannot be explained
by science …
Victor: I have here a copy of the conditions of your challenge
-item 2 Your Honor- Tell us how long have you had this challenge?
Randi: My first challenge was in the mid sixties …
for a thousand dollars …
Victor: Is your challenge an honest one?
Randi: Yes, it is …
Victor:
For the record, are you a scientist or qualified in science?
Randi:
No not a scientist, not qualified in science ...
Victor: Since you admit you are not a scientist, you are
not academically informed in scientific methodology, you
know nothing about what amounts to a technically successful
scientific result, what method do you use to ascertain whether
a psychic test has been successful or not?
Randi: It would be for every body to see if it’s been
successful … it would be self-evident …
Victor: So what’s going to happen in the very likely
situation when the applicant with his/her experts tell you
that the psychic demonstration WAS successful and you will
of course say it was NOT successful?
Randi: The matter will be sorted out …
Victor: HOW?
Randi: I’ll ask for a repeated demonstration …
Victor: In other words you are telling the applicant to
‘TRUST YOU’, to trust your judgment, to trust
your discretion … right?
Randi: Kinda …
Victor:
Are you not then acting as a judge and jury in your own
cause - something which violates Equity principles?
Randi:
No ... it's all right to trust me ...
Victor: Trust someone - something you already admitted -
with a PROVEN PUBLIC RECORD – something you admitted
in the media - for organizing PUBLIC HOXES where you instructed
skeptics to MISREPRESENT, TO LIE, CHEAT, to be DISHONEST,
to NEGATIVELY MANIPULATE the results to cause CHAOS and
CONFUSION? I put it to you that you do NOT have the skills,
the competence and the ability to identify a successful
psychic result when you see it … DO YOU?
Randi: Yes, … I do …
Victor: We’ll see about that… How long have
you been involved in the paranormal?
Randi: Over forty years ….
Victor: And you are known as a closed-minded skeptic ..?
Randi: Just a skeptic…
Victor: No, I did NOT ask how you see yourself, but how
you are known. I put it to you that you are known as a closed-minded
skeptic - especially to those scientists and paranormal
investigators who have accepted the evidence for the paranormal
– are you known also as a closed minded skeptic, YES
or NO!
Randi: Yes ….
Victor: Now, in the last forty years, have you properly
investigated the paranormal?
Randi: Yes …
Victor: In forty years, have you ever accepted any aspect
of the evidence for any paranormal phenomenon and the afterlife?
Randi: No, never because … because my investigations
show the paranormal and the afterlife do not exist …
Victor: Could you speak a little louder and repeat the last
part you said after because …
Randi: I SAID THAT THE PARANORMAL AND THE AFTERLIFE DO NOT
EXIST… did you hear that?
Victor: Very clearly THANK YOU! In the last forty years
have you come across information that highly professional
scientists – physicists, biologists, chemists and
other professional paranormal and afterlife investigators
came to the conclusion that the paranormal is valid and
the afterlife exists?
Randi: The paranormal and the afterlife are for people who
believe in fairies ..
Victor: THAT’S NOT WHAT I ASKED. ANSWER THE QUESTION
….
Randi: Yes … yes … I know there are those who
claim that …
Victor: Being made aware of the fact that scientists confirmed
that the paranormal is valid, ON WHAT BASIS then do you
NOT accept any of the claims by scientists that there is
an afterlife and that the paranormal exists?
Randi:The afterlife is for people who believe in Santa
Clause …
Victor: Now, would that be your answer when the applicant
says she should have passed the initial test of the challenge?
…
Randi: (... hesitates ... then in a whisper) ... No ...
Victor: The jury heard that I'm sure ... Tell us, in some
forty years you had this challenge, how many passed your
subjective 'initial test' in order to be allowed to demonstrate
their skills?….
Randi: (Remains quiet)
Victor: Did you understand the question yes or no?
Randi: Yes, yes I heard the question … no one passed
the initial test ….
Victor: NO ONE? In some FORTY YEARS? Does not that confirm
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PASS THE INITIAL TEST?
Randi: This is because no one has demonstrated anything
psychic …
Victor: What do you say about the results attained by scientists
who have objective and repeatable evidence for the validity
of the paranormal when there was independent expert assessing
the paranormal activity?
Randi: I say they are all wrong ...
Victor: All of them?
Randi: Yes ALL OF THEM ….
Victor: Even those Nobel Laureates who investigated the
paranormal?
Randi: Yes, even those …
Victor: Have you ever stated specifically, WHERE, WHEN,
HOW and WHY these scientists are wrong about their positive
results of the paranormal?
Randi:
… (Hesitates …)
Victor:
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Randi: I don’t remember …Maybe I did that in
the past sometime …
Victor: I PUT IT TO YOU THAT YOU NEVER DID - OTHEREWISE
WE’D HAVE A COPY OF IT, RIGHT? – I remind you
- you are on oath here.
Randi: No, I never stated where, when, how and why the scientists
were wrong…
Victor: Have you ever read the afterlife scientific evidence
which amounts to absolute proof by that brilliant Professor
of physics Dr Jan W Vandersande …
Randi: No …
Victor: NO? Did he not try very hard to take up your challenge?
And as soon as you realized he was a physicist who had scientific
proof for the paranormal and the afterlife – SOMEONE
WHO WAS GOING TO BURST YOUR HOAX BUBBLE - you just SLAMMED
THE DOOR SHUT IN HIS FACE so that he’ll go away and
save you embarrassment and a million dollars?
Randi: I don’t remember!!!
Victor: Always the very famous line, “I don’t
remember”. Do you remember the name of John Benneth
who wanted to apply for your challenge but you slammed the
door in his face because he showed the potential to beat
the challenge?
Randi: Can’t say I remember him …
Victor: Naturally enough … Remember Chris Robinson
the pre-cognitive medium who demonstrated on television
he could prove psychic phenomenon? When he tried to apply
for your Challenge you SLAMMED THE DOOR SHUT IN HIS FACE.
Randi: I don’t remember him ….
Victor: Do you remember the incident you had with physicist
Dr Dick Bierman - specially qualified in experimental physics
who tried to take up your challenge?
Randi:
No, I don't remember ...
Victor:
Don't you remember he applied to take you on - you told
him you'll reply - and he never heard from you again?
Randi: I don't remember ....
Victor: Perhaps you remember Dr Rupert Sheldrake who communicated
with you ... and had evidence of the paranormal ... remember?
Randi:
No, I don't remember the incident ...
Victor:
You claimed you duplicated his sixth sense in dogs and then
you stated words to the effect that no records were kept
... or that the dog actually ate the paper records...
Randi: No ... don't remember him ...
Victor: Did you come across that very important research,
now a book, A SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE
PARANORAL by Chris Carter from Oxford University?
Randi: No ...
Victor: Of course not!!! Did you read the afterlife scientific
classics proving the afterlife by that brilliant physicist
Sir Oliver Lodge?
Randi: NO …
Victor:
Have you read the works of Professor David Fontana - once
a skeptic but on investigating the afterlife he accepted
the paranormala and the afterlife?
Randi: Never heard of him ...
Victor:
Naturally enough ... are you not impressed by what this
Professor stated - that in addition to his own investigation
of the evidence for the afterlife, he came across critical
information which showed that TWELVE NOBEL LAUREATE SCIENTISTS
accepted the paranormal AFTER they investigated the paranormal?
Randi:
They're all wrong ...
Victor:
But you don't say WHY they are wrong?
Randi: No ... I don't have to ...
Victor: Have you read and studied the afterlife scientific
objective and repeatable evidence of the most brilliant
scientist of his time Sir William Crookes?
Randi: No …
Victor: Have you ever heard of the empirical paranormal
research of Dr Dean Radin …
Randi: Yes, I have … but he’s wrong about what
he says.
Victor: Why is he wrong?
Randi: Because the paranormal does not exist, THAT’S
WHY!
Victor: But have you shown WHY his evidence is not valid?
Randi: I couldn’t be bothered …
Victor:
… For the purpose of the record I would like to enter
into evidence the following highly valued scientific studies
I submit proving the paranormal and the afterlife.
Pay very close attention to the names I am going to mention.
I ask you - closed minded skeptic, have you read any of
the paranormal and afterlife works and evidence by these
scientists and empirical afterlife investigators who accepted
the afterlife and/or the parnormal? Dr Peter Bander, Dr
Julie Beischel, Professor John Bockris, John Logie Baird,
Professor J.W. Crawford, Dr Robert Crookal, Professor Arthur
Ellison, Dr Peter Fenwick, Professor Festa, Dr Edith Fiore,
Professor David Fontana, Dr Amit Goswami, Professor Gustav
Geley, Professor Ivor Grattan-Guinesss, Professor Stanislav
Grof, Dr Arthur Guirdham, Dr Glen Hamilton, Professor Charles
Hapgood, Professor Sylvia Hart-Wright, Professor James Hyslop,
Professor William James, Dr Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Drs Jeff
and Jody Long, afterlife investigator Mark Macy, Engineer
George Meek, Dr Raymond Moody, Dr Melvin Morse, Dr Morris
Nertherton, Dr Karlis Osis, Dr Peter Ramster, Lawyer Edward
C Randall, Dr.Konstantine Raudive, Drs J.B. and Louisa Rhine,
Nobel Laureate Professor Charles Richet, Dr Kenneth Ring,
Lawyer Dr Aubrey Rose, Professor Archie Roy, Dr Michael
Sabom, Dr Hans Schaer, Professor Marilyn Schlitz, Dr Ernst
Senkowski, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Judge Dean Shuart, Dr Ian
Stevenson, Dr Claude Swanson, Emmanuel Swedenborg, Dr Charles
Tart, Professor Jessica Utts, Dr Jan W Vandersande, Dr Pim
Van Lommel, Professor Wadhams, Prof. Alfred Wallace, Dr
Helen Wambach, Dr Carl Wickland, Dr Carla Wills-Brandon.
Have you studied any of these substantive scientists’
paranormal and/or afterlife evidence?
Randi: No and I will not read or study them.
Victor: Why not?
Randi: Because the paranormal and the afterlife don’t
exist! I am not going to read or study something I know
does not exist …
Victor: How do you know the paranormal and the afterlife
do not exist when you never investigated the evidence of
the paranormal?
Randi: I just know …
Victor: Your INTUITION tells you?
Randi: I just know …
Victor: Since you are not supporting your evidence by science
or empiricism or logic or rationale, aren’t you in
fact and in practice being SUPERSTITIOUS about your beliefs?
Randi: No, I’m not superstitious …
Victor: YOU may not think you are not superstitious, but
when you CANNOT INDPENDENTLY SUPPORT YOUR BELIEFS - and
you are using BLIND FAITH – your intuition - ARE YOU
NOT, in practice, being HIGHLY SUPERSTITIOUS?
Randi: It’s silly for anyone to say I’m superstitious
….
Victor: You show an amazing and an extraordinary capacity
to be highly unreasonable, irrationale and illogical in
your extreme stubborness to refuse to accept the paranomal
and the afterlife evidence - is that because if you do accept
the evidence your life as a debunker would come to an ubrupt
end - you'll have to go back to working for a living?
Randi: No ... I reject those remarks ...
Victor: We’ll come back to that later - ... Now tell
us for the purpose of the record – since you deny
your reliance on your intuition is superstitious .. have
you ever come across the procedural formula that ALL scientists
around the world accept: (Victor hands formula Randi - item
2 Your Honor):
Randi: I haven’t got a clue in the world what that
is ….
Victor: Let me briefly explain to you what it is using very
simple language then I’ll ask you if you agree with
it …
S.R. stands for Successful Results. P stands for paranormal
phenomena. R stands for repeatability. VC stands for keeping
all relevant variables constant. And T is for time and S
is for Space.
In other words, successful results come about when any aspect
of the paranormal is repeated keeping all relevant variables
constant over time and space. All scientists around the
world agree with that. Do YOU AGREE with that?
Rand: … Yes …. But what kind of phenomena are
you talking about?
Victor: the formula applies to ANY aspect of the paranormal
phenomenon. BUT it must be repeated over time and space,
keeping all relevant variables constant and it must yield
the same result – as I said, ALL SCIENTISTS AROUND
THE WORLD AGREE WITH THAT. Now, do you agree with that?
Randi: In theory yes I agree with that … but the phenomena
MUST BE REPEATED over time and space AND MUST YIELD exactly
the same results …
Victor:
ABSOLUTELY! You realize you’ve just accepted the evidence
for the paranormal and the afterlife?
Randi: No, I haven’t …
Victor: There are independent HIGHLY QUALIFIED EXPERTS who
stated that there is much paranormal and afterlife evidence
that is objective and which has been repeated over time
and in different countries that yielded exactly the same
results when tested by independent experts… have you
tested any psychic phenomena yourself?
Randi: No …it doesn’t exist so how I can I test
it?
Victor: Considering the brilliant scientists I mentioned
who actually investigated the paranormal and the afterlife,
would it not be quite appropriate for you to accept that
there is objective and repeatable evidence for the paranormal
and the afterlife?
Randi: There is no evidence for the paranormal or the afterlife
…
Victor: How on earth can you say that when you just stated
YOU NEVER investigated the paranormal?
Randi: I just know there is no evidence ….
Victor: What’s your evidence to support your personal,
subjective beliefs that there is no evidence for the paranormal
and/or the afterlife?
Randi: (Remains quiet …)
Victor: You HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR BELIEFS RIGHT?
Randi: I don’t have to prove anything …
Victor: You mean to say all these brilliant scientists including
Nobel Laureates have PROVED that the paranormal and many
aspects of the afterlife are objective and repeatable and
YOU, WITHOUT any evidence, let me repeat for the purpose
of the record, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER continue
to say there is no paranormal or the afterlife?
Randi: That’s right …
Victor: For the record, if there is an inconsistency between
SCIENCE and personal subjective BELIEFS, which prevails?
Randi: remains quiet … (Victor looks sternly at Randi)
… Science …
Victor: Can you ever PROVE that your subjective personal
beliefs prevail over science?
Randi: No because I am not stating anything exists or cannot
exist ..
Victor: You are stating there is no paranormal, there is
no afterlife ... so answer the question please - do your
beliefs prevail over science, YES or NO? (Victor looking
sternly at Randi) ...
Randi:
... (reluctantly) ...No ..
Victor: That very clear now...
Further, about the vidence, it means those who state the
paranormal exists have to prove it ..
Randi: Absolutely ..
Victor: THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THESE SCIENTISTS HAVE
DONE IN THEIR BOOKS – THEY ALL STATE THE PARANORMAL
AND/OR THE AFTERLIFE EXIST - and you admitted that you have
not read any of their works! In professional debate once
the evidence is presented the onus shifts onto you –
the one who disagrees - to show WHERE, WHEN, HOW AND WHY
the evidence cannot be accepted. And you have NOT done that
HAVE YOU?
Randi: I just remembered … no skeptic can prove anything
because ‘no one can prove the negative’ …
Victor: Oh yes, you’re the one who stated “nobody
can prove there’s no green cheese on the moon”
for the last thirty years, right?
Randi: Yes, yes, yes, I said that …
Victor: Has any scientist on earth ever said there is green
cheese on the moon?
Randi: … No … of course not …
Victor: Afterlife investigators are NOT asking you to prove
the negative. They are asking you to strictly adhere to
procedure - to rebut the mountain of evidence of those who
are stating the paranormal and the afterlife exist. That
is the law of professional debate. BUT you said you have
not done that … again, why not?
Randi: I can’t find any evidence for the afterlife
… and the paranormal …
Victor: But MILLIONS of other people around the world have
found the evidence! Every heard of Neurolinguistic Programming
known as NLP?
Randi: Yes, vaguely …
Victor: NLP says that whenever a skeptic receives evidence
fundamentally inconsistent with his deeply cherished negative
beliefs, the skeptic’s mind will automatically DELETE
that evidence … because that information will give
him huge, unbearable anxiety … Is that what happened
to you?
Randi: No …. NLP is wrong …
Victor: Back to the challenge … So you expect an applicant
to believe you and to trust you to be objective - when all
your life you NEVER found in favor of the paranormal, when
in a closed minded way for some forty years you keep on
saying there is no evidence notwithstanding that scientists
produced objective and repeatable evidence for the paranormal
and the afterlife?
Randi: I expect the applicant to trust me …
Victor:
That's very amusing … Pay very close attention to
this question: is it not an attempt by you to trick the
applicant for your challenge when you do not include in
your conditions an agreement in advance of the levels of
statistical significance required for the results to show
whether the applicant obtained a successful result by his/her
skills or by chance?
Randi: I don’t think statistical significance you
talk about is necessary …
Victor: Are you qualified to do statistical analysis of
experimental results, YES or NO?
Randi: No …
Victor: Do you not think that your omissions show why so
many professional scientists, psychics and mediums think
your challenge IS JUST A SKEPTIC’S HOLLOW PROPAGANDA
- A REALLY BAD JOKE, THE GREATEST HOAX IN PARANORMAL HISTORY?
Randi: (Does not answer …then) It's not a hoax …
Victor: Is it not on record that Professor Dennis Rawlins
exposed your challenge repeating in public that you, James
Randi, told this Professor, to quote, “I will always
have a way out of paying …” in relation to the
challenge?
Randi: Yes, but you also have to mention that Professor
Dennis Rawlins did not mention what I said after that …
I said I always have an out – because I’m right.
Victor: OH YOU’RE RIGHT? So when you said “I
always have an out – I’m right” were you
saying that the paranormal and the afterlife do not and
cannot exist?
Randi: … Yes … the paranormal and the afterlife
don’t exist ..
Victor: Is that what you say to when an applicant demonstrated
some psychic phenomena of the first test?
Don’t bother to answer that …. and you say that
without a shred of evidence … That’s why you
said you will never pay a cent … But Professor Dennis
Rawlins did NOT support this claim of yours. I put it to
you that you are not telling the truth when your claim “I’m
right” … trying to justify your stubborn denial
and your huge blunder of your life ADMITTING that you WILL
NEVER pay a cent regarding the challenge?
Randi: No that’s not right …
Victor: I also put it to you that this is ANOTHER reason
why your alleged challenge is being treated as a joke, a
very bad disgusting joke around the world and the greatest
HOAX in PARANORMAL HISTORY ... agreed?
Cross
examination part 2
THE MILLION DOLLAR OFFER HOAX
Victor:
How are you feeling to-day Randall James Hamilton Zwinge
Randi?
Randi:
If that is a sarcastic comment implying that you don’t
think I’m well, sorry to disappoint you, I’m
very well …
Victor: Well? I was hoping you’d
say that! You'll need that to-day. Just for the record,
you are well physically, psychologically and mentally ?
Randi (very confidently):
Never been better…
Victor: How's your memory to-day?
Randi: .... oh OK ....
Victor: That’s really good
to hear. You stated yesterday that in some forty years you
never came across any paranormal or afterlife evidence …
you said that - right?
Randi:
Yes, that’s right ...
Victor: For the record, you are not a scientist or a lawyer
or an academic professional?
Randi: No, I’m not.
Victor: Are you formally qualified
with a degree in Scientific Method?
Randi: No I’m not
Victor: Do you have a qualification in statistics?
Randi: No.
Victor: This
means you are NOT qualified, not technically competent in
how to conduct a proper scientific experiment to validate
any phenomena at professional level?
Randi: I have my ways of testing….
Victor: You would have come across
that Sydney lawyer’s book A LAWYER PRESENTS THE CASE
FOR THE AFTERLIFE – yes or no?
Randi: hesitating … yes ..
many years ago …
Victor: And that lawyer states he
has outlined more than twenty different areas of afterlife
evidence. He also claims that you FAILED to rebut any part
of that evidence in ten years- according to his website
some THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHT days.
Randi: So?
Victor: Yes or no?
Randi: Yes, yes he states something
like that ….
Victor: The record shows that for
over TEN YEARS he challenged you to rebut the evidence for
the afterlife… if you did, you would have collected
a cool MILLION DOLLARS. Why didn't you take him on?
Randi: There’s no evidence…
Victor: (giving a copy of the
book to Randi and one to the judge … 'item 3 Your
Honor’ ): Your Honor, could I get the court attendant
to give a copy of this book to members of the jury?
Mr Randi, could you open at page
3 headline CONTENTS … Now do you see on page 3 some
TWENTY areas of afterlife evidence starting with Chapter
3 MATERIALIZATIONS … Chapter 4 Electronic Voice Phenomena,
Chapter 5 Instrumental Trans-communication… and so
on – to Chapter 25 on page 4 about Quantum Physics
and the Afterlife….
Now Randi, as His Honor and the
jury members are browsing through the book looking at page
3 and 4 …CAN YOU SEE ALL THESE
AREAS OF AFTERLIFE EVIDENCE THAT MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE
CAN SEE- YES OR NO?
Randi: …. There is no evidence
Victor: Can you identify for the
jury just one aspect of the TWENTY AREAS of afterlife objective
and repeatable evidence that is not scientific or empirical?
Randi:...I don’t remember
anything about that book …
Victor (sternly): Did you read this
book properly?
Randi: (Quiet) ….
Victor: You are on oath: answer
the question YES OR NO!
Randi: Not really … but I
skimmed through it …
Victor: So, WITHOUT READING the
book, WITHOUT having studied the presented evidence, WITHOUT
checking with scientists about the evidence, without REFUTING
the evidence, you have come to a negative conclusion? …
Randi: I wouldn't waste my time.
There is no afterlife…
Victor: So you keep on saying ...
you came to negative conclusions about the paranormal and
afterlife evidence WITHOUT READING THE EVIDENCE?
Randi: (Does not answer)
Victor: (looks at the judge)
Judge: Yes, answer the question
Randi: (reluctantly) .. yes... that's right...
Victor: Let's move on.... What is
your claim to being able to test psychics and mediums?
Randi: I’m a specialist in
deception … I..
Victor: … a specialist in
PERFORMING DECEPTION did you say?
Randi: In DETECTING deception ..
Victor: If you are a specialist
in detecting deception, that would also mean that you yourself
have the professional expertise in how to CHEAT, how to
LIE, how to be DISHONEST, how to fool and how to DECEIVE
people - and how to deceive the jury and the court –
yes or no please?
Randi: Yes….But I never deceive
people …
Victor: Never?
Randi: No never…
Victor: We’ll see …Have
you ever intentionally misled the public, YES or NO!
Randi: Yes … as a magician
one could say yes …
Victor: When you are NOT acting
as a magician, have you intentionally deceived or tried
to deceive people for whatever reason – you are on
oath – yes or no?
Randi: I don’t want to answer
the question … (Victor looks at the judge)
Judge: Yes, yes, (to the witness)
Answer the question …
Randi: Yes, kind of, but I need
to explain ..
Victor: NO! The question calls for
a yes/no answer. You answered yes …
Randi: (quiet) ...
Victor: ( looking at some documents).
Mr Randi, are you of good character?
Judge: …. You do not have
to answer that question ..
Victor: Your Honor – may I
approach the bench …, (Victor to the judge)
.. the witness will not deny – in fact he will admit
that in the media and in his many publications he has expressly
stated and imputed that he is of good character –
being the chairman of a technically charitable organization.
Accordingly, I submit I do have a right to put that question
to the witness about what he publicly stated and imputed
about himself …
Judge: Yes, yes all right …proceed…
Victor: Tell us the truth, the whole
truth Mr Randi are you of good character?
Randi: (Hesitates ..) Yes
…I am not a criminal if that is what you’re
asking.
Victor: Are you an honest man?
Randi: … what do you mean
by an honest man?
Victor: You know what I mean by
an honest man; someone who does not cheat, lie, deceive,
steal, get into public trouble, act maliciously at the expense
of others ... are you an honest person just answer YES or
NO.
Randi: Yes, I am an honest man …
Victor: Have you ever been DISHONEST,
trying to intentionally cheat the public …?
Randi: I don’t have to incriminate
myself answering that ..
Victor: Incriminate yourself by
refusing to tell jury you that you are not dishonest? Did
you ever lie to the public?
Randi: Everybody lies …
Victor: Everybody? Including the
His Honor and the jury ….
Randi: (Hesitates) Including ALL
LAWYERS …
Victor: The Judge is a lawyer …
No, you don’t have to answer that … the judge
and the jury heard your answer already … (Victor
looking at documents on his desk) … Tell us Mr
Randi, did you ever ADMIT in public that you are a professional
LIAR, and a CHEAT?
Randi: Yes, but that was in relation
to my work as a magician …
Victor (looking as his notes): DID you not put on record
- describing what you do - in the Diner's Club as a 'PROFESSIONAL
CHARATAN'?
Randi: ... That was a while ago ... that was a gimmick ...
Victor: (looking at his notes) Describing yourself
as a CHARLATAN ... 'one who lays claim to knowledge and
skill which he does NOT possess … a QUACK… unqualified
and untrained practitioner of a skilled profession'?
Randi: As I said ... a gimmick ..
Victor: .... So, you are professionally
trained to make fools out of people everywhere?
Rand: Yes … I suppose so …
Victor: But you don’t do magic
any more .. Have you ever been involved in organizing a
public nuisance - public mischief, yes or no?
Randi: (remains quiet, looks
disturbed …)
Victor: All right, let’s put it another way.
Is it not on public record that you organized HOAXES?
Randi: Yes, I’ll answer that
question (boasting) – yes, I did.
Victor: Could you speak louder please,
did you organize public HOAXES?
Randi: Yes, I organized public hoaxes ...
Victor: And are you an expert in presenting illusions?
Randi: YES I’m an expert in
presenting illusions …
Victor: And you do agree (Victor
reading from his notes on his desk) that illusion is
something that deceives by producing a false or misleading
impression of reality?
Randi: Yes .. I guess so ...
Victor: … So that we know
what specifically we are talking about, a hoax (looking
at his notes) is, to quote, “To deceive, dupe,
take in by misrepresentation’ – Webster’s
International dictionary … You will have to agree
with that, yes?
Randi: (hesitantly) …Yes
…
Victor: In answering yes to that
question does it not follow then that you then agree that
when you say you organized public hoaxes, you duped and
deceived, you were DISHONEST, you LIED, you CHEATED, you
MISREPRESENTED ?
Randi: Aren’t you using strong
words for a hoax. I was honest in what I did.
Victor:
Ohhhh!!!!!!!, you were HONEST in your DECEPTION? ... That
is the meaning of the word HOAX … Let me remind you
are on oath – it IS on record you instigated and organized
serious public hoaxes .. YES or NO?
Randi:
Yes …
Victor:
How are you feeling to-day Randall James Hamilton Zwinge
Randi?
Randi: If that is a sarcastic comment implying that you
don’t think I’m well, sorry to disappoint you,
I’m very well …
Victor: Well? I was hoping you’d say that! You'll
need that to-day. Just for the record, you are well physically,
psychologically and mentally ?
Randi (very confidently): Never been better…
Victor: How's your memory to-day?
Randi:
.... oh OK ....
Victor: That’s really good to hear. You stated yesterday
that in some forty years you never came across any paranormal
or afterlife evidence … you said that - right?
Randi: Yes, that’s right …
Victor:
For the record, you are not a scientist or a lawyer or an
academic professional?
Randi: No, I’m not.
Victor: Are you formally qualified with a degree in Scientific
Method?
Randi: No I’m not
Victor:
Do you have a qualification in statistics?
Randi:
No.
Victor: This means you are NOT qualified, not technically
competent in how to conduct a proper scientific experiment
to validate any phenomena at professional level?
Randi: I have my ways of testing….
Victor: You would have come across that Sydney lawyer’s
book A LAWYER PRESENTS THE CASE FOR THE AFTERLIFE –
yes or no?
Randi: hesitating … yes .. many years ago …
Victor: And that lawyer states he has outlined more than
twenty different areas of afterlife evidence. He also claims
that you FAILED to rebut any part of that evidence in ten
years- according to his website some THREE THOUSAND FOUR
HUNDRED AND EIGHT days.
Randi: So?
Victor: Yes or no?
Randi: Yes, yes he states something like that ….
Victor: The record shows that for over TEN YEARS he challenged
you to rebut the evidence for the afterlife… if you
did, you would have collected a cool MILLION DOLLARS. Why
didn't you take him on?
Randi: There’s no evidence…
Victor: (giving a copy of the book to Randi and one to the
judge … 'item 3 Your Honor’ ): Your Honor, could
I get the court attendant to give a copy of this book to
members of the jury?
James Randi, could you open at page 3 headline CONTENTS
… Now do you see on page 3 some TWENTY areas of afterlife
evidence starting with Chapter 3 MATERIALIZATIONS …
Chapter 4 Electronic Voice Phenomena, Chapter 5 Instrumental
Trans-communication… and so on – to Chapter
25 on page 4 about Quantum Physics and the Afterlife….
Now Randi, as His Honor and the jury members are browsing
through the book looking at page 3 and 4 …CAN YOU
SEE ALL THESE AREAS OF AFTERLIFE EVIDENCE THAT MILLIONS
OF OTHER PEOPLE CAN SEE- YES OR NO?
Randi: …. There is no evidence
Victor: Can you identify for the jury just one aspect of
the TWENTY AREAS of afterlife objective and repeatable evidence
that is not scientific or empirical?
Randi:...I don’t remember anything about that book
…
Victor (sternly): Did you read this book properly?
Randi: (Quiet) ….
Victor: You are on oath: answer the question YES OR NO!
Randi: Not really … but I skimmed through it …
Victor: So, WITHOUT READING the book, WITHOUT having studied
the presented evidence, WITHOUT checking with scientists
about the evidence, without REFUTING the evidence, you have
come to a negative conclusion? …
Randi: I wouldn't waste my time. There is no afterlife…
Victor: So you keep on saying ... you came to negative conclusions
about the paranormal and afterlife evidence WITHOUT READING
THE EVIDENCE?
Randi:
(Does not answer)
Victor: (looks at the judge)
Judge:
Yes, answer the question
Randi:
(reluctantly) .. yes... that's right...
Victor: Let's move on.... What is your claim to being able
to test psychics and mediums?
Randi: I’m a specialist in deception … I..
Victor: … a specialist in PERFORMING DECEPTION did
you say?
Randi: In DETECTING deception ..
Victor: If you are a specialist in detecting deception,
that would also mean that you yourself have the professional
expertise in how to CHEAT, how to LIE, how to be DISHONEST,
how to fool and how to DECEIVE people - and how to deceive
the jury and the court – yes or no please?
Randi: Yes….But I never deceive people …
Victor: Never?
Randi: No never…
Victor: We’ll see …Have you ever intentionally
misled the public, YES or NO!
Randi: Yes … as a magician one could say yes …
Victor: When you are NOT acting as a magician, have you
intentionally deceived or tried to deceive people for whatever
reason – you are on oath – yes or no?
Randi: I don’t want to answer the question …
(Victor looks at the judge)
Judge: Yes, yes, (to the witness) Answer the question …
Randi: Yes, kind of, but I need to explain ..
Victor: NO! The question calls for a yes/no answer. You
answered yes …
Randi:
(quiet) ...
Victor: ( looking at some documents). Mr Randi, are you
of good character?
Judge: …. You do not have to answer that question
..
Victor: Your Honor – may I approach the bench …,
(Victor to the judge) .. the witness will not deny –
in fact he will admit that in the media and in his many
publications he has expressly stated and imputed that he
is of good character – being the chairman of a technically
charitable organization. Accordingly, I submit I do have
a right to put that question to the witness about what he
publicly stated and imputed about himself …
Judge:
Yes, yes all right …proceed…
Victor: Tell us the truth, the whole truth Mr Randi are
you of good character?
Randi: (Hesitates ..) Yes …I am not a criminal if
that is what you’re asking.
Victor: Are you an honest man?
Randi: … what do you mean by an honest man?
Victor: You know what I mean by an honest man;
someone who does not cheat, lie, deceive, steal, get into
public trouble, act maliciously at the expense of others
... are you an honest person just answer YES or NO.
Randi: Yes, I am an honest man …
Victor: Have you ever been DISHONEST, trying to intentionally
cheat the public …?
Randi: I don’t have to incriminate myself answering
that ..
Victor: Incriminate yourself by refusing to tell jury you
that you are not dishonest? Did you ever lie to the public?
Randi: Everybody lies …
Victor: Everybody? Including the His Honor and the jury
….
Randi: (Hesitates) Including ALL LAWYERS …
Victor: The Judge is a lawyer … No, you don’t
have to answer that … the judge and the jury heard
your answer already … (Victor looking at documents
on his desk) … Tell us Mr Randi, did you ever ADMIT
in public that you are a professional LIAR, and a CHEAT?
Randi: Yes, but that was in relation to my work as a magician
…
Victor (looking as his notes): DID you not put on record
- describing what you do - in the Diner's Club as a 'PROFESSIONAL
CHARATAN'?
Randi:
... That was a while ago ... that was a gimmick ...
Victor:
(looking at his notes) Describing yourself as a CHARLATAN
... 'one who lays claim to knowledge and skill which he
does NOT possess … a QUACK… unqualified and
untrained practitioner of a skilled profession'?
Randi:
As I said ... a gimmick ..
Victor: .... So, you are professionally trained to make
fools out of people everywhere?
Rand: Yes … I suppose so …
Victor: But you don’t do magic any more .. Have you
ever been involved in organizing a public nuisance - public
mischief, yes or no?
Randi: (remains quiet, looks disturbed …)
Victor:
All right, let’s put it another way. Is it not on
public record that you organized HOAXES?
Randi: Yes, I’ll answer that question (boasting) –
yes, I did.
Victor: Could you speak louder please, did you organize
public HOAXES?
Randi:
Yes, I organized public hoaxes ...
Victor:
And are you an expert in presenting illusions?
Randi: YES I’m an expert in presenting illusions …
Victor: And you do agree (Victor reading from his notes
on his desk) that illusion is something that deceives by
producing a false or misleading impression of reality?
Randi:
Yes .. I guess so ...
Victor: … So that we know what specifically we are
talking about, a hoax (looking at his notes) is, to quote,
“To deceive, dupe, take in by misrepresentation’
– Webster’s International dictionary …
You will have to agree with that, yes?
Randi: (hesitantly) …Yes …
Victor: In answering yes to that question does it not follow
then that you then agree that when you say you organized
public hoaxes, you duped and deceived, you were DISHONEST,
you LIED, you CHEATED, you MISREPRESENTED ?
Randi: Aren’t you using strong words for a hoax. I
was honest in what I did.
Victor: Ohhhh!!!!!!!, you were HONEST in your DECEPTION?
... That is the meaning of the word HOAX … Let me
remind you are on oath – it IS on record you instigated
and organized serious public hoaxes .. YES or NO?
Randi: Yes …
PART
3: THE 'ALPHA PROJECT' HOAX
(Words in caps are there for emphasis - very important in
cross-examination).
Victor: Were you honest or dishonest when you admitted that
you publically organized public hoaxes?
Randi:
I was honest ... even in my hoaxes ...
Victor:
Ohhhh!!!!!!!, you were HONEST in your DECEPTION? …
Let me remind you that you are on oath – it IS on
record you instigated and organized serious public hoaxes
.. YES or NO?
Randi: Yes …
Victor: Do you know Steve Shaw and Michael Edwards?
Randi: Yes, yes …
Victor:
You are on record for claiming that you used these teenagers
in what has become known as the notorious Alpha Project
HOAX- that correct?
Randi:
Yes, I had a lot to do with that ... no it's not notorious
... at my age I don't remember all the details ... it's
been a while ago now ..
Victor: You DON’T remember all that well? With His
Honor’s permission, let me jog the witness’
memory of incidents the defendant has already admitted to
before I ask the question again. The
public record claims that you, James Randi, took credit
for coaching these two boys, to infiltrate an important
psychic research project to try to deceive and misrepresent
themselves as psychics to experimenters who were trying
to see if some aspect of the paranormal was valid.
For the
purpose of the record, did YOU PERSONALLY coach these two
boys mentioned to mislead the experimenters in the Alpha
project?
Randi: Yes ... those so-called scientific experimenters
needed to learn a lesson ...
Victor:
But the record shows that when the experimenters applied
'controlled-testing' your stooges COULD NOT PASS the controlled
test, COULD NOT FOOL anyone that they had psychic abilities
... right?
Randi: Yes, but it took them a long time ....
Victor:
and you caused great waste of their funding ... Do you understand
that no fake psychic has ever beaten properly controlled
tests based on scientific method when PROFESSIONALLY handled
by scientists?
Randi: I can't accept that ...
Victor:
Then tell us WHEN and WHERE fake psychics ever beat properly
controlled tests...
Randi:
(No answer) ...
Victor: Did you not try to create a PUBLIC MISCHIEF, a PUBLIC
NUISANCE to MALICIOUSLY try to HUMILIATE by way of a HOAX,
to DENIGRATE the decent and honest experimenters, to knowingly
waste funding? Yes or NO?
Randi: Yes, I was doing a service to the public …
I showed that the scientists were too lenient with their
tests and were ignorant of basic information about how to
detect fraud …
Victor:
What evidence do you have to show that the scientists were
lenient or incompetent?
Randi: I just know ….
Victor:
Of course, there is another possible reason for your negative
involvement. If the results of well funded psychic tests
were postitive you could LOSE your career of debunking-the-psychics
and have to go back to working for a living, right?
Randi:
No, that's not right ...
Victor: Further, how can you prove the scientists in the
Alpha Project were lenient and not adhering to Scientific
Method, when you admit you know absolutely nothing about
Scientific Method?
Randi: I just know …
Victor: Ahh ... YOU'RE PSYCHIC!!!!!??
Randi:
(Does not answer)
Victor:
Isn't that the logical conclusion - you're not professionally
trained, you're not a scientist, you've never done any study
on Scientific Method, then you say, you JUST KNOW .. that's
exactly how a psychic or a medium would answer - they just
know, right?
Randi:
(Does not respond) ....
Victor: Or you wouldn't be like that gentleman from the
Vatican - claiming to be omniscient and infallible?
Randi: (does not answer)
Victor:
Or are you just deluding yourself about how much you know?
Randi:
NO I'm not deluding myself ...
Victor:
But you do know how to organize hoaxes ... which in fact
means MISLEADING ... CHEATING ... TICKERY and NEGATIVE MANIPULATION
of the experimenters, right?
Randi:
not really …
Victor:
You already accepted you were responsible for the Alpha
Project HOAX and a HOAX is about DECEPTION .... RIGHT?
Randi:
Yes, yes but...
Victor:
But, when you gave that press release about the Alpha Project,
you told the journalists that you had fooled the experimenters.
Randi:
I told them the truth ...
Victor: The truth? ...Would it not be the whole TRUTH to
say that what you did to the experimenters in the Alpha
Project will go down in history as a most SHAMEFUL and most
DISGUSTINGLY CONCOCTED FRAUD?
Randi: I was doing a service … I showed that scientists
can be fooled …
Victor:
But the experimenters were NOT fooled ... YOU TOLD THE MEDIA
they were fooled ... it just took them some time to flush
out the fraudulent stooges ... do you want to dispute that?
Randi:
Not really ...
Victor: Just one more question before we move on …
You get money for NOT accepting the paranormal, YES or NO
..
Randi:
For educating the public about critical thinking …
Victor: Answer the question …
Randi: Yes …
Victor: Now, if the scientists and lawyers are producing
the proof for the paranormal and you accept the proof, won't
you LOSE FUNDING …and YOU LOSE MONEY …YOU LOSE
PRESTIGE, you LOSE the kind of celebrity STATUS…NO
more media attention … and become a complete NON-ENTITY,
A NOBODY, A HAS-BEEN AND A FAILURE?
Randi (nervously): No … not really … I reject
that ..
Victor:
If you ACCEPT that the paranormal and the afterlife evidence
are real, would you not feel you have completely WASTED
YOUR LIFE as a debunker knowing toward the end of your life
you have been absolutely WRONG all the time ...
Randi:
No ... I don't accept that ...
Victor:
Is that the real reason why you CONTINUE rejecting the paranormal
and the afterlife evidence – the real FEAR that you’ll
go from being a rooster to a feather-duster – completely
forgotten, ending in the dustbin of history?
Randi:
I reject the claim …
Victor:
Of course you do ....
PART
4
‘CROSS-EXAMINATION’ OF CLOSED-MINDED J.RANDI'S
'CRITICAL THINKING'.
Victor:
Have you seen Mr Machiavelli lately?
Randi:
No, I haven’t ... don’t remember him …
Victor: He was the one who formalized the principle ‘the
end justifies the means’ – you can cheat, lie,
be deceptive to get your way … Have you been taking
lessons from him these last forty years?
Randi:
No, I haven’t …
Victor:
What is your most fundamental principle of the JRE Foundation?
Randi:
Critical thinking …
Victor:
Don’t you admit you’ve been overdoing the paranormal
‘critical thinking’ gimmick for too long ?
Randi:
I’ve been successful …
Victor:
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Randi:
It had to be done because many people were taken in by frauds
…
Victor:
Do you think people generally need protection from being
hurt by anyone?
Randi
(Boasting): That’s why the JREF has critical thinking
as its fundamental premise…
Victor:
How many people do you think are killed or injured every
year because they accept the evidence for the paranormal
and the afterlife?
Randi:
That’s a peculiar question … How can people
being killed or injured have anything to do with believing
in the paranormal?...
Victor:
Your answer then is that NOBODY is KILLED or INJURED because
of their acceptance of the paranormal or the afterlife ..
RIGHT?
Randi:
Yes … right … the two things are totally unrelated
…
Victor:
Do you know how many people are killed and injured every
year in the United States because of legally prescribed
pharmaceutical drugs?
Randi:
I don’t know …
Victor:
The evidence shows that at least ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE
are killed and over TWO MILLION people are maimed or injured
EVERY YEAR because they take doctor prescribed pharmaceutical
drugs … Why are you not using critical thinking to
expose the pharmaceutical drug companies who are KILLING
THOUSANDS and INJURING MILLIONS OF AMERICANS every year
by not making safe drugs?
Randi:
You must be exaggerating …
Victor:
(Looking at his notes) Do some research and you will come
across information about this … here’s just
one article (item 5 your Honor) by Brenda C Coleman–
who says, to quote, “Bad reactions to prescription
and over the counter medicines kill more than 100,000 Americans
and seriously injure an additional 2.1 million every year
..” NOW, WHY AREN'T YOU USING CRITICAL THINKING TO
EDUCATE PEOPLE ABOUT THE GROSS CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE by those
specific pharmaceutical companies who are not MAKING SAFE
DRUGS – or don’t you want to exercise critical
thinking to save American lives?
Randi:
It’s not my business to interfere with them …
besides all drugs have side effects …
Victor:
No, not all drugs have side effects … don’t
you think this is a matter for more research, more money
to produce safe prescribed drugs but those drug companies
do not want to spend cash to produce safe drugs?
Randi:
I don’t know that one … again, it’s none
of my business …
Victor
OH IT’S NOT YOUR BUSINESS you say .. where is your
‘critical thinking’ about safety for the public,
about saving lives … or have you been paid by these
pharmaceutical companies TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT, to not
to say anything about the unsafe drugs which are killing
and injuring over TWO MILLION PEOPLE every year?
Randi:
They don’t pay me…
Victor:
For over FORTY years you were attacking the paranormal for
your own selfish motives – where no one was killed
and NO ONE WAS INJURED but in that same in FORTY years some
FOUR MILLION people were KILLED and some EIGHTY MILLION
were INJURED because they took drugs prescribed to them
by their doctor – now, if you were really concerned
about fraud, about unfairness, about injustice, why did
you not educate the public to think critically about this
horrible situation where people are getting killed every
day because some drug companies are NOT making SAFE DRUGS
… WHY HAVE WE NOT HEARD ONE WHISPER from YOU about
this in the last forty years?
Randi:
It's not my concern …
Victor:
Even if you were just FIVE per cent successful - a reasonable
scenario - if you put half the energy you put into the paranormal
into educating people to be critical of those specific ‘dirty’
drug companies , theoretically, you could have saved up
to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND AMERICAN LIVES and some FOUR MILLION
PEOPLE would NOT have been injured or maimed – how
come your critical thinking did not save even ONE LIFE or
ONE INJURY in the last FORTY YEARS?
Randi:
I tell you, It’s not my business …
Victor:
So, your critical thinking is just a gimmick to fool people,
to make money from attacking the paranormal - and omitting
to protest against those pharmaceutical companies because
they are too powerful, too wealthy and perhaps because they
pay you to keep your mouth shut about the horrific killings
of thousands of innocent people and the injuring of MILLIONS
OF PEOPLE every year – AND YOU SAY YOUR CRITICAL THINKING
HAS NO PLACE TO REMEDY THIS HORRIFIC SITUATION?
Randi:
(does not answer…)
Victor: Do you know why you are NOT qualified for critical
thinking?
Randi:
I’m qualified …
Victor:
Critical thinking strictly requires you to have an OPEN
MIND and you must NOT have negative assumptions before you
start investigating. Have you not been using hoaxes, deception
and other dirty tricks over the years to hide the fact that
you are an EXTREME CLOSED MINDED SKEPTIC which automatically
disqualifies you as a critical thinker?
Randi:
I don’t agree …
Victor:
Aren’t you using a magician’s trick to try to
claim to everyone that you are teaching critical thinking
when in fact all you have is just another GRAND ILLUSION.
Aren’t you hoping the uninformed will swallow your
twisted negative propaganda so that they will support your
ILLUSION?
Randi:
No ..
Victor:
So you keep on saying ....
Victor:
What do you say to those people who state that you've been
very successful in convincing people the OPPOSITE to what
you believe ... and that's why to-day we have some eighty
to ninety per cent of people- the highest in history here
-accepting some aspect of the paranormal and the afterlife?
Randi:
I don't accept that ...
Part 5: THE POLICE
v J. Randi
Victor:
Have you been rubbishing the police lately?
Randi:
No, no, no … I have a lot of respect for the police
… I think they do marvelous work …
Victor:
Have you ever attacked the COMPETENCE of the police?
Randi:
Never! As I said, the police do marvelous work for the people
… we owe a great deal to the police … I never
attacked the competence of the police …
Victor:
Have you ever indirectly called the police ‘frauds’?
Randi:
No, no … I have not … I never do …
Victor:
Do you think the police are smart and tough …
Randi:
Absolutely! They have to be very smart and very tough to
deal with tough criminals and troublemakers …
Victor:
Are you familiar with the police officers there in Vero
Beach in Florida?
Randi:
(cautiously) I don’t know them personally …
but I am sure they are police with integrity …
Victor:
One of the cases involved senior police officers Captain
Larry Tippins and Sergeant Phil Redstone of the River County
Sherriff’s Office. Some years ago they investigated
the Ling case – where Mrs Ling and her 17 year old
daughter were brutally executed – are you familiar
with the case?
Randi:
No … I’m not ..
Victor:
These two senior police officers I mentioned worked on the
case - it went completely cold and they had no more leads.
So they called on a former police officer Phil Jordan, who
is now a gifted psychic helping the police. Now both these
officers stated on television to millions of people in the
United States and around the world, that the psychic was
very helpful. Captain Larry Tippins said, “The psychic
helped us to put these criminals away and certainly opened
my eyes to use psychics in the future” Sergeant Redstone
stated in his own words, "I will use psychics again".
Now, why is it that highly respectable, highly intelligent
and highly experienced, tough senior police officers accept
the existence of the paranormal and you don’t. Would
you be calling these senior officers FRAUDS?
Randi:
No they’re not frauds, but they’re wrong about
the psychic … besides that’s hearsay …
Victor:
Your Honor, the police statements are expressed in direct
speech - what the police officers themselves actually said.
It’s NOT coming through a third party. What the police
said about the psychic in direct speech is critical. The
issue here is not whether what the police stated was true
but the fact that the senior police officers actually said
what they did. (Victor looking at Randi). Of course, it
will be up to the members of the jury whether to believe
the senior police officers ... or to believe the defendant….
Judge:
Yes, yes, go on …
Victor
(to Randi): You mean to say that highly intelligent, highly
experienced, highly qualified police officers with many
years experience were fooled by a PSYCHIC – IS THAT
WHAT YOU’RE SAYING?
Randi:
No no, no …
Victor
(going towards Randi): Is it not also possible that YOU
don’t understand what a psychic is and what a psychic
does?
Randi:
I do …
Victor:
Or is it above your head that the police deal with psychics
because they help them get PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to convict
criminals.
Randi:
(Does not answer … then quietly) … a one off
that could have been mistaken as psychic …
Victor:
A ONE-OFF you suggest? (addressing His Honor … item
G – court attendant gives copies to the members of
the jury) … Here is a list of highly experienced tough
senior police officers – their cases taken from the
documentary television series PSYCHIC DETECTIVES and PSYCHIC
INVESTIGATORS. These police officers stated on television
to millions of people in the United States and around the
world that they obtained critical PHYSICAL EVIDENCE which
CLOSED the cases as a result of information given to them
by gifted psychics and mediums. I will quote the police
officers word for word.
(Victor
looks at the members of the jury) I refer to case number
1- the Nicole Arochas murder. After working with gifted
psychic Frank St John, senior police officer Captain William
Gawron of SAYREVILLE Police Department confirmed about this
psychic, “I was skeptical at first … I still
don’t know how they do what they do … but I
certainly would work with a psychic again in the future.”
Detective Novak of Sayreville Police said, “The (psychic)
does indeed have special psychic powers … I certainly
would like to have that power!”
Case
number 2: Kurt Hameline, Assistant District Attorney of
Oneida County stated words to the effect that using psychics
was critical in catching the murderers. Phil Jordan gave
the police critical information – some fifteen most
relevant facts – which led to the arrest and conviction
of three murderers now serving 100 years in prison each.
Sheriff Bill Hasenaurer of Oneida Country Sheriff’s
Office, stated “I accept the psychics’ role
in helping with murder cases – and I will call them
again – because they get results. I am now a great
BELIEVER IN PSYCHICS HELPING THE POLICE”. Sgt. Lynton
Clark of Oneida Sheriff’s Office said, "Yes,
I completely agree about the use of psychics in solving
murders.
Case
Number 3- the Sylvester Tonet case: Gifted psychic Nancy
Myer gave information to detective Will Greenaway from Montroeville
that made it possible for the Monroeville Police to find
the missing man. Detective Will Greeway said - to quote
him, "I was skeptical at first, but as the psychic
began to forward information about the case, I knew I was
dealing with a genuine psychic because all information was
deadly accurate …”
Case
Number 4- The Shilie Turner murder: Gifted psychic Valerie
Morrison was contacted by Detective Frank Martin of Philadelphia
Police Dept on a recommendation from the FBI. The case had
gone completely cold. The victim was Shilie Turner, 21 year
old Olympic hopeful female athlete who failed to return
home one night. Valerie Morrison assisted the police to
obtain physical evidence which led to the closing of the
case. Detective Martin said, “All the information
given to us by the psychic was ONE HUNDRED PER CENT CORRECT.”
Case
number 5: Detective Lou Masterbone from Morris County Sheriff’s
office stated in the Keyes Children abduction case: “If
it wasn’t for Nancy Weber (psychic), in this case
we would not have gotten the (kidnapped) children back …
her insight, her help … we could not have done it
without her.”
Case
number 6: . Detective Joseph Uribe of Montana Dept. of Justice
stated that the assistance given by gifted psychic Noreen
Renier in the missing person Walter Sullivan case was “accurate
in every detail.”
Case
number 7. The Rose Swartwood case - Detective David Olszowy,
Sergeant Charles Patterson, Lt. Mike Mucci from Cheming
County Sheriff’s department New York were involved
in the investigation of a murder. Lieutenant Mike Mucci
called Phil Jordan, psychic who was a former police officer.
Lt Mucci stated that the psychic was “one hundred
per cent correct with the information given”. Other
police officers also stated that the psychic was brilliant:
“I don’t care how it (psychic phenomena) works.
I don’t know how it works and I don’t care how
it works – the main thing is that the bad guy gets
caught.”
Case
number 8: The Kidnap Murder of Jamie Case involving Midwest
City Police Department, Oklahoma City Police Department
and County Sheriff’s Office. Detective Paul Zeckman
said, (supported by Detective Dan Evans, Police Officer
Patrick Quigley, and Assistant District Attorney Diedre
Esherman, and Detective Pam Garrick – all in agreement),
“I don’t know how these psychics do it. But
they perform a service we cannot ignore. One day psychic
witnesses testimony will be admitted as evidence. In the
past DNA and polygraphs were not admitted in evidence, so
it will be only a matter of time before psychic evidence
will be admitted because of the critical information they
give us to solve murders.”
Case
number 9. The Murder of ‘Owen E’. Lompoc Police
Department – near Santa Barbara – engaged the
services of brilliant psychic Dixie Yeterian who has a record
of assisting other police departments and the FBI. Detective
Mel Ramos (Ret.) of Lompoc Police Department stated, “The
psychic solved the mystery really… the psychic accurately
described what happened to the murdered father.” He
added … “but for her psychic skills the murder
would not have been solved because the matter came to an
absolute dead end.”
Case
number 10. Police sergeant Richard Keaton of Marin County
Police Department homicide division with 30 years of experience
stated in a 1998 program (prepared by Discovery Communications
for the Science of the Impossible series) that he often
calls in psychic Annette Martin. He stated: “She actually
obtains the critical information - physical evidence. I
don’t ask too many questions because I have seen too
many successes … When Annette comes to the (Police)
Department we normally sit in a quiet office. I give her
a brief outline of what the case is about. Annette concentrates
… goes into meditation … and starts sharing
verbally with us the things she’s seeing or perceiving
… we take her to the crime scene … and would
ask her what she can see … about evidence …
and she’s able to replay that like a video tape like
a movie …”
Case
number 11. Mt Pleasant Police Department (Iowa) Police Chief
August Hagers said of psychic Phil Jordan after the case
was completed, “Psychics have their place …
what Phil had seen was accurate … they (psychics)
have something we don’t have … they have a sixth
sense. I would do it again and call psychic Phil Jordan.”
This had to do with the brutal killing of Clementine Beavers
and her sixteen year old daughter. The case had gone completely
cold until the psychic was called in to assist.
Case
number 12- The disappearance of Norman Lewis. This case
involved WILLISTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, FLORIDA. Senior Detective
Slauter and Sergeant Baxter called in psychic Noreen Renier
when the case went cold. Senior detective Slauter said,
"Noreen Reiner - the psychic gave us everything we
needed to find Mr Lewis ... and I am convinced that if we
didn't use a psychic in this case, Mr Lewis would still
be at the bottom of that quarry ...".
Case
number 13- The murder of Norma Hofer. Captain Gary Colla,
from the Santa Clara Sheriff’s Department, said about
gifted psychic Donielle Gordon, “ … she gave
me accurate information the first time, why can’t
it be true for the second time?” and the Captain continues,
“… it turns out that Donielle was an investigator
too, like a fingerprint expert or an expert analyzing clothing
fiber …was one piece of the puzzle that helped bring
it all together. Well done job.” And Deputy Michelle
Sandri who worked on the case with Captain Gary Colla, said,
“ (what Donielle the psychic did) … makes you
believe in psychics. Because of the psychic we resolved
it real quick instead of taking months or years …”
Case
number 14- Assistant District Attorney of Jefferson Parish
Office, W.J. Le Blanc could not resolve a crime concerning
the brutal murder of Janet Myers. He called gifted psychic
Rosemary Kerr. After the crime was solved and the case was
closed, Assistant District Attorney said, “Rosemary’s
contribution to this case was significant …I relied
on Rosemary for details …There are clearly individuals
in this world who have an ability that are beyond our normal
five senses. Rosemary (the psychic) is such a person.”
Case
numbere 15. Virginia’s Staunton Police in 1979–
Deputy Ronnie Whisman said about psychic Noreen Renier,
“We (the police) were impressed by the psychic on
the important information she was able to give us …
everything she said about the case came true.” Special
Agent Darrel Stilwell said, “ .. obviously she has
(psychic) power … gives you something extra to work
with.” Deputy Ronnie Whisman asked the psychic “when
will the rapist be caught?” The psychic replied, “Before
Christmas.”The crimanal was caught on the 22nd December
1979.
Judge:
Mr Zammit, how far do you want to go with this?
Victor:
Your Honor, these are just fifteen cases selected from fifty
cases. They represent how informed police officers perceive
gifted psychics who helped them to solve crime. All the
police are saying the same thing in all these fifty reports:
that they find psychics help them collect the physical evidence
to convict the accused or to find missing persons. I don’t
want to waste the court’s time and I don’t think
at this stage it is necessary to add more of the same type
of evidence to make the point … besides members of
the jury have the list ...
His Honor:
Yes, yes, go on ....
Victor
to Randi: Now, are you saying that these hardened, tough
senior police officers who repeatedly stated that psychics
were critical in helping them find the physical evidence
they needed to solve crimes are being fraudulent to millions
of viewers around the world?
Randi:
(Very quiet, no response …..)
Victor:
Yes … that says it all!
Part
6: The 'Carlos Hoax'.
Victor:
You're on record for showing that you are some kind of an
expert at organizing HOAXES. Right?
Randi:
Yes ... I do things to show ...
Victor:
YOU'VE ANSWERED THE QUESTION! YES YOU SAID!
Randi: ... Alright .... alright ...
Victor:
And with all your expertise at at organizing HOAXES does
not the record show that you were not able to catch just
ONE gifted medium as fraud?
Randi:
They're all frauds ...
Victor:
Projecting again?... Let me quickly preface the next question:
the record shows that - you virtually said you gave careful
coaching to this Jose Alvarez in this 'CARLOS' HOAX. Sometime
in 1987 you sent this fraud Jose Alvarez to Australia for
him to pose as a guru supposedly channelling a thousand
year old spirt and to deceive, to lie, to be DISHONEST,
to cheat, to get into a public nuisance, RIGHT?
Randi: That’s right … but I don’t call
it cheating, ... I call it education ...
Victor: But you admit that it was a HOAX?
Randi: ... yes, yes it was a hoax ...
Victor:
Are you trying to PLATE SIN WITH GOLD?
In other words, are you trying to say that a HOAX - which
means deception and dishonesty ... ought to be regarded
as a positive thing and that people should make dishonesty
and cheating socially acceptable?... yes or no ...
Randi:
Yes ... I mean NO ... no ... but the hoax was successful.
Victor: The HOAX – the MISREPRESENTATION, THE DISHONESTY,
the CHEATING, the FRAUD on to the people - ALL WERE SUCCESSFUL
you say?
Randi: Yes it was …. It was the media which promoted
the affair …
Victor: Did you not claim that national television Channel
9 '60 minutes' television station contacted you even before
Alvarez left the United States?
Randi:
Yes, I did ...
Victor:
So, you CLAIM, you and Channel 9 '60 Minutes' concocted
this Carlos hoax. Do you know that 60 Minutes Channel 9
completely DENIES that?
Randi: I communicated with them and they responded ...
Victor:
But according to the public record YOU contacted the television
station first ... right?
Randi:
Yes, you could say that ...
Victor: Does not the record show that this fraudulent Alvarez
trained in dishonesty by you was EXPOSED by Channel 9's
own 60 MINUTES television show journalist George Negus?
Randi: He was not exposed …
Victor: Oh no? Then why, according to published media reports,
one of your stooges, during the television interview, threw
a glass of water onto Channel 9 journalist George Negus’
face when George Negus EXPOSED your stooge as a FRAUD?
Randi: (No answer …)
Victor:
The humiliating exposing of your stooge was widedly publicised
... don't yo know that?
Randi:
No, the hoax was successful
Victor: Didn't you know that local experts briefed tough
journalist George Negus that Jose Alvarez was a FAKE, a
cheat and a liar - that he was saying the wrong things,
waving his hands up and down in a blatant unnatural, artificial
and incompetent and meaningless way - that this Alvarez
very shortly was seen as a joke trying to fool decent, honest
people?
Randi: No, I don't accept that ..
Victor: What would you say to the response given by Channel
9 that Channel 9 LEGALLY did NOT and COULD NOT CO-OPERATE
with you, they received information about the event and
they just REPORTED the event as they’d report any
bizarre event?
Randi: It must have been under a different network manager
…..
Victor:
But you said just now that Channel 9 co-organized the Carlos
Affair HOAX with you to fool the public … don’t
you know that if a television or any media company participates
in deliberate public fraudulent conduct to mislead and to
deceive, it could pay heavy statutory monitory penalties
– over ONE MILLION DOLLARS ... and it could lose its
television license to broadcast nationally
.... and YOU try to tell and impute to the court and the
public that Channel 9's SIXTY MINUTES program organized
the Carlos HOAX on your behalf or in conjuction with you
to take HUGE risks .... on some unemployed foreign tourist
called Alvarez residing in Bronx in the United States on
a very short visit to Sydney .... to INTENTIONALLY and deliberately
promote FRAUD and DISHONESTY ... and to participate in misleading
and DECEPTIVE CONCUCT TO CHEAT THE AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC?
Randi:
(silent) … Victor (looks at the judge) Yes, yes …
Judge: (to Randi) Answer the question …
Randi: Can't answer that ... Nobody would be able to prove
that anyone was deceived …
Victor: Don’t you know that the relevant Federal statutory
law – in relation to misleading and fraudulent conduct
– shows that the complainant does NOT have to prove
fraud, merely to show that the conduct COULD be misleading,
it COULD be fraudulent – which in this case would
be VERY easy to do?
Randi: I don’t know these things ...
Victor: I’m sure the jury heard your answer to that
one … Didn’t you know that Australians are some
ten times more skeptical than Americans and they always
use the 'presumption of fraud' when some ALLEGED overseas
guru visits Australia to fleece them of their hard earned
money?
Randi: I didn't know people in Australia were that skeptical
as you say they are …
Victor: Why don’t you want to accept that whilst Alvarez
might have fooled a few people INITIALLY using deception
and fraud, he was EXPOSED as the GREATEST FRAUD who ever
visited Australia?
Randi: I still say that the Carlos Affair was successful
…
Victor: Do you mean you were successful in the dishonesty,
fraudulent and misleading conduct and cheating you organized
through your stooge Alvarez?
Randi: It wasn’t dishonesty …
Victor: YOU CONCEDED YOU WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HOAX –
and is not a HOAX about misleading and fooling decent people,
about dishonesty, fraud, lying, cheating … is that
your contribution in this world as a human being?
Randi: (keeps quiet)… It was honest ….
Victor: Yeah … doing ‘honest deception’
again …
Part
7:
‘CROSS-EXAMINATION
OF THE CLOSED MINDED
SKEPTIC’
- WHY PROFESSIONAL PSYCHICS AND MEDIUMS DO NOT TAKE THE
ALLEGED MILLION DOLLAR CHALLENGE SERIOUSLY:
Victor:
Back to your alleged challenge. Have you put on oath an
undertaking to abide by the conditions of your alleged challenge?
Randi:
No … it’s not necessary …
Victor:
Do you not agree – given your background - that IF
YOUR CHALLENGE IS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, you need to be
prepared to be legally bound by its conditions?
Randi:
No, I don’t agree with that …
Victor:
Don’t you think it will show the applicant you really
have an HONEST challenge?
Randi:
No ….
Victor:
Have you not heard that psychics and mediums are totally
ignoring your challenge because you can renege – you
can go back on the deal even after the applicant succeeds
in passing the first test?
Randi:
They’re not ignoring my challenge …
Victor:
Is it not a fact that if you put the conditions of your
challenge on oath and you renege you could go to jail for
years for perjury – and that’s why your challenge
is not taken seriously?
Randi:
My challenge is taken seriously …
Victor:
Is that so? In the last forty years, how many internationally
known highly professional and gifted psychics and mediums,
some of whom have been tested by scientists, applied to
meet your challenge?
Randi
..(Does not answer) ….
Victor:
HOW MANY I asked … ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Randi:
(still quiet)
Victor:
(Looks at judge) ..
Judge:
Yes, yes, (looks at Randi) answer the question …
Randi:
(Very quietly …) No one …
Victor:
Could you repeat that more loudly, that came across as a
whisper …
Randi:
All right … NO ONE … but I had a number …
Victor:
GIFTED MEDIUMS I said, not just any clown calling himself
or herself a psychic or a medium …
Randi:
No one …
Victor:
Is it not true that the record shows that NOT ONE professional
psychic, NOT ONE medium in some 40 years applied …
because they perceive YOUR challenge as the GREATEST HOAX,
the GREATEST, MOST DISGUSTING JOKE in paranormal history?
Randi:
No, my challenge is genuine …
Victor:
Yes … so you say …Why are you failing the public
at large by trying to use deception in your conditions leaving
critical essentials such as what constitutes a successful
result?
Randi:
I am not using deception …
Victor:
So, WHO determines whether or not the applicant passed the
first test?
Randi:
… If a psychic performs successfully, then anyone
would see that the applicant has been successful …
Victor:
WHO has the final decision as to whether or not the psychic
passed the first test?
Randi:
(Quietly) … I suppose I would be the one
…
Victor:
Ultimately, YOU would be the one you said? If that’s
the case, are you not ACTING AS JUDGE AND JURY in your OWN
CAUSE which fundamentally violates EQUITY and which makes
your challenge clearly another hoax? – answer the
question yes or no.
Randi:
I don’t have to answer that …
Victor:
(Looks at the judge)…
Judge:
Yes, yes, (to Randi) you must answer the question
… Randi: I can’t answer that question ..
Victor:
(looks at the judge)
Judge:
Answer the question or I hold you in contempt …
Randi:
Yes, I suppose I would be judging in my own cause but I
will be fair …
Victor:
Fair as you were in the similar hoaxes we’ve already
covered – the Carlos Affair … the Alpha Project
….?
Randi:
In my mind I think I’m fair …
Victor:
If you conceded that you are acting as a judge and jury
in your own cause in the psychic tests, does not that show
it is IMPOSSIBLE for an applicant to beat ANY test?
Randi:
It’s possible to pass the test …
Victor:
Are you not just like the Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan being
asked whether African Americans are just as intelligent
as white people?
Randi:
I don’t like to be compared to the Wizard of the Ku
Klux Klan ..
Victor:
Is not the analogy EXACTLY the same – someone making
a decision in his own cause?
Randi:
I don’t see it that way …
Victor:
Of course not! If you want to come across as being honest,
decent and someone with integrity, will you permit highly
informed INDEPENDENT experts to adjudicate as truly independent
judges to decide if the challenge test has been successful?
Randi:
NO NO NO … NEVER …
Victor:
So, you have this ridiculous challenge all scientists, genuine
mediums and psychics totally ignore … with ridiculous
conditions all favoring you – and you are acting as
judge and jury and when no appeal is allowed - and you expect
gifted psychics and mediums not to treat your challenge
as the MOST FRAUDULENT CHALLENGE IN PARANORMAL HISTORY?
Randi:
They’ll have to try first …
Victor:
When your CONDUCT, your HISTORY, your PRACTICE, your MANIPULATIONS,
your expressly stated statements and imputations ALL say
that you do NOT accept the paranormal and the afterlife
evidence – how can there be honest and impartial assessment
of any psychic results?
Randi:
(No answer …) They can sue me if they like
…
Victor:
Until very recently you had a condition which made the applicant
formally surrender all legal rights to you. But if you decided
to renege by either going bankrupt or by saying you don’t
have the money that would have left you off the hook. What
motivated you to change your mind about that – the
conditions of the rival million dollar challenge by that
Sydney lawyer?
Randi:
NO ….
Victor:
And another thing, when highly credible scientists and lawyers
can show the existence of the afterlife, your funding of
one million dollars would have come through grants and collection
from the gullible skeptical members of the public and other
places who swallowed your propaganda hook, line and sinker
… why should you GAMBLE with monies obtained for a
Foundation – in some States it would be illegal to
gamble with ‘charity’ cash … do you know
if that is illegal in your State?
Randi:
No, it’s not illegal …
Victor:
You said you may not be conducting the initial test with
the applicant .. who will be doing the test for you, someone
reliable?
Randi:
Yes, someone most reliable – a psychologist I’ve
known for years and he’s highly qualified to conduct
experiments … I trust him completely ..
Victor:
One of your colleagues I presume?
Randi:
Yes, he happens to be a colleague and I can trust him …
Victor:
Can you name him now?
Randi:
NO, I am not prepared to mention his name here …
Victor:
Will you be at every psychic test?
Randi:
Yes, of course …
Victor:
Do you know what the EXPERIMENTER EFFECT is?
Randi:
NO, and I don’t want to know …
Victor:
Let me very briefly preface my next question: as someone
who is ALLEGEDLY offering one million dollars, it is important
to know what the ‘experimenter effect’ is –
(Victor looking at his notes on his desk )… the accepted
definition of ‘experimenter effect’ refers to
a situation where if a closed-minded SKEPTIC experimenter
conducts an experiment, he or she will inevitably obtain
NEGATIVE results. Now is that why you do NOT want to talk
about the ‘experimenter effect’?
Randi:
I don’t believe in the ‘experimenter effect’
...
Victor:
Ever heard of Professor Marilyn Schlitz?
Randi:
I don’t remember her …
Victor:
Of course not! Professor Schlitz’ experiments on the
‘experimenter effect’ confirmed that neutral
experimenters get positive results but a closed minded skeptic
doing EXACTLY THE SAME experiment will always obtain negative
results … do you not now see why you don’t want
to know anything about the ‘experimenter effect’
and why your challenge is being treated as a great joke?
Randi:
It’s not being treated as a joke …
Victor:
You understand now why more professional psychics, mediums
and afterlife investigators treat your challenge as a Mickey
Mouse challenge- something to laugh at, something to ignore,
something ridiculous which is perceived as pure ILLUSION?
Randi:
I repeat, there’s no such thing as the experiment
effect I say …
Victor:
Tell us, would it not be correct to say that your contribution
really has been a most negative one, spreading darkness
everywhere, trying to negatively influence the gullible
and those other skeptics who do not accept there is an afterlife
… to elicit fear and hopelessness and despair? –
On second thought – don’t even try to answer
that – I withdraw that question … we’ll
get more nonsense from you ….
Part
8. FAILED TO DUPLICATE THE PARANORMAL EXPERIMENTS
Victor: Do you remember American celebrity Don Lane interviewing
you on his Australian television show in Sydney?
Randi: I don’t remember…
Victor:
You don’t? Let me briefly remind you. That was when
Don Lane was asking you about your skepticism and the aggressive
attacks you made on medium Doris Stokes. At one time you
were seen by the television viewers sitting on a chair near
Don Lane trying to secretly bend a key on the edge of the
chair you were sitting on. Why did you try to CHEAT to use
trickery, to use dishonesty … when Don Lane and millions
of viewers caught you cheating?
Randi: That never happened the way you described it …
Victor: Never happened eh? With your permission your Honor
I have a video to submit into evidence marked item 4 to
be shown right now. It shows clearly the defendant was trying
to bend the key, using dishonesty, deception and cheating
….
Randi: OK, OK, OK …You don’t have to do that
… I was trying to show how those who claim they can
bend keys with their mind really do it.
Victor: Answer the question, you were cheating, right?
Randi: I suppose one could….
Victor: ANSWER THE QUESTION – YOU WERE CHEATING, YES
OR NO?
Randi: Yes ….
Victor: YES WHAT?
Randi: Yes, I was cheating … that’s how these
so called psychics do …
Victor: Have you yourself ever caught just one psychic in
the last forty years cheating the way you were trying to
cheat when millions witnessed it on television?
Randi: No … but it happens ..
Victor: Why would you say that when not one psychic ever
has been caught cheating the way you were?
Randi: (Remains quiet …)
Victor: So, you’ve been investigating the paranormal
for over forty years?
Randi: Yes, something like that …
Victor: And you never ever found any evidence for the paranormal
or the afterlife?
Randi: No, never …
Victor: And you are on record for stating that all so-called
mediumship can be accounted for by cold reading …
right?
Randi: Absolutely!!!
Victor: Are you aware that materializations are the greatest
proof for the afterlife …
Randi: I don’t believe that …
Victor: Have you ever empirically investigated materializations?
Randi: There’s nothing to investigate … they’re
all frauds …
Victor: So, your answer is NO?
Randi: No …
Victor: How do you know they’re all fraud if you have
never investigated materializations?
Randi: Simply because the afterlife does not exist …
Victor: You do not think that materialization mediumship
is really contacting those from the afterlife …
Randi: Absolutely NOT!
Victor: What’s your evidence for that?
Randi: It’s all cold reading … that’s
my evidence …
Victor: What do you mean by cold reading …
Randi: This is when the psychic asks questions and gets
the information through trick questions and body language
… Cold readers commonly employ high probability guesses
about the subject …
Victor: So this means that the coldreader has to be able
to see the sitter...
Randi: Yes, absolutely ….
Victor: But how can this happen when a materialization medium
is tied and gagged BEHIND A CURTAIN in the dark? He can’t
see anyone.
Randi: (Hesitating …) They collude with others …
Victor: When independent scientists investigated materialization
it was IMPOSSIBLE for the medium to collude… those
present were all scientists, security people experts in
fraud detection and selected observers … are you calling
these scientists, security people and other professionals
all frauds?
Randi: Can’t you see … if there is no afterlife
they have to be indulging in fraud …
Victor: Fraud? Are you into what psychology calls ‘PROJECTION’
– projecting onto others what you do when YOU YOURSELF
do testing yourself …?
Randi: (Does not answer)
Victor: And yes, you were convinced that everything is cold
reading … did you not try to do a demonstration of
cold reading for Fulcrum TV - in London – a television
pilot called THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE?
Randi: I don’t remember …
Victor: This was another one of YOUR HOAXES, remember?
Randi: NO, I don’t remember the details ...
Victor: My what a SELECTIVE memory you have! Of course you
don’t remember, you tried to CHEAT, you tried to collude
with those materialist producers, you were trying to be
DISHONEST…But you were so bad trying to pretend to
be a gifted professional medium that the audience very loudly
booed you off the stage…
Randi: I was not booed off …
Victor: That’s what the record shows … And did
not those materialist producers who conspired with you state
they were very embarrassed and they were cutting all the
ridiculous cold-reading idiocy exhibited by you from the
show?
Randi: I don’t remember …
Victor: Of course not … Given your conduct and your
crusades against the paranormal – and given the fact
that there are now more people in the world who accept the
paranormal and the afterlife than at any other time in history,
don’t you think in fact that by your conniving, and
your hoaxes you are successfully converting more people
to the extreme opposite beliefs you hold?
Randi: I deny that …
Victor: OF COURSE YOU DO!!
Victor: Let’s move on … you are on record for
publicly stating that you can duplicate anything a psychic
can do… Do you still hold that belief?
Randi: Yes ….
Victor: Ever heard of psychic medium Michelle Whitedove?
Randi: NO …
Victor: She won the best American psychic a couple of years
ago and why is it that people such as yourself run interstate
in great panic when she comes to town?
Randi: I don’t do that …
Victor: Does not your failure to deal with Michelle Whitedove
show that you just cannot duplicate the brilliant demonstration
she performed for millions of viewers around the world?
Randi: (Hesitating) … What did she do?
Victor: Why is it that everybody else seems to know what
she did except you --- does she scare you that much?
Randi: No she doesn’t …
Victor: Since you boasted you could DUPLICATE anything a
psychic can do, all you have to do is to do what Michelle
Whitedove did, find a buried stuntman in a 12 acre area
of near desert land within 29 minutes – CAN YOU DO
THAT, YES OR NO?
Randi: No …. I think whoever televised her was fraudulent
…
Victor: Always projecting what you have in your own mind
again Randi?
Randi: Naaaaah ……
Victor: She had during the psychic test one most fundamental,
most precious thing YOU REFUSE to have in your HOAX challenge
… TRULY INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATORS… again, will
you do what the psychic Michelle Whitedove did and allow,
with joint approval, truly independent adjudicators for
your challenge?
Randi: Absolutely NOT ….
Victor: You conceded YOU CANNOT DO WHAT THIS BRILLIANT PSYCHIC
CAN DO even with independent experts conducting the experiment
… you only try to ridicule and bully the very weak
psychics. You do not even try to take on the $500,000 challenge
to duplicate her psychic performance. What’s the matter
with you, don’t you have the moral courage and the
fortitude to take on the challenge to show the world you’re
right?
Randi: Does not answer …
Victor: Or is it that you are really scared out of your
wits you make a fool of yourself as you did in your hoax
at Fulcrum?
Randi: No I’m not scared ….
Victor: So you keep on saying ..
Part
9
REFUSES TO TAKE ON PSYCHICS/MEDIUMS
Victor:
You are on record for stating that you are a professionally
trained ILLUSIONIST. Right?
Randi: … (Looking very cautious) … Yes, I’m
professionally trained illusionist.
Victor
(looking at his notes): We are informed that the definition
of an illusion is the state or fact of being intellectually
deceived or misled …. Do you want to dispute that?
Randi:
No, of course not …
Victor:
So, you were trained to make people perceive and believe
that something is there BUT IN FACT IT IS NOT?
Randi:
Yes, as an illusionist …
Victor:
What do you say to the claim by those gifted psychics and
mediums and others who did not take up your challenge that
your challenge is just another GRAND ILLUSION – saying
it has all the ingredients: a fantastic plan that causes
a mistaken, erroneous belief, a promise of something that
does not exist … put up by a professional conjurer
using verbal sleight of hand to fool the American –
and other people…
Randi:
When it comes to my challenge … I’m not an illusionist
…
Victor:
Do you think the HOAXES you organized damaged the acceptance
of the paranormal in the United States?
Randi:
I think I’ve done that … someone said I set
paranormal research back some 25 years …
Victor:
Others said the opposite … Ever heard of the University
of Chicago’s sociologist Andrew Greeley’s surveys
– University planned and executed surveys?
Randi:
No I haven’t ….
Victor:
Do you know that over the last thirty years the actual percentage
of people accepting the afterlife and the paranormal actually
INCREASED?
Randi:
That’s doubtful …
Victor:
Many people claim that you convinced people the opposite
to what you wanted them to believe … What percentage
do you think in America accept the afterlife?
Randi:
Not too high I’m sure …
Victor:
Greeley’s early survey showed SIXTY FIVE per cent
accept the afterlife … and another THIRTY per cent
are uncertain, but do NOT deny the afterlife. THIS MEANS
THAT 95% DO NOT DENY THE EXISTENCE OF THE AFTERLIFE …
Doesn’t that leave only a very low 5% of uninformed,
confused, closed-minded skeptics you monkey around for?
Randi:
That can’t be right!!
Victor:
Things you learn when you bother to investigate. Or don’t
you know how many closed-minded people there are in the
United States?
Randi:
We’re not closed minded we're critical thinkers...
Victor:
So you keep on deluding yourself. Did you know that an UPDATED
survey of sociologist Andrew Greeley reports that now 81%
of the people in America accept the afterlife?
Randi:
That can’t be right …
Victor:
What’s your response to what the record shows, that
there are MORE people in the United States – and around
the world - to-day who accept the afterlife and the paranormal
than at any other times in the history of the United States?
Randi:
I don’t think so ..
Victor:
You mean you hope that’s not the case … do you
know that to-day there are more television shows, more radio
shows and more psychic journals generally about the paranormal
and the afterlife than at any other time in the history
of the United States and the world?
Randi:
I don’t agree with that …
Victor:
Of course not! Once more, did you organize the Alpha Project
HOAX – yes or no?
Randi:
Yes …
Victor:
Did you organize the Carlos Affair HOAX?
Randi:
Yes …
Victor:
Were you involved in the Fulcrum TV Challenge attempted
HOAX which showed you were indulging in fraud?
Randi:
….. Yes, yes … SO WHAT?
Victor:
I put it to you it follows that your silly million dollar
challenge is ANOTHER HOAX–in fact the GREATEST HOAX
IN PARANORMAL HISTORY …. Tell us, you are on record
for saying that you could do ANYTHING a medium or a psychic
can do … do you still believe that?
Randi:
Yes …
Victor:
Are you an expert in detecting fraud?
Randi
(confidently): Yes, I am …
Victor:
Would you like HALF A MILLION DOLLARS?
Randi:
What do I have to do?
Victor:
Something very simple – and something you will get
by way of a contractual commitment: all you have to do DETECT
that FRAUD is taking place with the materialization medium
David Thompson. You say what he’s doing has to be
fraudulent and that you can duplicate what any medium does.
That Sydney lawyer is more than happy to hand over to you
the huge cash sum of $500,000 if you can detect fraud or
duplicate David Thompson’s materialization mediumship.
So, why don’t you take up the challenge?
Randi:
What’s the catch?
Victor:
If - and when - you fail, you hand over the HALF A MILLION
dollars to the medium. That stuns you?
Randi:
Materializations are all fraud …
Victor:
You were asked to test materialization before in the 1980’s
– why did you STUBBORNLY REFUSE to attend something
that guarantees the existence of the afterlife?
Randi:
I don’t remember that .. too long ago.
Victor:
Don’t you want to remember when Professor Jan Vandersande
asked you to test his materialization medium when the Professor
wanted to apply for your alleged one million dollars?
Randi:
I don’t remember …
Victor:
Why did you lose the greatest opportunity ever in your life
to be communicating with afterlife entities to see for yourself
that materialization is absolutely legitimate …
Randi:
I don’t believe in that …
Victor:
Does it not make more sense that if you attended the materialization
session, Professor Jan Vandersande would have blown sky
high your greatest challenge illusion?
Randi:
No …
Victor:
Why is it that you rudely slam the door shut in the face
of those quality applicants who apply to take on your hoax
challenge … is it because you are convinced they have
the skills to beat your challenge ..?
Randi:
No …
Victor:
You mean to tell us you are just all talk, all propaganda,
just a noisy empty vessel, trying to con honest people …
someone who uses verbal sleight of hand and verbally assaults
gifted mediums and psychics as the record shows - without
an ounce of skill, ability or competence to PROVE that the
paranormal is not valid as you claim?
Randi:
It’s all fraud …
Victor:
So, you are refusing to DO something to prove what you are
talking about, to prove you have some credibility –
or don’t you have any credibility when it comes to
testing psychics and mediums?
Randi:
I have credibility …
Victor:
So you keep on deluding yourself … But whilst highly
credible and highly intelligent scientists and lawyers have
presented the irrefutable evidence for the paranormal and
the afterlife, in a timorous way, you ran away from their
challenges, you ran away from the evidence, from the testing
– and you have NEVER in your life proved that psychic
phenomena or mediumship are not or cannot be valid. Would
not a reasonable and independent informed person see you
as someone WITHOUT credibility, WITHOUT any intellectual
substance – see you just as an illusionist who has
been misleading people everywhere these last forty years?
Part
10:
MAGICIANS WHO ACCEPTED THE PARANORMAL
Victor:
Have you come across magicians who have accepted the paranormal?
Randi:
I don’t know of any magician who accepts the paranormal
..
Victor:
Every heard of the former skeptic James Webster, Master
magician from England? He investigated the famous five year
study called the SCOLE EXPERIMENT– and conceded that
no magician can duplicate the SCOLE’S mediums’
stunning results. He accepted the evidence for the afterlife
… AFTER he investigated – why would you not
agree with him?
Randi:
Don’t know him …
Victor:
Of course not! Every heard of George Hansen, a professional
who is a full-time researcher in the paranormal?
Randi:
Name rings a bell, but can’t place him …
Victor:
Every heard of his study which stated that there have been
many magicians – naming a number of them - who accepted
the evidence for the paranormal and/or the afterlife?
Randi:
(not answering … then) … He might have written
an article but I don’t agree with him …
Victor: Every heard of Polly Birdsell from California?
Randi:
I don’t remember her ..
Victor:
She wrote a university Master’s thesis about magicians
and the paranormal and the afterlife. She claims that EIGHTY
TWO per cent of magicians surveyed accepted there is evidence
for the paranormal or the afterlife – do you remember
that?
Randi:
No, I don’t remember her …
Victor:
Did you ever hear of that highly intelligent, highly gifted
no-nonsense world renowned Howard Thurston, one of the greatest
and most famous magicians of all times?
Randi:
Yes, of course I have …
Victor:
Did you know that in the twenties and thirties he offered
TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for anyone to prove the paranormal
or psychic phenomena?
Randi:
I don’t quite remember that one …
Victor:
Did you know that gifted medium Arthur Ford counter offered
by offering TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS to Howard Thurston if he
could find fraud in Arthur Ford’s mediumship?
Randi:
I don’t remember …
Victor:
Did you know about the incident happened at Carnegie Hall
when Howard Thurston and Arthur Ford debated the issue –
and Howard Thurston lost very badly and promised he would
investigate the paranormal properly?
Randi:
I don’t remember …
Victor:
Did you know that the world famous magician and former skeptic
Howard Thurston after investigating the paranormal accepted
the evidence for the paranormal and became a researcher
for the American Society for Psychical Research?
Randi:
I don’t remember that …
Victor:
Of course not!
Randi:
But Houdini never admitted the paranormal when he was alive
…
Victor:
Have you come across information that Houdini’s wife
Beatrice confirmed that Houdini transmitted the code he
had arranged with her from the other side?
Randi:
No, I never heard that and I don’t want to hear it,
there is no other side …
Victor:
Do you know the secret code that was agreed to between?
Randi:
I don’t remember ...
Victor:
Do you remember if the secret code was just one word ‘forgive’?
Randi:
I don’t remember …
Victor:
That was in a letter from Mrs Beatrice Houdini, Bess, as
Harry Houdini used to call her, to medium Arthur Ford, congratulating
him and confirming that the secret word ‘forgive’
was the right one. Do you know anything about that?
Randi:
Nobody transmitted anything from the afterlife because there
is no afterlife …
Victor:
During these transmissions there were highly credible independent
witnesses from the press – Mr. H. R. Zander, Representative
of the United Press; Mrs. Minnie Chester, life-long friend
of Mrs. Houdini and Mr. John W. Stafford, Associate Editor
of Scientific American – do you say these are not
credible witnesses when the secret code was transmitted
through the medium Arthur Ford?
Randi:
It couldn’t have happened … there is no afterlife
…
Victor:
My question is, were the witnesses mentioned credible or
not?
Randi:
No … not credible … there is no afterlife …
I just remembered ... Mrs Houdini changed her mind later
on ..
Victor: Are you referring to those aggressive skeptics who
applied a great deal of pressure and forced her to recant?
Randi: She wasn't forced to do anything ...
Victor: Does not the record show that even after the alleged
recanting, she came back to the original confirmation that
the
the code was absolutely correct?
Randi:
No it doesn't ...
Victor:
Why don't you do proper research to get the right answer?
Forget it.... Let's move on ... What contribution did you
make in this world?
Randi:
I educate people how to be critical thinkers …
Victor:
Don’t you think many people fall off their chair laughing
when you say that?
Randi:
And why should they?
Victor:
AREN’T YOU ARE THE PERFECT EXAMPLE of NOT being a
critical thinker?
Randi:
And why not? Victor: Did you not come to conclusions BEFORE
you investigated - you say that the paranormal does not
exist, the afterlife does not exist and that you have not
rebutted the brilliant evidence for the paranormal and the
afterlife … you have not shown where, when, how, and
why the paranormal cannot be valid – so how can you
call yourself critical thinker …?
Randi:
I know my way of doing things is effective …
Victor:
The only time you were able to get the media to report on
what you’re doing was when you indulged in HOAXES,
in DECEPTION in DISHONESTY – these things you admit
yourself … and YOU call that critical thinking and
making a contribution to society?
Randi:
You’re twisting things around …
Victor:
What one thing did I twist around to your disadvantage …?
Randi:
……(quiet) …..
Victor:
Would it not be right to say that you yourself have been
the greatest HOAX yourself to the American public?
Randi:
I reject that …
Victor:
Recently you have been putting videos on the internet to
justify your HOAXES … you still to-day try to justify
the DECEPTION and the dishonesty you made over the years
– like that fraudulent Carlos HOAX?
Randi:
The hoaxes you talk about were successful …
Victor:
Are you not really deluding yourself – fooling yourself
they have any value?
Randi:
No, I don’t agree with that ..
Victor:
Of course not. Would you not say that anything planned by
you was for your own personal publicity, personal profit
at the expense of truth, integrity and equity?
Randi:
I wouldn’t say that …
Victor:
In the last 40 years you were always extremely rude to those
genuine people who tried to demonstrate there is validity
in the paranormal. You pushed yourself for attention, you
highlighted yourself, you organized hoaxes – which
are public MISREPRESENATIONS, DISHONESTY AND DECEPTION -
for your own publicity, your own ego and for your own aggrandizement
… And yet we see that more people to-day accept the
paranormal and the afterlife than ever before. So don’t
you agree that you’ve been a HUGE national flop- to
be forgotten in the dustbin of history?
Randi:
I’m not a flop ..
Victor:
But in some FIFTY years you were NOT able to show why the
paranormal is not valid, you did NOT rebut the evidence
for the paranormal or the afterlife – not even for
the alluring ONE MILLION DOLLARS … isn’t that
the record of a complete FLOP?
SUMMING
UP TO THE JURY
Victor:
Ladies and gentlemen, you have only one question to consider:
is the defendant’s million dollar challenge a hoax?
Evidence was submitted that some fifty scientists, including
Nobel Laureates, accepted that the paranormal is
real after investigating the paranormal scientifically.
You can see their names again on page 2 on your handouts.
They include Dr Julie Beischel, Professor John Bockris,
Professor J.W. Crawford, Dr Robert Crookal, Professor Arthur
Ellison, Dr Peter Fenwick, Professor Festa, Dr Edith Fiore,
Professor David Fontana and many, many other highly intelligent
scientists. They found that the paranormal has nothing to
do with personal beliefs, nothing to do with blind faith
and can be shown to exist with objective and repeatable
scientific evidence.
The defendant has tried for years to claim that he does
not have to disprove the paranormal. For many years he relied
on his unaccepted and inadmissible claim, “you can’t
prove the negative” – saying ‘no one can
prove there’s no green cheese on the other side of
the moon’.
But of course, no scientist ever claimed that there is green
cheese on the moon. On the other hand respected scientists
who can perceive the paranormal with true empirical equanimity
and who investigated the evidence all agreed said there
is irrefutable proof for the paranormal!
In professional debate, the onus is on those like the defendant
who do NOT accept the evidence, to show WHERE, WHEN, HOW
and WHY the paranormal evidence cannot be real. This, the
defendant, has FAILED to do! The professional rule in debate
is that anything not rebutted will remain valid.
For many years the defendant publicly stated in the media
he has this million challenge – a HOAX – a gimmick
and a trick to arouse the innate greed in the human condition.
He used propaganda, he organized a HOAX to raise the hopes
of many that they could make a quick million dollars.
There would have been many who were certain that they had
psychic gifts and it would only be a matter of proving it.
Of course, many were disappointed - not because they didn’t
have the gift, not because they were not gifted mediums,
not because they did not demonstrate their psychic gifts
in public, but because experience showed it was IMPOSSIBLE
to beat the challenge the way the defendant cleverly structured
it.
In practice the defendant has a HOAX --- to ENTICE and ALLURE,
to PROVOKE and to MISLEAD to TRAP and to SELF-PROMOTE.
He wrongly stated that it would be self-evident if a psychic
passed the preliminary test of his alleged challenge.
But there’s a big problem there. It was put to the
defendant that Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) tells us
that the defendant – given his record - does NOT have
the CAPACITY, the SKILLS and the COMPETENCE to identify
when positive paranormal results occur because the defendant’s
mind DELETES the critical information – the evidence
- which is fundamentally inconsistent with his deeply entrenched
skeptical beliefs.
For this reason in some fifty years no applicant was able
to pass the defendant’s initial challenge test because
he made himself the SOLE JUDGE AND JURY to determine if
the psychic demonstrated a successful psychic initial test.
He was
acting as a judge in his own cause!
It was put to the defendant that mediums and psychics had
objectively demonstrated their psychic and mediumship skills
when they were scientifically investigated by scientists
and independently adjudicated by independent referees -
in venues such as the Windbridge Institute. “I don’t
care” the defendant says.
We heard the defendant say very forcefully that he will
NEVER, under any circumstances, allow an INDEPENDENT professional,
non-aligned objective adjudicators to determine if the psychic/medium
passes the initial and final tests.
In this sense he is violating a very important EQUITY principle
– no one is to be a judge in his own cause!
It’s also obvious that he has HOAX becuase he does
not allow an INDEPENDENT adjudicator. But he pushes on with
his HOAX to continue to try to fool the innocent public!
It is important here to very briefly review, the Experimenter
Effect – that closed minded experimenters will ALWAYS
obtain negative results in their tests. A negative result
would be a foregone conclusion if the closed-minded-skeptical-defendant
administers the test himself.
So he set up this HOAX as a gimmick for publicity - knowing
that he will never have to pay a cent to anyone.
This was confirmed by the evidence that Professor Dennis
Rawlins ‘spilled the beans’ on the defendant
when the Professor went public with the statement that the
defendant told him he WILL ALWAYS have a way out of paying
anything in relation to the challenge!
Of course, later the defendant tried to justify that by
saying he has a way out not paying anything because there
is no paranormal!
Now we remember, that the defendant conceded he is professionally
trained as a magician. He said himself that he was a professionally
trained liar skilled in deceiving people. He persuades and
manipulates people that there IS something, but in fact
there’s NOTHING – just an ILLUSION. And he puts
his professional training in deception to the public by
way of a HOAX.
Having this kind of framework in his mind, he goes on a
crusade of organizing HOAXES to promote his activities and
to delude himself that there is no paranormal – and
to continue to deceive and mislead the public.
The defendant boasts about the Alpha Project HOAX –
claiming that he was able to set back paranormal research
some twenty five years. But the fact is that the two cheats
were caught when controlled testing commenced. He thought
it was a clever trick. But in practice, he admits it was
really a HOAX.
And whilst the defendant thinks there’s nothing wrong
in organizing a HOAX, there is nothing honest about a HOAX
… as it was stated very clearly, a HOAX is about DECEPTION,
DISHONESTY, CHEATING, NEGATIVELY MANIPULATION and MISREPRESENTATION.
Of course, the defendant also claims credit for the Carlos
HOAX. But tough Australian skeptical journalists were able
to expose his HOAX sending his stooge aping a guru back
to the Bronx.
The defendant also conceded that he tried to cheat on the
Don Lane Television Show …where the many viewers actually
witnessed the defendant trying to secretly bend a key on
the front cross timber bar of the chair to try to fool Don
Lane – and the viewers.
(Victor shaking his head slowly carefully looking at
the jury)
Cheating .. deception .. lying .. negative manipulation
…
As to the refusal to concede defeat he tries to say that
those senior police officers who accept psychics as having
real psychic gifts are wrong. He implies that these tough,
intelligent senior detectives from many States around the
United States are either stupid, naïve or are a bunch
of dummies.
In some fifteen years not one skeptic, not one materialist,
not one reductionist scientist or anybody else ever showed
that these decent senior and other police officers were
wrong in their validation of the psychics’ gift.
Of course, his other defence is that anything said by a
psychic or a medium in all cases is nothing but ‘cold-reading’
– where the psychic asks questions to elicit information
from the person the psychic is with. What’s the problem
with that?
Tough police officers do NOT answer questions. The police
tell psychics hardly anything really. The police do NOT
in most instances even show the photo of the person they
are investigating. Yet it is always the psychic who produces
the information, much of it leading to physical evidence
to help the police solve crimes. In one instance I mentioned,
this gifted psychic even informed the police WHERE to find
the missing body and WHO killed the victim – and the
police confirmed she was one hundred per cent accurate.
Where is the cold reading there?
You have heard how Professor Jan Vandersande, a physicist
who investigated the paranormal, tried to discuss materialization
with the defendant telling him that he could attend materializations
where there would be communication with those from another
dimension. What brilliant proof that would be. But again
the defendant ran miles away from the Professor. He refused
to discuss the matter any further – slamming the door
shut on the evidence that would have fundamentally convinced
him the paranormal is real!
The defendant does not want anyone to produce the ultimate
evidence because he gets most of his funding on the false
claim that he is exposing psychics. He claims that he is
supporting and teaching critical thinking.
But his
conduct shows the defendant himself is NOT A CRITICAL THINKER!
He ASSUMES there is no validity in the paranormal when he
says he did not investigate the paranormal. Is this not
hypocrisy pushed to its extreme?
Just
one more thing about materializations – the medium
sits behind a curtain, he does not see the sitters and does
NOT speak at all. How then can that ever be ‘cold
reading’?
The record shows, as was stated, that very few gifted psychics
ever applied to beat the challenge because they know that
it is a ridiculous challenge, it’s a joke, it’s
a trick. It’s deception because the way it is set
up with its conditions, NO ONE CAN EVER BEAT THE CHALLENGE
because it is in fact a HOAX.
The evidence is that there were a few really gifted psychics
and medium who did apply- people such as Chris Robinson
who demonstrated his gifts on television, or Prof. Vandersande’s
medium or homeopath John Benneth. But once it was known
to the defendant that they could possibly beat the challenge
he refused to have anything to do with them.
I submit that this defendant, for his own promotion and
profit – and to misinform and mislead - came up with
a HOAX challenge knowing that he would never pay a cent.
The gimmick sounded great where he knew he could manipulate
the media journalists, he could manipulate other skeptics
and keep promising falsely that the money is up for grabs.
And that is most UNFAIR, most CRUEL and most UNCONSCIONABLY
HEARTLESS!
The challenge conditions themselves work against the applicant
psychic. If the availability of the funding is not on oath,
even if by some miracle a psychic succeeds, the defendant
legally would not have to pay a cent if he decides to save
a million dollars and go bankrupt.
That means the challenge is also perceived it has no credibility
at all and in relation to the challenge, the defendant has
no credibility at all!
Just remember ... the defendant is a professional liar –
he virtually said so himself. He has a track record of hoaxes
… which means he’s into deception – and
illusions and negative manipulation.
Perhaps some people see that he’s been successful
in fooling the media, fooling the journalists and fooling
others who wanted to be fooled.… by a HOAX that there
is something for grabs – an alleged one million dollars
for virtually a few minutes psychic demonstration.
What a DREAM, what a FANTASY and WHAT A HOAX!
Members of the jury, there is only one question to answer,
is the defendant’s challenge a HOAX?
Thank you for listening so attentively.
(The
jury members came back after considering the verdict for
three minutes, unanimously agreeing the defendant’s
challenge is not just a HOAX but the GREATEST HOAX the defendant
ever organized).
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PROFESSOR RICHARD DAWKINS
COURTROOM
SCIENCE FLUSHES OUT THE PROFESOR!
World
renowned atheist Professor Richard Dawkins is on record
for stating there is no God and there is no afterlife.
Clearly,
Prof Dawkins belongs to that class
of closed-minded skeptics and materialists who do not have
the skills, competence and the ability to perceive evidence
for the paranormal with true empirical equanimity. Enjoy
this hypothetical cross-examination of someone who will,
one day inevitably accept the afterlife.
 Professor
Richard Dawkins has been procedurally sworn in to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Victor:
For the purpose of the record Professor, you have been described
as a British ethnologist, evolutionary biologist and author.
That sums it up basically?
Dawkins:
Yes, it does ...
Victor:
You are the author of some very well known books to do with
evolution and God ... is that right?
Dawkins:
Yes, that's right.
Victor:
You have been described in the media- in context of your
traveling around the world promoting your book on atheism-
as the greatest atheist anti-afterlife crusader in the world
to-day ... you agree with that?
Victor:
(hesitates) ... Yes ... I guess one could call me that ...
Victor:
For the purpose of the record, do you concede that you are
a particularly intelligent person?
Dawkins:
Yes, I suppose I am ...
Victor:
And do you accept that there are some other internationally
known scientists who are just as intelligent as you are?
Dawkins:
I agree there are scientists who are just as intelligent
as I am.
Victor:
Just for the record, are you formally qualified in anything
besides biology and genetics?
Dawkins:
What are you implying ...?
Victor:
You are not qualified in physics?
Dawkins:
No I'm not.
Victor:
Then you are not a physicist ..
Dawkins:
No, I'm not. I never made that claim ...
Victor:
And you never had any formal training at university level
in law?
Dawkins:
Of course not!
Victor:
Then for the record, you are not an attorney with decades
of litigation experience in the highest courts with extensive
knowledge of courts' decision regarding the admissibility
of evidence.
Dawkins:
No, no, I'm not an attorney ....
Victor:
Would it be correct to say that some scientists do not agree
with you?
Dawkins:
Yes, I suppose so.
Victor:
More than that Professor, there are some scientists who
violently disagree with you...?
Dawkins:
Possibly...
Victor:
Do you agree that there are some theories in science which
can be demonstrated with evidence and there are some that
cannot be proven?
Dawkins:
Yes, I agree with that ...
Victor:
Do you agree that scientists of equal intelligence and experience
can come to opposite conclusions about the same scientific
material?
Dawkins:
I'd say the scientists who specialize in one specific area
would have a distinct advantage over those scientists who
didn't...
Victor:
In other words, they ought not make conclusions about anything
unless they have first done the research ..
Dawkins:
Exactly!
Victor:
What would you say to a scientist who tells you that you
are wrong about conclusions in your own speciality when
there is evidence that scientist has not done any research
about the matter at all?
Dawkins:
I'd have some harsh words ...
Victor:
You said earlier you are intelligent - ... and you also
said that there are other scientists who are just as intelligent
as you are ... now, as a professor and author, do you accept
there are smarter people than you who are not professors,
who do not have a university or college degree and who did
not even have a formal education?
Dawkins:
... hesitating ... can you be more specific?
Victor:
Well what about Richard Branson who dropped out from school
at sixteen - now he is a BILLIONAIRE ... do you regard him
as smarter than you?
Dawkins: He's the exception to the rule ...
Victor:
What about Henry Ford... Steve Jobs, Bill Gates ... billionaires
who dropped out... Jay Von Andel the billionaire who founded
Amway? It is reported that there are lots of billionaires
who never got a degree... are you a billionaire?
Dawkins:
No, I'm not ...
Victor:
Then you do agree there are people in the world who are
smarter than you are ...
Dawkins:
Perhaps in that context they are smarter yes ...
His Honor
(looking at Victor): Where is this taking us?
Victor:
This a CREDIBILITY issue your Honor. This is also about
AUTHORITY- and will become clear in a little while ...
His Honor
(nods): .. Yes, yes ...
Victor:
Professor Dawkins, are you 'omniscient and infallible'?
Are you someone who is all knowing and doesn't make mistakes?
Dawkins:
... No I would not say I am omniscient ... I am not all
knowing and like everybody else I do make mistakes ...
Victor:
You say you are an atheist, but at least once you referred
yourself as an agnostic. Which is correct - atheist or agnostic?
Dawkins:
I suppose you can say I am an atheist ...
Victor:
And you do not accept the EVIDENCE for the afterlife?
Dawkins:
No, I don't ...
Victor:
Are you aware that there is substantive afterlife evidence
which can be validated when scientific method is applied
- that is, there is the procedural observation, hypothesis,
experimentation and conclusions - and that the conclusions
are consistently postive. You show you are not interested
to investigate this empirically elicited afterlife evidence
- why do you neglect to investigate this critcally important
afterlife evidence?
Dawkins:
I've been too busy ...
Victor:
Too busy to search for the truth?
Dawkins:
(looking uncomfortable): Not really ...
Victor:
You are on record for saying without having investigated
that there cannot be an afterlife because once we die the
brain is dead, destroyed or buried ... so you do not accept
mind-brain duality?
Dawkins:
If there is a mind, then it is the same as the brain and
both are destroyed when we die ... simple as that ...
Victor:
Would you revise that decision if I tell you that some of
the most brilliant scientists who ever lived on this planet
earth using only science, accepted the evidence that on
death the physical brain is destroyed, but the mind survives
physical death?
Dawkins:
No, I don't accept that ...
Victor:
These great scientists who have shown they had a huge intellect
studied the evidence for the afterlife and accepted the
afterlife ... why ...
Dawkins:
What scientists are you talking about?
Victor:
(to Dawkins): What scientists you ask? Professor, have you
read the the afterlife works by ANY of these empirical afterlife
investigators? (Victor reads from his notes)
Dr Peter
Bander, Dr Julie Beischel, Dr Robert Crookal, Professor
John Bockris, John Logie Baird, Professor Arthur Ellison,
Dr Peter Fenwick, Professor Festa, Dr Edith Fiore, Professor
David Fontana, Dr Amit Goswami, Professor Gustav Geley,
Professor Ivor Grattan-Guinesss, Professor Stanislav Grof,
Dr Arthur Guirdham, Dr Glen Hamilton, Professor Charles
Hapgood, Professor Sylvia Hart-Wright, Professor James Hyslop,
Professor William James, Dr Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Drs Jeff
and Jody Long, afterlife investigator Mark Macy, (engineer/physics)
George Meek, Dr Raymond Moody, Dr Melvin Morse, Dr Morris
Nertherton, Dr Karlis Osis, Dr Peter Ramster (Psychologist),
Edward C Randall (Lawyer), Dr.Konstantine Raudive, Drs J.B.
and Louisa Rhine, Nobel Laureate Professor Charles Richet,
Dr Kenneth Ring, Dr Aubrey Rose, Professor Archie Roy, Dr
Michael Sabom, Dr Hans Schaer, Professor Marilyn Schlitz,
Dr E Senkowski, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Judge Dean Shuart,
Dr Ian Stevenson, Dr Claude Swanson, Dr Emmanuel Swedenborg,
Professor Jessica Utts, Dr Pim Van Lommel, Professor J.W.
Crawford, Professor Wadhams, Prof. Alfred Wallace, Dr Helen
Wambach, Dr Carl Wickland, Dr Carla Wills-Brandon..
Professor,
have you read any of the afterlife works by these scientists
and empirical afterlife investigators?
Dawkins:
… No I have not ...
Victor:
Have you investigated ANY scientist's positive conclusions
about the afterlife?
Dawkins:
I've read a lot of scientists who criticized the Bible..
Victor:
That's NOT what I asked you. Answer the question: have you
investigated ANY of the scientists who reached positive
conclusions about the afterlife? If not why not?
Dawkins:
The answer is no because I know there is no afterlife.
Victor:
That is a personal belief, a personal opionion saying that
NOT as a scientist but as a layperson, CORRECT?
Dawkins:
Yes ... I guess so ...
Victor:
Earlier you said you'd have some harsh words for those who
come to conclusions before they investigate, would you like
to use some harsh words on yourself?
Dawkins:
.... (keeps quiet) ...
Victor:
As a professor, as an atheist, as an anti-afterlife crusader,
don't you have the intellect, the motivation and the duty
to publish your reasons for disagreeing with the evidence
for the afterlife other scientists accepted?
Dawkins:
I don't see it that way ....
Victor:
Aren't you curious?
Dawkins:
No ...
Victor:
You understand that empirical study of the afterlife has
absolutely nothing to do with religious beliefs ... do you
understand that distinction?
Dawkins:
I'm beginning to...
Victor:
So, you have not shown WHERE, WHEN, HOW and WHY the evidence
for the afterlife is not or cannot be valid- ... that right?
Dawkins:
No, I have not ...
Victor:
The other side of the coin is that all the empirically elicited
afterlife unrebutted evidence COULD ALL BE VALID?
Dawkins:
...(hesitates ...) I do not believe in the afterlife ...
Victor:
That is NOT what I asked you ... I did not ask you about
your beliefs ... I stated that since you failed to show
where when how and why the existing EVIDENCE for the afterlife
is not valid, it follows logically that in fact the EVIDENCE
FOR THE AFTERLIFE COULD BE VALID - do you understand that
now?
Dawkins:
I don't want to answer that question because there is no
afterlife ....
Victor:
Objection your honor, the Professor - and nobody else in
history ... has proven that this evidence for the afterlife
is not valid...
His Honor:
Yes yes, I allow that objection ... Mr Dawkins ... just
answer the question put to you by Mr Zammit ...
Victor:
Professor Dawkins, since you failed to show where when how
and why the existing evidence for the afterlife is not valid,
it procedurally follows that in fact the evidence CAN be
valid ... right?
Dawkins:
I find it hard to answer that question ...
His Honor:
Procedurally Mr Dawkins, you must answer that question ...
Dawkins:
(still hesitating)
Victor:
For the last time Professor, if you have NOT INVESTIGATED
THE AFTERLIFE, if you have NOT shown that existing evidence
for the afterlife is not valid ... then theoretically the
evidence for the afterlife COULD be valid because you have
NO AUTHORITY to say it is not. Right? - ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Dawkins:
yes, yes, theoretically the evidence for the afterlife could
be valid ...
Victor:
All right, I put it to you in another way. Before you did
say you do make mistakes and admitted you are NOT a know-all
...
Now,
is it POSSIBLE that you are mistaken about the afterlife
since you admit you have NOT investigated the evidence?
Dawkins:
I suppose I have to answer yes ... I can be mistaken but
I need evidence ...
Victor:
Why did you not investigate the evidence yourself on something
as hugely important as the afterlife? After all we are all
destined to go there?
Dawkins:
I don't believe in it...
Victor:
Don't you have the courage to investigate?
Dawkins:
Yes, I do have courage ....
Victor:
Or perhaps you are too much of an intellectual coward to
face the consequences of an afterlife ..
Dawkins:
No I'm not a coward ...
Victor:
But you have chosen not to investigate something which is
fundamentally inconsistent with your own deeply entrenched
cherished BELIEFS - why not?
Dawkins:
(Quiet)
Victor:
Did you get an attorney - someone who is an expert in the
admissibility of evidence - to do the investigating on your
behalf?
Dawkins:
No, I did not ...
Victor:
Remember answering a question about whether you would tell
a child about God when you were on ABC television with Cardinal
George Pell in Sydney? You were the one who said that you
would tell that child to seek the EVIDENCE to decide for
herself ... So why is it you do NOT do yourself what you
tell others to do? Is that not that a demonstration of hypocrisy
pushed to its extreme?
Dawkins:
.... (Quiet) .....
VICTOR'S
SUMMING UP TO THE JURY
”Members
of the jury … accordingly, I say that this Professor
Dawkins by his own admission, failed to investigate the
afterlife. He failed to show where, when, how and why the
scientific evidence for the afterlife cannot be right. He
conceded he knows absolutely
nothing about the afterlife. He conceded he is totally ignorant
about the afterlife. He conceded he has never ever read
anything about the afterlife. He conceded he did not do
what other scientists who investigated the afterlife have
done. He conceded he makes mistakes and could be wrong about
the afterlife. He conceded he made negative decisions about
the afterlife WITHOUT investigating it.
This
professor failed to realize that outside his area of specialization
in biology, he has NO authority at all to speak, to insult,
to denigrate those who accept the afterlife – especially,
those scientists who bothered to investigated the afterlife
BEFORE they came to any conclusions about the afterlife.
Yet this
professor goes crusading from country to country, from State
to State, from bookshop to bookshop telling everyone there
is no afterlife.
Using
his negative deeply entrenched negative prejudices, he is
misleading the public! He is misinforming the public! He
is using his position as a Professor, as an author, as an
an academic to persuade people to his cause. Dawkins is
leading them astray! He is doing a great deal of harm to
the public about the greatest event in the history of the
human being on earth - the crossing over. Especially when
OTHER brilliant scientists investigated and confirmed the
existence of the afterlife warning the world that the afterlife
has huge consequences.
Dawkins
has NO AUTHORITY to make any comments about the afterlife
- and he speaks about the afterlife without substance, without
understanding, without scholastic evidentiary background
about the afterlife.
Is this
Dawkins then cheating the public? Is he being maliciously
unfair, unreasonable, unjust? Does he not show he does not
have the competence, the skills and the ability to perceive
the afterlife evidence with true, scientific equanimity?
The HONEST
way for Dawkins, if he does not want to believe in the afterlife,
is to state that he is an agnostic until he investigates
the evidence.
These
days the afterlife is not a matter of BELIEF - and I said
nothing about BELIEF in the afterlife, I said nothing about
religion and I said nothing about the Church's view of the
afterlife. The afterlife is a matter of admissible repeatable
evidence. A lawyer has presented the evidence for the afterlife
and no Professor, no academic, no materialist, no closed
minded skeptic has been able to rebut the evidence. Now
does this not raise some curiosity in this Professor Dawkins
that the evidence just might be absolutely valid?
I know
in your minds you are also curious about one very important,
critical and vital thing, something that would have clarified
the problem for your consideration of the verdict: the question
is - why did this Professor Dawkins NOT investigate the
evidence for the afterlife - to try to show the world WHY
the evidence is not acceptable - especially when he stated
on oath he COULD BE WRONG about the afterlife?
Relevant
questions would be: Is it possible that by conceding that
there is an afterlife he is going to lose his 'star' status
- and become a nothing, a nobody - losing all the prestige
and lose all media attention he gets - and lose sales of
his books? Would he lose money - and be reduced from a rooster
to a feather duster?
In this
particular case, I can’t see you having any other
alternative but to find him liable for gross negligence
in not accepting the afterlife, for most unethical conduct
in misleading people and for spreading darkness around the
world - and for making himself look really professionally
ridiculous – something that history will never forget.
Yes,
I urge all of you on the basis of the clear and definitive
evidence presented to you to find him LIABLE for his negligence
- for not investigating the afterlife.”
(Any
lawyer who would like to defend Professor Richard Dawkins
is free to contact me to submit his defence of the Professor.
I’d be more than happy to publish any defence, rebutting
the issues I raised - vz@victorzammit.com )
Litigation
Lawyer Victor Zammit’s Cross-examination
of Professor Stephen Hawking -
( on the Claim by Prof Hawking that there is no afterlife):
It is
submitted that the following is what a ‘cross-examination’
of Professor Stephen Hawking would be like. The “answers”
given by Professor Hawking have been taken from his website
and from other media reports about things he said and imputed.
(Below: any words in capital refers to putting emphasis
on that word)
 (Courtroom
scene. Professor Hawking (pictured below) in the witness
box being sworn in.)
Judge:
(looking towards his attendant) Swear the witness in.
Court
assistant addressing expert witness Prof Hawking: “Do
you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth so help you God’
Pro Hawking:
I don’t believe in God!
Judge to court attendant: Proceed with an affirmation (an
oath designed for atheists).
Victor,
friendly, smiling: How are you Professor? You feel all right?
Professor:
Yes, I do. Why do you ask?
Victor:
I want to establish for the purpose of the record that whilst
there are problems with your body, you are in a good state
of mind to answer all questions. Right?
Professor:
Yes, I’m in an excellent state of mind.
Victor:
Good. Tell us Professor. Are you intelligent?
Professor:
Yes I suppose I am.
Victor:
Would you agree that some scientists who agree with your
theories say that you are extremely intelligent –
in fact some scientists even called you a genius?
Professor:
I’ll leave that to those scientists who call me that.
Victor:
But have you come across scientists who described you as
a genius, YES or NO?
Prof:
Yes.
Victor:
What kind of a scientist are you?
Prof:
I am a theoretical physicist.
Victor:
What do you mean by that?
Prof:
I study theoretical physics, especially cosmology.
Victor:
You are famous for your cosmic theories. So when you come
to conclusions about cosmology, you first … investigate?
Prof:
Yes, that’s absolutely right.
Victor:
Do you ever come to conclusions about some aspect of the
universe without first having studied it?
Prof:
No, of course not. That would be ridiculous. I cannot make
conclusions unless I first study the area. I’m a scientist.
Victor:
But being a theoretical physicist specializing in cosmology,
would you not agree that some of what you conclude about
the universe is theoretical, is speculative, since you cannot
duplicate your results in a laboratory?
Prof:
… (hesitating)….yes … I guess that’s
right.
Victor:
For example, you mention black holes and what they do. But
that is only speculative because you have never seen the
full operation of a black hole … you are speculating…
right?
Prof.:
I suppose so. But I can show you why I’m right …
Victor:
But you can NEVER guarantee that your conclusions on black
holes are absolute and irreversible, that they are one hundred
per cent correct, RIGHT?
Prof:
… (softly) I guess yes, that’s right …
Victor:
You said earlier you are qualified in theoretical physics.
Professor, are you qualified in law - do you have a law
degree?
Prof:
Of course not.
Victor:
So you do not have the professional expertise to know what
technically constitutes admissible evidence and the process
of litigation?
Prof:
As I said, I don’t have any knowledge of law or of
litigation procedure!
Victor:
this means that a litigation lawyer would have the professional
expertise about what is admissible in evidence as objective
and subjective evidence more than a theoretical physicist,
right?
Prof.:
I guess so … it’s quite obvious to me …
Victor:
Your answer is YES?
Prof.
Yes.
Victor:
Are you qualified in medicine?
Prof:
Of course not. (Looks at the judge and asks). Your
Honor, do I have to answer these questions?
Victor:
Your honor, the question of objective AUTHORITY is critical
in this matter.
Judge:
Yes, yes I understand … answer the question.
Prof:
No, I'm not qualified in medicine ...
Victor:
Professor, are you formally qualified in architecture, engineering,
biology, advanced chemistry, advanced philosophy?
Prof:
No, I’m not qualified in any of these except I know
something about chemistry.
Victor:
You agree then, that your only area of professional expertise
is in the narrow area of theoretical physics, in cosmological
science yes?
Prof:
… (hesitating) …
Victor:
ANSWER THE QUESTION PROFESSOR – YES or NO!
Prof:
Yes … my expertise is only in theoretical physics,
in cosmology.
Victor:
Would you be familiar with what is objective evidence and
subjective evidence?
Prof:
Yes, yes I would be.
Victor:
Would you agree that what is scientific is consistent with
using the same formula over time and space, keeping variables
constant and getting the same results?
Prof:
Yes, I agree with that.
Victor:
By contrast, would you agree that a PERSONAL belief –
such as blind faith, which cannot be independently supported
would in itself be subject to invalidation – to COMPLETE
invalidation, yes or no?
Prof:
Yes, yes … I agree with that.
Victor:
So, you agree that any statement you make as a layperson
could be absolutely wrong. Yes?
Prof:
… I guess so … yes.
Victor:
Do you make mistakes as a scientist, Professor?
Prof:
… I’ve made mistakes in the past …
Victor:
Do you make mistakes when you make statements not related
to your theoretical science?
Prof:
Everybody makes mistakes …
Victor:
Your answer is YES?
Prof:
Yes …
Victor:
So, you accept that you make mistakes as a scientist and
when you make statements as a non-scientist. Right?
Prof:
Right … Yes …
Victor:
From what you said, you concede that you can make statements
as a layperson or a scientist that could be absolutely incorrect,
they could be wrong?
Prof:
I suppose so …
Victor:
You were quoted in the media recently that you do not accept
the existence of the afterlife – is that correct?
Prof:
Yes, that’s correct.
Victor:
Would you accept that cosmological theoretical physics has
absolutely nothing to do with knowledge about the afterlife.
Prof:
…. Yes, I accept that …
Victor:
You agree that the two are completely independent and totally
separate from each other and are inevitably unrelated.
Prof:
Yes, that’s right.
Victor:
So, does being an expert in scientific cosmology give you
any authority whatsoever whether or not the afterlife exists?
Prof:
No … it does not …
Victor:
You are also on record for stating words to the effect those
who accept the afterlife are likely to be afraid of the
dark. You said that?
Prof:
… yes … I said that too. But ..
Victor:
DON’T SAY BUT … No qualification – and
no justification to the answer please; again, answer YES
or NO to my question. Did you say those who accept the afterlife
are likely to be afraid of the dark?
Prof:
Yes …
Victor:
I remind you, you are under oath. Listen carefully. Have
you ever investigated the evidence for the afterlife Professor.
Yes or no please.
Prof:
No.
Victor:
NO? Just a while ago you called someone who comes to conclusions
without first investigating, a fool and ridiculous. Are
you a fool ... and ridiculous?
Prof:
(No answer) ….
Victor:
No need to answer that – the jury accepts you’ve
answered that already! Have you ever asked your research
assistant or anybody else what literature is available about
the afterlife?
Prof:
No ... I have not ...
Victor:
Have you ever read the classic afterlife research A LAWYER
PRESENTS THE CASE FOR THE AFTERLIFE – presenting some
twenty areas of afterlife evidence?
Prof:
No, I have not.
Victor:
Do you know Professor, that the afterlife evidence in this
book by a litigation lawyer in eleven years has never been
rebutted by any materialist genius scientist – not
even for the allurement of one million dollars?
Prof:
…. No, I don’t know that.
Victor:
How would you like to earn a cool million dollars professor?
Prof:
What do I have to do?
Victor:
You only have to rebut the evidence for the existence of
the afterlife presented by that lawyer. Got the courage?
Pro.:
Maybe …
Victor:
What’s the matter professor? Are you an intellectual
coward or have you been professional negligent – or
both - when it comes to the afterlife?
Judge:
Professor, you do not have to answer that question.
Victor
: You don’t have to – I accept the jury also
accepts that the Professor answered that question already!
Prof.:
I’m not an intellectual coward …
Victor:
Do you think it is right for you to create havoc in this
world without being responsible for what you say and do?
Prof:
(does not answer) …
Victor:
Some intellectuals - and others would call that cowardice
pushed to its extreme ... agree with that Professor?
Prof:
(does not answer) ...
Victor:
…. We are waiting … alright, we’ll let
the jury answer that for us with their verdict … Have
you done any research about the afterlife?
Prof:
No.
Victor:
Why not? Too lazy?
Prof:
I’m not lazy …
Victor:
Why then did you NOT bother to review the most fundamental
and substantive scientific evidence for the afterlife before
you made a conclusion about something you know absolutely
nothing about?
Prof:
(no answer) …
Victor:
You shock all of us with your afterlife knowledge!
You stated earlier that professional litigation lawyers
are the professionals who know what is admissible objective
and subjective evidence. Right?
Prof:
… yes … right …
Victor:
Then why didn’t you investigate the works of the lawyer
who presented the evidence for the afterlife – someone
with professional expertise about admissible evidence for
the afterlife …
Prof:
(silent)
Victor:
Your Honor …
Judge:
yes, yes …. Professor answer the question.
Prof.:
(silent) …
Judge:
I will hold you in contempt unless you answer the question
put to you.
Prof:
….. I admit I did not do any research about the afterlife
…
Victor:
Just assume for one moment that the hundred or so scientists
who accepted the objective and repeatable evidence for the
afterlife are right, would you accept the evidence for the
existence of the afterlife?
Prof:
I would have to examine the evidence ….
Victor:
Just answer YES or NO to that question …
Prof:
I would have to answer yes I guess ….
Victor:
Have you come across a recent book by British scientist
Ron Pearson WHY PHYSICS PROVES GOD?
Prof.
No I have not.
Victor:
Have you read the brilliant physicist Sir Oliver Lodge’s
masterpiece why he accepts the afterlife?
Prof:
No … I have not.
Victor:
Have you ever read about the materialization experiments
of that great scientist Sir William Crookes which led him
to accept the evidence for the existence of the afterlife?
Prof:
No, I have not.
Victor:
Have you read the brilliant work of Professor Jan W Vandersande's
afterlife research?
Prof:
No I have not ...
Victor:
Have you ever read the most brilliant proof for the afterlife
we have in the world to-day - David Thompson's miracle materializations
- where the evidence is objective and repeatable?
Prof:
No, I have not ...
Victor:
YOU HAVEN'T? WHY NOT?
Prof.:
(does not answer ...)
Victor:
Never mind, the jury heard you answering that one ... Have
you ever read Arthur Findlay’s great works on his
empirical evidence for the afterlife?
Prof:
No, I have not.
Victor:
Have you read the most impressive scientific afterlife research
of Professor Ernst Senkowski?
Prof:
No, I have not.
Victor:
Then what clearly follows is that you do not have authority
about the afterlife, right?
Prof.:
Putting it that way … I suppose so …
Victor:
Just a little louder professor, so that the jury members
can hear you.
Prof:
I suppose so!
Victor:
Now, professor, I want you to answer my clear short and
sharp question: do you have any authority outside your narrow
area of theoretical physics – in relation to the afterlife,
yes or no?
Prof:
… No ….
Victor:
Does this mean you are totally ignorant - kind of an imbecile
about matters to do with the evidence for the afterlife?
Prof:
.... (hesitates, looks at the judge...)
Judge:
Professor, you do not have to answer the question.
Victor:
Again, he has already answered that question to the members
of the jury. Now Professor, have you read the great afterlife
works of that brilliant scientist Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?
Prof:
No, I have not …
Victor:
(addressing the judge) On this line of questioning your
honor, I would like to enter into evidence the list of some
of the scientists who investigated the afterlife and accepted
the afterlife.
(to the
Professor): Professor, have you read any of the afterlife
works by these scientists and empirical afterlife investigators?
Dr Peter Bander,
Dr Robert Crookal, Professor John Bockris, John Logie Baird,
Professor Arthur Ellison, Dr Peter Fenwick, Professor Festa,
Dr Edith Fiore, Professor David Fontana, Dr Amit Goswami,
Professor Gustav Geley, Professor Ivor Grattan-Guinesss,
Professor Stanislav Grof, Dr Arthur Guirdham, Dr Glen Hamilton,
Professor Charles Hapgood, Professor Sylvia Hart-Wright,
Professor James Hyslop, Professor William James, Dr Elizabeth
Kubler-Ross, Drs Jeff and Jody Long, afterlife investigator
Mark Macy, (engineer/physics) George Meek, Dr Raymond Moody,
Dr Melvin Morse, Dr Morris Nertherton, Dr Karlis Osis, Dr
Peter Ramster (Psychologist), Edward C Randall (Lawyer),
Dr.Konstantine Raudive, Drs J.B. and Louisa Rhine, Nobel
Laureate Professor Charles Richet, Dr Kenneth Ring, Dr Aubrey
Rose, Professor Archie Roy (left) Dr Michael Sabom, Dr Hans
Schaer, Professor Marilyn Schlitz, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake,
Judge Dean Shuart, Dr Ian Stevenson, Dr Claude Swanson,
Dr Emmanuel Swedenborg, Professor Jessica Utts, Dr Pim Van
Lommel, Professor J.W. Crawford, Professor Wadhams, Prof.
Alfred Wallace, Dr Helen Wambach, Dr Carl Wickland, Dr Carla
Wills-Brandon, Dr Julie Beischel – read any of these
substantive scientists’ afterlife work?
Prof:
… No I have not examined the afterlife evidence by
the scientists you mentioned.
Victor:
Tell us professor, do you think all these brilliant scientists
I mentioned - some of them with Nobel Laureates - are afraid
of the dark?
Prof:
... I guess not ...
Victor:
(giving the Professor a stern look)
Prof:
No - they are not afraid of the dark ...
Victor:
And WITHOUT investigating the works of these scientists,
WITHOUT investigating the evidence, WITHOUT having read
anything about the afterlife, you stated there is no afterlife,
right?
Prof:
…. I guess so …
Victor:
That’s not very intelligent is it Professor?
Prof:
No ... it’s not.
Victor:
So, when you said there is no afterlife, did you say that
as a scientist?
Prof.:
No, not as a scientist.
Victor:
Then as a layperson?
Prof:
… Yes as a layperson …
Victor:
As an afterlife UNINFORMED layperson?
Prof:
… (no answer)
Victor:
YOUR HONOR!!!
Judge:
Yes, Professor, you must answer the question ..
Prof
: Yes, as an uninformed layperson …
Victor:
Good. Nothing wrong with being honest occasionally.(“objection”
by Prof lawyer …) Yes, yes I withdraw that remark.
You do make a distinction between being intelligent in the
narrow area of your science and that you may not be so intelligent
and not informed and un-read about afterlife matters. Right?
Prof:
… I guess so …Yes, right ….
Victor:
Now Professor, you CONCEDED you have not read anything about
the afterlife. You conceded you never read any of the works
of the scientists I mentioned. You conceded you have never
shown where, when, how and why the afterlife evidence produced
by scientists and lawyers could be wrong. You conceded that
one should never make a conclusion unless one first investigates
– they are your own words … Could you tell the
court and the world then how on earth you state there is
no afterlife when you HAVE NEVER INVESTIGATED THE AFTERLIFE,
WHEN YOU HAVE NEVER READ ANY OF THE WORKS BY THE GREAT SCIENTISTS
I MENTIONED HERE EARLIER?
Prof:
…(. Hesitating .., does not answer)
Victor-
addressing the judge: Your Honor, could you direct the witness
to answer this very important question …
Judge:
Yes, answer the question please Professor ….
Prof:
… remains quiet …
Judge:
Answer the question or I will hold you for contempt of court!
Prof:
I’m lost for words …
Victor:
Alright, then you admit then you were absolutely WRONG in
saying there is no afterlife, YES or NO?
Prof:
… Yes, I guess I admit I was wrong in saying there
is no afterlife …
Victor:
You admit you have NO AUTHORITY AT ALL ABOUT THE AFTERLIFE?
Prof:
No … I have no authority about the afterlife ….
Victor:
You admit it was professional negligence pushed to its extreme
on your part when you wilfully neglected to investigate
the brilliant scientific afterlife works of the scientists
I mentioned before you made those uninformed remarks about
the afterlife?
Prof.
Yes, yes …I admit I was rather negligent in not investigating
the afterlife works of the scientists.
Victor:
As a matter of fundamental procedure, you concede that you
should not have come to any conclusions about the afterlife
before you investigated the afterlife …right?
Prof:
Yes, right, I was wrong when I made statements about something
I knew nothing about ….
Victor:
Would you apologize to that class of millions of people
you insulted by your colossal ignorance about the afterlife
….
Prof:
… no answer …
Victor:
WE ARE ALL WAITING PROFESSOR … ARE YOU GOING TO BE
DECENT, WITH INTEGRITY, WITH HONESTY AND WITH PRUDENCE -
AND APOLOGIZE TO ALL PEOPLE YOU TRIED TO INSULT?
Prof:
…..
This
is a part of the SUMMING UP to the
members of the jury by attorney Victor Zammit about the
Professor’s testimony ...
”Members
of the jury … accordingly, I say that the Professor
by his own admission, failed to investigate the afterlife.
He failed to show where, when, how and why the scientific
afterlife evidence cannot be right. He conceded he knows
absolutely nothing about the afterlife. He conceded he is
totally ignorant about the afterlife. He conceded he never
ever read anything about the afterlife.
This
professor failed to realize that outside his area of specialization
as a theoretical physicist, he has NO authority at all to
speak, to insult, to denigrate those who accept the afterlife
– especially, those scientists who bothered to investigated
the afterlife first BEFORE they came to any conclusions
about the afterlife.
This
professor wrongly assumed that he is omniscient - he's all
knowing and infallible. He thought he could deliberately
mislead, misinform and misdirect the public about his own
personal, non-scientific negative prejudices about the afterlife
by using his status as a scientist. That is in a way cheating,
trying to fool everyone.
And that
is most maliciously unfair, most unjust, most inequitable.
This
Professor wrongly expressed an opinion without informing
himself about the matter. His statement saying there is
no afterlife is not admissible as an objective fact because
it was a personal opinion not backed by science. He made
that uninformed statement NOT as a scientist but as a layperson.
He himself states that as a scientist one should investigate
first before making claims that will hurt people everywhere.
He conceded he did NOT do that. Because the matter was reported
in the global media, that becomes very serious on a global
level.
This
professor himself stated he was professionally negligent
in making anti-afterlife statements when he had no knowledge
whatsoever about the afterlife.
He never
referred to the existing afterlife evidence and he never
had the decency, the courtesy and the honesty to refer to
the scientific evidence of the other brilliant scientists
who proved that the afterlife, according to their experiments,
exists. That was huge omission by the Professor. And he
had the audacity, the effrontory, the gall to say that these
brilliant afterlife researchers - some of them worked at
genius level - are afraid of the dark!
Instead,
he used his status as a professor in theoretical physics
to promote his unproven atheism and his anti-afterlife negative
beliefs and prejudices. Clearly that was a willful, deliberate
and intentional colossal abuse of power in the hands of
someone who confessed he was totally ignorant of the afterlife
evidence.
This
Professor may be brilliant in his own narrow field of specialization
– about cosmic science. But to-day here before you
he is not here as a scientist. He is here as a layperson
about his uninformed statement which received wide media
attention that there is no afterlife. But the huge problem
is that many people would not be able to separate his science
from his negative beliefs.That metaphorically means he has
lead millions into confusion and darkness!
Really,
in this particular case, I can’t see you having any
other alternative but to find him liable for his gross negligence,
for his most unethical conduct, for misleading the people
and for spreading darkness around the world - and for making
himself look really professionally ridiculous – something
that history will never forget.
Yes,
I urge all of you on the basis of the clear and definitive
evidence presented to you to find him LIABLE.”
(Any
lawyer who would like to defend Professor Stephen Hawking
is free to contact me to submit his defence of the Professor.
I’d be more than happy to publish any defence, rebutting
the issues I raised.)
| 