Victor J Zammit Lawyer interviewed
by C. Andrea recently mid 2006.
Question: I understand Victor, judging by what
I read on the website you are highly controversial. There
are those who speak highly of you and others who attack
you. Do you care about those who attack you?
Victor: When I first started to debate
about the paranormal in public some twenty years ago, I
was on occasions attacked. I used to care and used to spend
time preparing counter offensives and to respond to the
attacks. But these days, I find that the attacks come from
the lower end – the uninformed, the amateurs who do
not understand the rules of professional rules of debate.
There is just one exception: one academic in the last 20
years who may be good in his field, but when he went out
of his specialty, he showed he is ignorant of professional
rebuttals. In retrospect, it must be very embarrassing for
him and his university. My delight would be when someone
rebuts – attacks my work methodically. But no one,
no biologist, no physicist, no psychologist, no lawyer has
so far done that. It appears skeptical debunkers do not
have the substance to properly rebut substantive empirical
work - or the truth is that my objective empirical evidence
is just irrebuttable. These debunkers indulge in very low
level of dirty attacks – but nothing formal, nothing
of value, nothing substantive. Those who agree with me positively
articulate why they support my afterlife research –
I thank them for it. Of course, the battle between the attackers
and the supporters inevitably highlight why my work is controversial.
Q. How did you become interested in the paranormal?
Some sixteen years ago I began to experience paranormal
activity – mainly telepathy. This was at a time when
I was involved socially with the humanists ( hard-line skeptics).
I went to experts for explanations – one of them was
Francisco Coll of the Inner Peace Movement (U.S.) for explanation
of what was happening and was told I had a ‘psychic
gift’. I wanted to keep away from all personal beliefs
– because beliefs are subjective and are subject to
complete invalidation. So I investigated the paranormal
and the afterlife evidence using only evidence I considered
to be objective - because I knew from my professional work
as a lawyer that no one can rebut objectivity and
repeatability. In the last eight years my evidence
on the website, no closed minded professor scientist –
or any other debunker has been able to rebut my afterlife
evidence – not even for the alluring $1million.
Q. What advantages, if any, do you have being a
lawyer in the studies of the afterlife?
Victor. My comparative advantage as a
lawyer is that I have expertise in what is admissible evidence.
My experience shows that not all scientists and not all
psychologists and empiricists really fully understand what
is admissible evidence. In addition to my formal qualifications
in law, I also am formally qualified in scientific method.
The combination of evidence with scientific method is a
huge advantage for me when dealing with the afterlife and
the paranormal. I’m now retired, but I still have
a low key legal aid/advice service, purely on voluntary
basis. I regard the understanding of admissibility of evidence
being extremely important in any empirical afterlife or
Q. So you believe in the afterlife?
Victor: I do not particularly believe
in the afterlife. I accept the evidence for the afterlife.
I do not have the luxury of beliefs because beliefs are
personal, are subjective, are not empirical, are not scientific.
And any personal belief, any subjective belief is itself
subject to complete invalidation. In other words, I accept
the twenty three areas of empirical evidence for the afterlife
I researched – see my book on the Net – www.victorzammit.com
Q. How certain, how sure are you that the afterlife
Victor. Absolutely certain! I am absolutely
sure, I am one hundred per cent certain that when we humans
physically die, we cross over to the afterlife but our duplicate
etheric body – the spirit body - continues to exist.
As I said, this is not based on a belief or wishful thinking
or religion or superstition. My acceptance of the afterlife
is primarily based on my own experiences and the empirical,
Q. What is this acceptance of the afterlife then
Victor: The most persuasive evidence is
my own experience of entities communicating with me through
telepathy. I am clairaudient – I can hear spirit voices
telepathically – clairaudient experiences I’ve
had for the last sixteen years. In addition, there are powerful
afterlife experiment and studies by world famous scientists
– see second chapter of my book about these scientists.
There are also others I know and trust who informed me that
they had similar afterlife experiences …
Q. What kind of personal afterlife experience did
Victor. Some sixteen years ago I studied
psychic phenomena in depth and was tutored by experts in
mediumship. I became clairaudient. My own father came through
and after spending some time authenticating who he was,
I was satisfied beyond any doubt that the contact was genuine.
I asked questions that only he and I knew about. But just
let me qualify this: I am intelligent, I am healthy in mind
and body – and we know that throughout history there
have been a number of people who were clairaudient. For
example, Joan of Arc was clairaudient.
Q. This means you hear voices in the head?
Victor. Absolutely, even if it’s
put rather bluntly but … accurately. There are empirical
studies in the Society for Psychical Research which shows
the empirical validity of telepathy. Of course, telepathy
means the transfer of thoughts from mind to another mind
on this planet earth and from the afterlife dimension to
earth. I suppose thoughts can be voices in some way.
Q. Have not there been cases where violent people
claim to have heard voices in the head?
Victor: That may be true because one has
to ascertain who is sending the voices. Voices that come
from the afterlife darker realm – which is a realm
where mischievous entities roam around do cause a lot of
trouble on earth. The voices and messages can come through
electronic voice phenomena, through instrumental trance-communication,
the ouija board or through mediumship. The example is similar
to you getting some obscene phone calls. But you may also
get phone calls from others who are not obscene or rude
or crude or offensive, but are sophisticated, more polite,
more refined, more knowledgeable.
Q. Why is it that many people do not accept there
is an afterlife?
Victor. That’s very easily explained.
These skeptics you mentioned have not done any research
on the paranormal. As a matter of fact closed minded skeptics
and debunkers do not read paranormal information which gives
them huge anxiety if they have to read it. So they don’t.
There are of course the professional hard core skeptics
with an irretrievably closed mind who are on a crusade against
those who present the evidence for the afterlife and the
paranormal. For the open-minded person, there is more than
enough evidence to convince them that the afterlife and
the paranormal exist.
Q. What about those highly qualified, high profiled
scientists and psychologists in the skeptics’ organization
who keep on harping that there is no afterlife, no psi?
V. What I said earlier goes for them as
well. The fact is that if they could prove they are right,
they would apply to beat my one million dollars challenge
I have on the Net. But they haven’t. And they won’t.
Most interesting is that while there are hundreds of quality
books written about the reality and validity of the afterlife
- these books written by some of the most intelligent scientists
who ever walked on this planet earth - there is NOT one
book written by any of these materialist giants of science
who wrote a book giving reasons why the afterlife does not
or cannot exist.
Q. How do you view religion then?
V. I do not interfere in people’s religious beliefs.
What they believe in is their business. My focus is on the
empirical – that is, using scientific method to measure
some psychic phenomena. But if some religious person tells
me that I am wrong, I ask him what objective evidence he
or she is citing to show that I am wrong. Incidentally,
in the last twenty years or so, no theologian or religious
person has ever asked me that. All agreed that religion
is subjective and science is objective.
Q. How do you find the truth then?
V. As an empiricist and a lawyer with technical knowledge
of what technically constitutes admissible evidence I use
scientific method to get to the truth. If something is repeated
over time and space and yields the same results - keeping
variables constant - then I can state I found the truth.
To put it simplistically, 7+5=12 – that can never
be wrong. It is repeatable. But if you say to me that a
divorced Catholic is committing some heinous sin by remarrying
and will go to hell for eternity – that is something
which can never empirically be proved. In religious writings
there is nothing which is subject to empirical testing.
We get all the time, “you must have faith”.
But intelligent people from all credible universities around
the world will immediately tell you that faith is no authority
for objective truth. The only faith I would like to have
is when whatever I have faith in can be backed up empirically.
That I know I am dealing with the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth - and I can never be wrong, never!
Q. What do you say to the reports that there is
a lot of inconsistent information coming from the otherside
V. That’s not difficult to explain. This is like
getting general information from a 10 year old and someone
with a university degree. In the afterlife there are different
realms from the lowest vibrating realm to the highest. The
lowest realm, the lower end of the Astral level is dark
with very low vibrations – some religionists people
call ‘hell.’ Then the realm of the light is
usually the third level where most decent folk end up after
their life on earth.
Q. Where did you get this information about the
afterlife and why is that not a belief?
V. First, as I said earlier, anything which is empirically
repeated and gets the same results, I know I am dealing
with something substantive. Now the information about the
afterlife comes from mediumship. This mediumship has been
subject to empirical studies by empiricists – for
example, Prof Gary Schwartz and others. Besides, I also
had experiences to confirm what Prof Gary Schwartz empirically
tested. That is not a belief, that is empirical evidence
about the afterlife. The afterlife transmissions are most
critical because we get to know what exists in the afterlife
directly, by highly credible eye-witnesses, not by someone
who lived on earth some 2,000 years ago we do not know his
background, who he is or where he comes from.
Q. Do you accept that people on earth will eventually
meet their loved ones who passed on?
V. Where there is a heart to heart link, it is guaranteed
that there will be a reunion when the one on earth eventually
crosses over to the afterlife dimension. Highly credible
information from the afterlife repeatedly stated that. Love
we are informed is the most powerful force in the universe
– and physical death can never sever the heart to
heart link, never. However, there are exceptions.
Q. What exceptions?
V. First, let me state a scientific truism: for every action
there is an opposite and equal reaction. So it also happens
in spiritual physics. There is a consequence to everything
we do on earth. The soul gets higher vibrations through
interaction with other people, especially when we are unselfish,
fair, reasonable, just and equitable. But, if a person is
consistently cruel, selfish and even brutal, the soul’s
vibrations are automatically reduced. This kind of a person
is likely to have a fairly rough time on crossing over because
a person with low vibrations is automatically pulled down
to the realm of the same low vibrations to accommodate the
same vibrations. There is no St Peter, no Pearly Gates,
no one there to judge you. You judge yourself by the level
of accumulated vibrations you gained throughout your life
on physical earth.
Q. But are not there psychics who do not agree
V. Again, not all psychics are spiritually advanced. Besides,
there is a most important difference between someone who
is psychic and someone who is spiritually advanced. Psychics
may demonstrate their psychic skills but that does not mean
they are in fact spiritual. Those psychics who are not spiritually
advanced could be dangerous. But someone who is psychic
and also highly spiritual, then you have pure gold. So that
the qualitative, spiritually advanced psychics usually agree
with what is afterlife valid knowledge.
Q. But aren’t there many so called psychics
who deceive the public?
V. Frauds you get everywhere because of the human condition.
But let me qualify that: there are people who are not psychic
and are not who they claim they are - and try to fleece
the public of their hard earned income. That is unfair.
That is unjust. That is criminal. Then you get the second
class of people who are a little bit psychically gifted.
But unless they are accurate they should not take any money
from the public. The pure gold, as I mentioned earlier,
is where you have spiritually advanced and psychically gifted
mediums – they are not easy to access, sometimes impossible
Q. Do you yourself have any psychic insights when
talking to people?
V. Interesting you should ask that because sometimes I
do get psychic insights.
Q. What about those big time scientists who specifically
wrote against the paranormal and the afterlife?
V. The ones I came across over the years - Professor Richard
Dawkins, Professor Carl Sagan and those other negative psychologists
I have on my net I rebutted – those giants of science
thinking because they are scientists they have ‘authority’
about anything on earth. They may be good materialist scientists
but NOT ONE OF THEM ever rebutted the objective evidence
for the afterlife – not one! They have NO OBJECTIVE
AUTHORITY at all when they deal with psi. The rule is that
they can’t have a valid argument without objective
authority. I have my rebuttals on these scientists who have
shown they are really ignorant about anything paranormal
– go to my homepage www.victorzammit.com. I was so
amazed reading Prof Carl Sagan’s attacks on the paranormal
where he confused everyone about mediumship: he confused
trance-mediumship with mental mediumship and direct-voice
mediumship. I reiterate: these materialist scientists, and
negative psychologists have not done their homework, do
not understand what is the real paranormal, do not discriminate
between the quacks and the psi geniuses, did not rebut the
existing objective evidence for the afterlife – they
just regurgitate their own pre-conceived negatively entrenched
bias. They have no authority at all. You can access my full
rebuttals of these giants of science on my website.
What’s your final message for the listeners?
Victor: I put it very simply: in the overall
scheme of things time on earth is very short. Inevitably
we – rich or poor, black and white - all have to cross
over. Understand what you must do to obtain higher vibrations
– higher spirituality. The more you get to know about
the afterlife the easier the transition will be from physical
planet earth to the afterlife dimension: that’s guaranteed!
The afterlife has huge consequences – and whereas
the good, average decent folk should make it to the realm
of the light, there are many who end down in the dark realms.
You do not have to be perfect, because we are all subject
to the ‘human condition’ – and we know
that the ‘human condition’ is not perfect. But
keep away from cruelty and selfishness, be optimistic, do
the best you can to help those who genuinely need help –
and you will be alright!
Andrea: Thank you Victor for you time.
Return to Articles