ZAMMIT REBUTS THE JREF SKEPTICS
put me on to an anti-Victor Zammit website – run by
the JREF closed minded skeptics. They’re trying to
fool the reader by writing a lot of nonsense.
discussing my $1million challenge. The gist of long pages
long is that ‘no one can prove the negative’
and according to these skeptics I could not have a legitimate
is critical for these uninformed skeptics to seek the services
of a litigation lawyer to explain to them that in court
and in debate once the evidence has been submited the role
of the defendant (and in the case the skeptic) is to try
to rebut what has been submitted in evidence.
challenge is highly technical because the cash reward is
very high: inevitably, I have to strictly adhere to the
professional rules of debate.
as the lawyer presenting the evidence for the afterlife
state that there are more than 23 areas of substantive evidence
for the afterlife – especially chapters below 2 to
AFTERLIFE EVIDENCE: Go to hhtp://www.victorzammit.com
- go to right column, top.
1. Opening statement
2. Respected scientists who investigated
3. My sensational materialization experiences
4. Voices on Tape (EVP)
5. Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC)
6. Near Death Experiences (NDEs)
7. Out of Body Experiences
8. Scole Experiment proves the afterlife
9. Einstein’s E=mc2 and materialization
10. Materialization Mediumship
11. Helen Duncan
12. Psychic laboratory experiments
13. Scientific observation of mediums
14. The most investigated medium ever
15. Direct voice mediums
16. The Cross Correspondences
17. Proxy sittings refute the allegation of mind reading
18. Remote Viewing
19. Apparitions and after death contacts
20. Deathbed visions
21. The Ouija Board
25. Quantum Physics and the Afterlife
26. Lawyers who were convinced by the evidence
27. Answering the closed-minded skeptics
28. Closing statement: summing up the objective evidence
29. What happens when we die?
Now, in a courtroom situation the onus shifts onto the skeptic
defendant to specifically explain why, where, when and how
the evidence cannot be admitted.
In a courtroom or in professional debate, the defendant
cannot state, “there is no paranormal, therefore there
is no afterlife.” Neither can a skeptic submit, “you
can’t prove the negative” and then sit down.
The judge would tell the defendant skeptic “The plaintiff
has submitted evidence which he states and showed that it
is repeatable and objective. For example, in chapter three
the plaintiff submitted that he and six other professionals
– all witnesses here, (many with professional law
enforcement experience) produce objective afterlife evidence,
repeatedly every week – and have been doing this for
over fifteen months. The plaintiff even offered anyone in
the world the sum of half a million dollars to duplicate
what he is doing in the Circle he is in. No one took on
the challenge. Now, all I want you to do is to tell the
jury specifically, why the evidence submitted, chapter by
chapter, is not evidence or not objective or not repeatable.”
A judge, then will add something like :" To be objectively
procedural and fair to the plaintiff, the onus is on the
defendant to try to rebut by way of cross-examination ALL
the evidence the plaintiff submitted – some twenty
three areas of afterlife evidence. He is NOT asking you
to believe in the Tooth Fairy or red dragons on the moon.
He has presented hard core substantive evidence to be rebutted.
Now, go ahead, try to rebut all this voluminous, empirical
and substantive afterlife evidence.”
For the purpose of the record, no reductionist genius scientist
or some senior materialist lawyer, no closed minded skeptic,
no materialist of any kind - just no one on earth in the
last eight years has been able to technically rebut the
voluminous 23 areas of submitted evidence.
So, why do these closed minded skeptics in the JREF show
that they are uninformed?
1. They refuse to accept the objective procedure of professional
debate where the defendant skeptic has to rebut the submitted
These skeptics show they do not understand the rules of
They keep repeating inadmissible objections like "how
can I rebut the tooth fairy? and other such-like nonsense.
They include the misinformation that Victor Zammit personally
hand-picks the committee, whereas the fact is that the procedure
is for the applicant to jointly select the committee to
assess what the applicant proposes.
These uninformed skeptics go into the litany “you
can’t prove the negative.” Who is trying to
prove the negative when the plaintiff presented 23 areas
of afterlife evidence –
They show colossal ignorance in rebutting submitted evidence.
They state “there is no evidence” giving validation
to Neurolinguistic Programming claim that the hard core
skeptic’s mind deletes any information which is fundamentally
inconsistent with deeply entrenched negative prejudices.
In professional debate, any substantiated evidence not rebutted
will stay valid – hence, the afterlife evidence is
valid and will remain valid.