A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife


<< Return

Sensing Murder

A Lawyer Rebuts Skeptical 'Scientist'

by Victor Zammit

So, are there any scientists who have vocalized opposition to the above mentioned episode of Sensing Murder documentary?

The only one I could find lives in New Zealand – I call him F Fisi who says he once had connections with Auckland University. He’s been noisily provocative, has been disseminating erroneous information, is most negatively vocal and shows he has not done any psychic investigations at all. He shows he has not studied the works of those scientists who unqualifiedly accepted the paranormal after they used their scientific expertise investigating the paranormal and the afterlife evidence.

Some Brilliant Scientists who Accepted the Paranormal:

Some of these scientists include Sir William Crookes, the most decorated scientist of his time, physicist Sir Oliver Lodge, a Fellow of the prestigious Royal Society, Sir William Barrett, Dr J J Thompson the discoverer of the electron, Alfred Russell Wallace. More recently we have other physicists who have explained the existence of the paranormal, for example, physicist Professor Fred Alan Wolf, physicist Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Josephson, Professor Jessica Utts, physicist Dr Harold Puthoff, Professor Russell Targ, Professor Dr Ernst Senkowski, physicist Dr Amit Goswami, scientist Ron Pearson, physicist Professor John Bockris, physicist Dr Claude Swanson, Professor Marilyn Schlitz, Dr Dean Radin whose brilliant book showing in scientific terms why the paranormal is to be accepted in his book The Conscious Univserse– now because of its critical importance to the ‘new science’ was translated into fourteen languages. There are of course dozens of other scientists who have accepted the paranormal.

This Fisi's basic argument as a materialist and a former physicist is that there cannot be the paranormal ‘because of the Law of Conservation.’

This ex-physicist’s argument of the Law of Conservation is irrelevant, immaterial and inadmissible. He’s barking up the wrong tree. Why?

1. This conservative, uninformed ex-physicist is making a-propri decisions - decisions without investigating - regurgitating orthodox science which does not allow for afterlife physics as accepted by the scientists and other investigators mentioned in my book. He timorously chose NOT to investigate the evidence for the paranormal. If he had, he would have given the rebuttals against the evidence which was accepted by scientists cited in the abovementioned book. No such rebuttals exist anywhere in the world.

2. Historically, orthodox scientists, closed-minded skeptics and debunkers have opposed every invention and discovery and have made fools of themselves. This ex-physicist ‘Fulu’ falls into the same category as these below:

Sir William Preece, former chief engineer of Britain's Post Office, will be remembered for making one of the most 'idiotic' comments in history about Edison's inventions. Sir William stated that scientist Edison's lamp (parallel circuit) was a 'completely idiotic idea'.

Professor Henry Morton who knew Edison, stated immediately before Edison demonstrated the electric light globe: 'On behalf of science ... Edison's experiments are a ... fraud upon the public.’

The Scientific American, The New York Times, The New York Herald, the U.S. Army, academics—including Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy Simon Newcomb from John Hopkins University—and many other American scientists all heaped derision, ridicule and denigration onto the Wright brothers claiming that it was: 'scientifically impossible for machines to fly!’

• One of the leading scientists from the French Academy of Sciences stated that hypnosis is a fraud and stated after seeing a hypnotized subject with a four inch needle in the top of his arm: 'This subject has been paid for not showing he's in pain’

• Another scientist from the French Academy of Sciences, after listening to a record made by Edison, stated: '... clearly that is a case of ventriloquism’

John Logie Baird, the inventor of television, was attacked by closed-minded skeptics who stated it was: 'absolute rubbish that television waves could produce a picture’!

Therefore in a court of law where the highest professional debate in the country takes place, this Fisi would:

• not be able to rebut the substance – the acceptance of the paranormal - of what the scientists who accept the paranormal stated and proved.

• have to concede that orthodox science, using precedents, shows that it was wrong many times and it is inevitably wrong now on the paranormal.

• not be able to demonstrate that the law of conservation is the only law to apply.

Some incorrect assumptions by this former 'physicist' Fisi once from the University of Auckland:

“ … since laws of physics is (sic) universal and it is (sic) indiscriminate and it always consistent (sic) …”

That would be correct if Fisi is talking about physical energy. But the above stated scientists would state that Fisi is uninformed about the non-physical energy which can be repeated over time and space and which explains the paranormal. Their highly specialized research makes a distinction between physical energy and non-physical energy. This non-physical (psychic) energy can be objectively demonstrated and is repeatable – which makes it empirical and scientific and is ignored only by orthodoxy and the materialists because it makes them look irrelevant and as anachronistic as last year’s front page headlines.

“ … Remember that I quoted above, that energy is neither created nor destroyed? …”

WRONG! Whilst energy cannot be destroyed, nor created the non-physical can be changed and the atomic structure is different from the physical atom. There are two levels of energy: physical and non-physical. Accordingly, NOT all energy has to operate on the laws the ‘physical’ level. There is also energy operating at the ‘non-physical energy’ – where the vibrations of the this atom is operating at a faster level than physical atoms - which, again I restate, materialists don’t want to accept.

"... Energy is a physical entity; therefore it must obey the laws of Physics ..."

Physical energy obeys physical laws. But non-physical energy obeys the law of afterlife physics. Again, this Fulu is erroneously repeating that there is only physical energy- and because of his materialist personal beliefs, he does not want to accept there is another form of energy which explains all paranormal activity.

• All known laws of Physics be it classical Newtonian or modern Quantum Mechanics don't self-contradict each other. This means the conservation laws in Physics (energy, momentum, electric charge, particle spin, and so forth) are always being obeyed.

Again, Fisi restricts his definition to physical energy only - to give a rationalization consistent with his own negative prejudices against the paranormal. It is a narrow, restricted, materialist, conservative perception of what really is happening whenever and wherever the paranormal activity is taking place.

• Deb Webber and Sue Nicholson’s mediumship is not scientific because there was no ‘control group.’

First, Deb Webber and Sue Nicholson were chosen from respectively 100 and 73 applicant mediums. The production company excelled in testing all of the applicant mediums to make sure that they could come up with known details of a cold case with only a photograph for information. In the Australian tests only 5 out of 100 were able to do so; in New Zealand it was only 3 out of 73.

Guaranteed, that if the production company asked a couple of those negatively entrenched materialists, one of them Fisi, how Tracey Ann Patient died they would have failed very badly. The last time someone tried to do that in England in the show called The Psychic Challenge, they featured well known negative materialist James Randi trying to do a John Edward. Zwinge Randi was so atrociously bad, that the audience virtually booed him off the stage.

: I suggest that next time the producers do another episode of Sensing Murder they include two closed minded skeptical debunkers, including Fisi, as a control group to see how they fare in comparison to the mediums. The producers then will show the world what chance played in the producing of information when they compare the information given by the psychics and the information given by the debunking skeptics. That, we ALL would like to see! And the audience would get a clear picture about who is psychically gifted and those others who are not.

• If psychic ability is true, then psychics wouldn’t want to dabble in a TV show for merely a few tens of thousand dollars rather they would be multi-billionaires by reading the stock market future prices and trade on those tips from their dead friends…

Fisi shows he has not investigated, not studied and not analyzed the afterlife laws of physics. His quote also shows how he lacks the level of intelligence and rationale of a true scientist. Why? Because what mediums did in Sensing Murder was to recall what happened in the PAST ! They were dealing with a past event NOT future events. How can this Fisi generalize from those mediums who work on the basis of history – what happened in the past, to being able to tell the future? That kind of confused explanation by this Fisi clearly shows his limitations and explains he has no case against the sharp wit, accurate information and the integrity and honesty of the two brilliant mediums Deb and Sue in Sensing Murder.

With absolute certainty, Fisi would sink very badly in professional debate in the highest courts, because his negative prejudices are restricting his research on the non-physical energy which scientifically explains all paranormal activity. Procedurally, for his argument to be valid, he would have to rebut the available unrebuttable evidence showing there is non-physical/psychic energy.

This means he will not have the evidence to rebut what other giants of science have empirically accepted. See the empirically elicited paranormal evidence as presented by Dr Dean Radin for example. In professional debate, all empirical paranormal mentioned in Dr Radin’s book would have to be rebutted. Hitherto, after a number of years in print, no materialist scientist, no ‘Fisi’ has been able to rebut Dr Dean Radin’s presentation of the empirical validity of the paranormal. Nor has anyone rebutted the twenty two areas of afterlife empirical evidence as presented in A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife

For the purpose of the record, any demonstrated energy which yields the same results over time and space, keeping variables constant, is per se scientific and scientists have no alterative but to accept it. That is applied science. And you do not have to be a scientist to understand that.

Why are the skeptical debunkers hostile to Sensing Murder?

Simply because the confirmed evidence that the two mediums were accurate make the skeptical debunkers look absolutely ridiculous. It makes their skeptical beliefs invalid. It gives them huge anxiety that they are wrong in their beliefs. Beliefs are emotional and neurological and hence these skeptical debunkers go into 'cognitive dissonance' and 'deletions' and start to over-react, to scream and shout '... no, Sensing Murder cannot be right!'

The empirically based 'Sensing Murder' is fundamentally inconsistent with the skeptical debunker's negative beliefs. This inflicts pain, it destablizes the skeptical mind, it explains why the skeptics go mad and become very aggressive.

Finally, well done the production executives, journalists and staff, TV crew and the mediums of Sensing Murder. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant! We need more of these quality television documentaries.

Read Also:

A Lawyer Evaluates The Tracey Ann Patient episode

Australian Psychics Beat Orthodox Science

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Luis C. sent this interesting observation Friday 8th Feb. /08 after reading the report:


Is the law of conservation of energy violated for a short or long period of time and can it be experimentally observed?
(Asked by: Hasan)

Answered by: Yasar Safkan, Ph.D., Software Engineer, GVZ., Istanbul, Turkey:

In classical mechanics (in the sense of non-quantum) physics, there is no mechanism to allow for non-conservation for energy. Since classical mechanics is pretty exact for macroscopic objects, there is never any macroscopic violation of conservation of energy.

However, for small enough (quantum) systems, we have the Heisenberg uncertainty relation. The relation states:

E x t >= h/(4 )

Which means that the uncertainty in energy times the uncertainty in time is greater than some very small number. Interpreted correctly, this means that it is possible to violate conservation of energy given you do it for a very short time, in other words, it is possible to "borrow" energy E from "nowhere", given you return it in a time period t, where t is given by

t ~ h/E

This "borrowing" of energy is so small that again by the uncertainty principle, it can never be directly observed. In other words, violation of conservation of energy can occur if and only if the violation can not be observed due to the uncertainty principle.

However, there are "indirect" effects. One simple example could be the nuclear force. The longest range part of the nuclear force is mediated by exchange of pions (similar to the electromagnetic force being mediated by photons). However, these pions are "virtual", meaning that they can not be detected. They are just produced out of nowhere just like energy. The amount of energy you need to create a virtual pion is:

E = mc2

where m is the mass of the pion, and c is the speed of light. Now, how long can we "borrow" this much energy? By our previous argument, the time will be:

t ~ h/mc2

If this virtual pion moves as fast as possible, it will move at the speed of light. Then the distance it can travel is:

d = ct ~ h/mc

Of course, after traveling that distance, it would have to be absorbed by another particle (and thus mediate the force). Therefore d is the approximate range of the force. The amazing thing is, this gives a pretty good value for the range of the nuclear force!

To sum it up, yes, conservation of energy can be violated, but nature makes sure it is always within the limits of uncertainty. In other words, the energy must be returned, and the books set straight pretty quickly. But, the fact that it can be violated is important, and although it can never be observed directly, it does have important consequences.

Answered by: Yasar Safkan, Ph.D., Software Engineer, GVZ., Istanbul, Turkey


From Luis Castillo:

"So, pseudoskeptics who dogmatically argue about the not violation of that law are lying, or at least, giving an incomplete picture of the quantum physics. They hide that fact to close any space to paranormal phenomena (because they think that paranormal, necessarly, violates that law)."

<< Return