Lawyer Rebuts Skeptical 'Scientist'
by Victor Zammit
So, are there any scientists who have vocalized
opposition to the above mentioned episode of Sensing Murder
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.
Brilliant Scientists who Accepted the Paranormal:
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.
Fisi's basic argument as a materialist and a former physicist
is that there cannot be the paranormal ‘because of
the Law of Conservation.’
ex-physicist’s argument of the Law of Conservation
is irrelevant, immaterial and inadmissible. He’s barking
up the wrong tree. Why?
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.
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
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 ..."
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
• 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
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.
SUGGESTION: 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
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
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
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
(Asked by: Hasan)
Answered by: Yasar Safkan, Ph.D., Software Engineer,
GVZ., Istanbul, Turkey:
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
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
t ~ h/E
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.
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
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.,
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