Victor Zammit: A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife

SKEPTICS AFTERLIFE OBJECTIONS OVERRULED Victor Zammit lawyer shows why objections of afterlife evidence are not valid objections.

Below are some of the most common objections raised over the last twenty years by the skeptics about the evidence for the afterlife.

1st Objection. “The evidence for the afterlife cannot be valid because there is no afterlife.”

Victor: That is an inadmissible objection because the objector is making an assumption there is no afterlife without producing any objective evidence that there is no afterlife. No one on earth has ever produced evidence to show that there is no afterlife, therefore the objection cannot be accepted and technically the objection is inadmissible. But there is a huge amount of expressly stated evidence - much of it objective and repeatable - for the existence of the afterlife. For example, I presented some twenty two areas of afterlife evidence which have not been rebutted by the materialist experts or by anyone in the last eight years.

2. “Belief in the afterlife is just ridiculous."

Victor: That kind of objection is in itself invalid and is automatically overruled because it is a subjective statement unsupported by evidence. “Belief in the afterlife …” I never asked anyone to ‘believe’ in anything. The skeptics illegitimately keep on making the same fundamental error by talking about ‘belief’ in the afterlife. I have no luxury for ‘beliefs.’ I ACCEPT the empirically produced EVIDENCE for the afterlife – something which is totally different to personal religious beliefs or blind faith or subjectivity. Empirically produced evidence for the afterlife is about an objective formula which repeated over time and space keeping variables constant yields the same results.

3. “No one can prove the afterlife because no one can prove the negative.” Stated by a closed-minded flamboyant skeptic from Florida.

Victor: In professional debate, the asserter has to prove – or in the legal context the lawyer for the plaintiff has to prove his case by presenting his/her evidence. So, the asserter - the lawyer - to prove his case presents his evidence. Of course, they also bring their expert witnesses to support their evidence. Accordingly, the plaintiff lawyer's motion is ‘that there is an afterlife’. As the plaintiff lawyer, I presented some twenty-two areas of evidence for the afterlife from the Electronic Voice Phenomena, Instrumental Trans-communication, Laboratory experiments, Near Death and Out of Body Experiences to Xenoglossy and Quantum Physics. Now, the procedure in professional debate is for those opposing the expressly stated evidence to cross-examine the witnesses to show WHERE, WHEN, HOW and WHY this expressly stated evidence ought not to be accepted on EACH definitive area of afterlife evidence presented. It is absolutely meaningless and inadmissible for the skeptic to say, “no one can prove the negative” simply because the evidence has been positively expressly stated. In nine years that I had this afterlife evidence on the internet, no one – no skeptic or materialist or reductionist scientist, no senior litigation lawyer, no magician or anybody else has been able to rebut the afterlife evidence. That uninformed closed minded skeptic from Florida who has influenced a lot of his followers and who swallowed this objection keeps on repeating the same fallacious objection that ‘you can’t prove the negative’ which shows he does not know, does not understand and is not familiar with the rules of professional debate. Most interesting, the more informed intellectual skeptics do not raise this objection because they know they’d make fools of themselves if they do. Only the lower, uninformed skeptics do.

4. “There is no evidence for the afterlife.”

Victor: That is the most erroneous objection ever raised in the history of the paranormal and afterlife research. My afterlife presentation can be accessed - on the right column you will see my evidence index – some twenty two areas of afterlife evidence which has never been rebutted. Psychology and Neurolinguistic Programming give us explanations why skeptics refuse to read the substantive hard core afterlife evidence. Psychology explains this by way of ‘rationalization to avoid cognitive dissonance.' To avoid the anxiety – the pain - of having his cherished beliefs shattered the skeptic's mind erroneously states words to the effect, “there is no evidence for the afterlife” or “science does not accept the afterlife” or “intelligent people do not believe in the afterlife.” Neurolinguistic Programmin (NLP) tells us that the skeptic’s mind deletes information which is fundamentally inconsistent with the his cherished values. We often used to hear the hard core skeptic say “there is no evidence for the afterlife ..” Only the totally uninformed skeptics now repeat this inadmissible objection. No amount of hard core evidence for the afterlife will convince skeptics who do not want to accept any evidence for the afterlife. An example of 'there is no evidence for the afterlife' was when after I presented the evidence for the afterlife in an indoor meeting, a closed minded skeptic stood up and stated, "Hey Victor, I will not believe in the afterlife even if you can prove it to me!"

5. “Materializations cannot be for real. There were too many frauds in the past and many of these were exposed to be frauds.”

Victor: That’s another inadmissible objection: the objector is citing prejudicial information to support his own negative prejudice. Whilst it is admitted there were cheats and charlatans in the past who were not mediums, there were also genuine materializations that were empirically tested and where no one was able to prove fraud. Legally, the statement is also ‘hearsay’ – repeating without proof what somebody else said. For fifteen months on a weekly basis, as an investigating empiricist I -and other empiricists qualified in scientific method investigated the materializations of medium David Thompson and we guarantee there were positive results where no farud took place– contact was made on a weekly basis with afterlife intelligences.

6. "If you can prove the afterlife why don’t you take that skeptic guy on and take from him one million dollars?

Victor: First, that closed minded skeptic does NOT have a genuine offer.I investigated his offer and am convinced it is the most fraudulent offer in paranormal history. He has been quoted by Professor Dennis Rawlings as saying “I will always have a way out ... " (of paying the alleged million dollars). There is no proof that he does have a million dollars- the current financial crisis would have hit him badly and he REFUSES to provide a sworn statement that he has the money subject to at least five years jail (to match my own sworn satement in respect of my million dollar challenge). Secondly I had a number of top mediums who tried to take this guy on, but as soon as he realizes that the applicant is a genuine medium, these challengers never hear from him again. In all the years of his so-called challenge he has never once allowed even one person to go beyond his subjective so-called preliminary test. And remember, this flamboyant skeptic from Florida has NOT - for my million dollars - tried to rebut my irrefutable hard core objective and repeatable evidence for the afterlife.

7. Here's a quote by one of the leading closed minded skeptics in the United States: "Death is a part of life and pretending that the dead are gathering in a television studio in New York to talk twaddle with a former ballroom dance instructor is an insult to the intelligence and humanity of the living." Dr Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine and executive director of the Skeptics Society.

Victor: This objection is immediately overruled because the statement

  • is an expression of a personal subjective belief,
  • has no objective empirical substance,
  • is 'self serving,'
  • has no probative value,
  • is highly speculative without evidence,
  • fundamentally lacks legitimate 'authority,'
  • is a 'denial' instead of an analytical rebuttal of the afterlife evidence,
  • is not specifically scientifically based and
  • is an attempt to use ridicule from a position of ignorance about afterlife evidence.

    Notice carefully, this M Shermer totally ignores the vast empircally based afterlife evidence (including -see 23 areas of afterlife hard core evidence index right column). As above stated consistent with Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP), M Shermer's mind automatically deletes the afterlife evidence. His mind makes Michael pretend - and makes him kid himself the afterlife does not exist - because the evidence for the afterlife is inconsistent with the skeptic's cherished beliefs and inflicts pain on to the skeptic Shermer. The skeptic rationalizes his negative beliefs to avoid the anxiety and the pain. So, it is Shermer who is talking twaddle ignoring the substantive afterlife evidence which more that sixty five per cent of the world accepts. It shows he is unable or incompetent or unwilling to properly rebut this afterlife evidence - to show where, when how and why the expressly stated afterlife evidence cannot be valid. His omission to deal with the fundamental afterlife evidence is an insult to all those intelligent people who want to know if the afterlife evidence can ever rebutted - since the empirically elicited afterlife evidence has never been rebutted.

8. “The paranormal and the afterlife have not been accepted by the skeptical true critical thinkers.”

Victor: This objection is self-serving and wholly inadmissible because it refers to the skeptics and so called 'critical thinkers' promoting statements in the skeptic's own cause. Equity is clear on this one: no one is to be a judge in his own cause. Further, there is a serious problem who is to be called a 'true critical thinker.' There is a hard core skeptical group in New York calling itself 'critical thinkers' the objector is referring to. But they are technically NOT critical thinkers because when it comes to the paranormal or afterlife evidence they, without evidence, apply the presumption of fraudulent conduct. Technically, these hard cored skeptical 'critical thinkers' are NOT true critical thinkers at all. The real critical thinkers are those who make absolutely NO presumptions at all and judge only by the results of any objective investigations.

9. “There is no afterlife because the mind and the brain are the same thing … when the brain dies the mind dies too …”

Victor: First, there is no objective evidence that the mind and the brain are the same thing whereas there is voluminous evidence for the separation of the mind from the brain. Whenever we receive transmissions from the afterlife, that is not and cannot be the brain because the evidence shows that when the physical body dies, the brain dies with it - only the MIND remains which is vibratating much faster than the physical body and which survives physical death. As to the evidence that the MIND survives:

There are at least some twentythree areas of objective repeatable evidence for transmissions from the afterlife. That hitherto unrebutted afterlife evidence is presented in my book There are hundreds of books by scientists and others stating that there is empirical basis for transmissions of messages from the afterlife.

For example, mediumship has been scientifically tested a number of times. The results show that afterlife intelligences using their mind transmitted messages to those on physical earth.

Whenever I communicated with 'William' - materialization-physical medium David Thompson, William was using his MIND to converse with me.

Of course, one has to see this wholistically - meaning that one has to read ALL of the afterlife evidence to conclude that the mind is different and separate from the physical brain.

10. There is something fishy about having loud music in afterlife materializations … and why should the medium wear a black jumper which you said sometimes the jumber is seen back to front just after a materialization session."

First, one has to thoroughly investigate the laws regarding physical mediumship. We cannot superimpose our rationalizations onto the afterlife dimensional laws because in the afterlife there are no ‘physical’ atoms – the atoms in the afterlife are spinning at a much faster rate. A definitive law is that certain spiritually evocative music helps to increase the ‘vibrations’ in the séance room to make it easier for the afterlife entities to make contact. Another law is that there has to be complete harmony among members of the Circle during materializations for the materializations to be successful, because the afterlife law is that negativity lowers and disrupts the vibrations of the séance room

11, “There’s no afterlife because the highly advanced intellectuals, scientists and critical thinkers of CSI do not believe in the afterlife.”

First, these intellectuals are highly negatively prejudiced and cannot claim to be ‘critical thinkers’ because the CSI does not accept empirical paranormal nor the scientific evidence for the afterlife. The true critical thinker starts off by absolutely NOT having any negative prejudice against anything. The true critical thinker tests the hypothesis over and over again and when the empiricist obtains the same result over time and space – with empirical objectivity and repeatability – then the empiricist can legitimately call himself ‘critical thinker’. Further, these anti-paranormal, anti-afterlife scientists have NOT rebutted the evidence for the paranormal nor the evidence for the afterlife (there are at least 23 areas of afterlife evidence to be rebutted, and have not been rebutted these last nine years.) So the objection is overruled for these reasons stated above.

12. “Belief in the afterlife is all superstition, requires blind faith and beliefs without evidence”

First, whilst there are thousands of millions who ‘believe’ in the afterlife, afterlife empiricists ACCEPT the evidence for the afterlife – nothing to do with beliefs. Objectivity and repeatability in the paranormal and afterlife evidence have now elevated the afterlife phenomenon to the status of being ‘scientific’ and ‘empirical. In the objective evidence for the afterlife there cannot be superstition, there are no beliefs and certainly no blind faith – there are only hard core objectivity and repeatability which give the afterlife evidence authority over the skeptics personal beliefs that there is no afterlife. By contrast, the materialists and closed minded skeptics do NOT have the substance of science or empiricism or objectivity to support their personal belief that there is no afterlife – see the expressly stated afterlife empirical evidence which has never been rebutted.

13. “Nobody has ever come back from the afterlife to tell us about the afterlife.”

Victor: That highly prejudicial, self-serving objection is overruled because it conveniently ignores the empirical evidence of communicating with afterlife entities – there is the scientific studies of Prof. Gary Schwartz, there is abundant and ubiquitous evidence of communicating with those who crossed over – there is the afterlife evidence I put on the internet which has not been rebutted, negated or discredited in any way by any scientist in the last nine years. The evidence for communicating with the afterlife is now objective and repeatable. Through the mediumship of David Thompson Wendy and I personally communicated with afterlife entities, conversed with them on a weekly basis, for fifteen months. We witnessed some ninety reunions between visitors and their loved ones in spirit who had materialized and were solid in the room.

14.”Belief in the afterlife is ridiculous … it’s irrational and illogical. I’d want to see spirits myself before I believe in them.”

Victor: Inevitably, this objection will be over-ruled primarily because it is making an assumption that the afterlife is a ‘belief.’ I ACCEPT the objective EVIDENCE for the afterlife – and I have no place and no 'luxury' for the subjectivity of beliefs. Those who are informed know, understand and accept that in any inconsistency between objective afterlife evidence and subjective beliefs in nothingness, inevitably, the objective evidence prevails – and will always prevail over subjectivity. There are more than twenty two areas of afterlife evidence which to-day no scientist or materialist has ever rebutted even for the allurement of one million dollars. See book. What is irrational and illogical is to come to any conclusion without evidence. Now the materialists believe there is no afterlife. Materialists do NOT have the substance of science to support their beliefs. Guaranteed, once the intelligent skeptic investigates, he/she will come to same conclusion as I have come and as scientists have come – that there is an afterlife and communication with those in the afterlife is possible. Read more objections ….

15. If there was an afterlife, all information about the afterlife would be the same yet the information about the afterlife is so different – there are so many different versions about the afterlife.

Victor: Not all information transmitted from the afterlife comes from one source and/or from one realm. Consistent afterlife information, empirically elicited tells us that the afterlife has a number of realms vibrating from the lowest to the highest. The higher the vibrations of a realm the more enlightened, the more spiritual. The information which comes from the lower realms the very much less informed. Accordingly, the information from the lower afterlife realms is likely to be inferior and different from the realm which is for example, seventh above the lowest realm. This is not dissimilar to a situation where you get information from someone with two years of primary school to someone with a college, university degree from Harvard or Yale or London the University of New South Wales or Sydney. That is why the information is different and accordingly this objection is strongly over-ruled.

16. “Why should I take advice from a lawyer about the afterlife and not from a traditional scientist or a philosopher or a psychiatrist?”

Victor: The distinct advantage of a (litigation) lawyer is that he/she would be a specialist in the admissibility of evidence. What technically constitutes admissible evidence is extremely important when dealing with the afterlife evidence. Traditional scientists may know a great deal about science but it is not within the traditional scientists' knowledge and jurisdiction to be a specialist in evidence as well. Scientists work within the known physical laws and would not be able to deal with evidence that violates their accepted traditional knowledge in cause-effect relationship in science. I accept there are some scientists who accept non-physical physics - but at the moment they would be in the minority. Philosophers are not empirically trained in cause-effect relationship and would be limited to theoretical speculations. Psychiatrists - and others professions too would not have the technical competence to assess legitimate afterlife admissible evidence.The highest form of logic and professional debate are to be found in courts where every area of evidence is very closedly examined for validity and relevance.

17. “I don’t believe in the afterlife because my parents did not believe in the afterlife.”

18. “Psychologists don’t believe in the afterlife – in fact psychologists are highly critical about the existence of the afterlife … why should I?OBJECTION OVER-RULED!

Victor: First, it’s wrong to impute that ‘all’ psychologists don’t believe in the afterlife. It is on record that there are psychologists who may not ‘believe’ in anything BUT accept the EVIDENCE for the afterlife because they are empiricists – see chapter 2 of the book on evidence on the Net. Some ‘high flying’ negatively entrenched psychologists are on mission to try to convince people there is no afterlife – but there is a hidden agenda to their motive against the afterlife. These negative psychologists – the Blackmores, Wisemans and others like them of this world belong to the ANTI- afterlife organizations. These anti-afterlife psychologists have no credibility at all because no one is to be a judge in his/her own cause. Mostly, these negative psychologists are using their academic position to promote their own career which means there is a obvious hidden agenda why they crusade against others who accept the evidence for the afterlife. That is why you must see beyond the façade what is really taking place in the world of psychologists’ motives for whatever they do.

19. “You are peddling the afterlife material to make yourself money … that’s what it’s all about profit ….”

Victor: That's irrelevant, immaterial, unacceptable and inadmissible: That negative, sarcastic remark by those who showed how ignorant and stupid they are about what I have been doing these last 21 years consistently researching the afterlife. The record shows it cost me some at least a quarter of a million dollars to do my research, to purchase books, videos, audios, to organize electronic presentation of my work, to travel for afterlife research, to lecture - when I never allowed anyone to pay money for my public lectures. That kind of objection is immediately inadmissible for its unsubstantiated claim, for its highly negatively prejudicial assumption, for its vulgarity and for imputation of dishonesty in my afterlife research. I never made a cent from dissemination of the light on a global level.

20. Scientists these days can artificially stimulate parts of the brain to elicit a Near Death Experience – which means that the Near Death Experiences have nothing to do with the afterlife.”

Victor: That's a 'classic non-sequitur' - 'it doesn't follow.'
First, for anyone to lodge an objection, one has to state the experiment - without identifying the experiment, one cannot know what problems the experiment had, if any. To my knowledge, there has not been one scientist or a surgeon or anybody else who was able to properly duplicate an identical Near Death Experience (NDE). The leaders of NDE's have shown for example, that the NDE to the patient was so real, the patient had permanent change in his/her thinking about the afterlife - something that does not happen with a purely clinical medical procedure. No one to my knowledge was able to duplicate an NDE where the blind could see or where crossed over loved ones appeared to the patient or where the patient came back out of trance with knowledge he/she did not know before. The Pam Reynolds case is a critical which so many tried to attack, but the facts remain unrebutted. See the brilliant NDE work of Dr Peter Fenwick, the scientific NDE studies of Dr Kenneth Ring - and others: Drs Karlis Osis and Erlendur Haraldsson, Dr Michael Sabom, Dr Bruce Greyson, Professor Ian Stevenso

(You are most welcomed to forward any objection for the validity of the evidence for the afterlife )