Victor Zammit’s Brief Cross-examination of Professor
Stephen Hawking -
(on the Claim by Prof Hawking that there is no afterlife):
is submitted that the following is what a ‘cross-examination’
of Professor Stephen Hawking would be like. The “answers”
given by Professor Hawking have been taken from his website
and from other media reports about things he said and imputed.
This is only a part of the cross-examination of Prof. Stephen
Hawking. Words are capitalized to show emphasis on that
In real time, cross-examining Prof Stephen Hawking regarding
his anti-afterlife prejudices would take at least five days.
Here you get to know the gist of his mistaken anti-afterlife
beliefs in less than twenty minutes.
Under normal circumstances, cross examination calls for
a lot of patience to flush out some critical information
from the witness.
scene. Professor Hawking- pictured below- in the witness
box being sworn in.)
(looking towards his attendant) Swear the witness in.
assistant addressing expert witness Prof Hawking:
“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth so help you God?’
Prof Hawking: I don’t believe in God!
Judge to court attendant: Proceed with
an affirmation (an oath designed for atheists).
friendly, smiling: How are you Professor? You feel all right?
Yes, I do. Why do you ask?
I want to establish for the purpose of the record that whilst
there are problems with your body, you are in a good state
of mind to answer all questions. Right?
Yes, I’m in an excellent state of mind.
Good. Tell us Professor. For the record, are you intelligent?
..... Yes I suppose I am.
Would you agree that some scientists who agree with your
theories say that you are extremely intelligent –
in fact some atheistic scientists even called you a genius?
I’ll leave that to those scientists who call me that.
But have you come across scientists with the same bias as
yours who described you as a genius, YES or NO?
Would you agree that there are some other scientists who
totally disagree with you about your theories of the cosmos.
Prof: Yes ... I guess there are a few scientists
who disagree with me ...
What kind of a scientist are you?
Among other things I am a cosmologist ... a theoretical
What do you mean by that?
I study theoretical physics, especially cosmology.
Would it be right then to say that you do not do experiments
in a science laboratory, repeating some scientific formula
to test its validity?
Yes, that is right - I do not work in a scientific
Victor: So you do not have anything to
do with doing objective and repeatable experiments that
yield positive results?
Prof: No, I do not conduct experiments
that are objective and repeatable to yield the same positive
Some newspapers informed us that you are famous for your
cosmic theories. So when you come to conclusions about cosmology,
you first … investigate ...?
Yes, that’s absolutely right.
Do you ever come to conclusions about some aspect of the
universe without first having studied it?
No, of course not. That would be ridiculous. I cannot make
conclusions unless I first study the area. I’m a scientist.
But being a theoretical physicist specializing in cosmology,
would you not agree that some of what you conclude about
the universe is theoretical, is speculative, since you cannot
duplicate your results in a laboratory?
… (hesitating)…I use equations ...
But equations generally are not about repeatable and objective
evidence - they deal with highly speculative cosmology ...
is that right?
Prof: ... Yes … I guess that’s
For example, you mention black holes and what they do. But
that is only speculative because you have never seen the
FULL operation of a black hole … you are speculating…
I suppose so. But I can show you why I’m right …
But you can NEVER guarantee that your conclusions on black
holes are absolute and irreversible, that they are one hundred
per cent correct, RIGHT?
… (softly) I guess yes, that’s right …
Victor: So, it is possible that in the
future other cosmologists and physicists may give us more
accurate information about black holes?
Yes ... I suppose so ...
You said earlier you are qualified in theoretical physics.
Professor, for the purpose of the record, are you qualified
in law - do you have a law degree?
Of course not!
So you do not have the professional expertise to know what
technically constitutes admissible evidence and the process
As I said, I don’t have any knowledge of law or of
You will agree then that a litigation lawyer would have
the professional expertise about what is admissible in evidence
as objective and subjective evidence more than a theoretical
I guess so … it’s quite obvious to me …
Your answer is YES?
Are you qualified in medicine?
Of course not. (Looks at the judge and asks).
Your Honor, do I have to answer these questions?
Your honor, the question of objective AUTHORITY is critical
in this matter.
Yes, yes I understand … (to the professor:)
... answer the question.
Prof: No, I'm not qualified in medicine
Professor, are you formally qualified in architecture, engineering,
biology, advanced chemistry, advanced philosophy.... Have
you ever formally studied philosophy?
Prof: No, I don't care for philosophy ...
Victor: Why not?
Prof: Philosophy is meaningless personal
speculation ... not for me ... you do not have to be a philosopher
to answer a question about anything really ...
Victor: You are on record for making a
statement about the purpose of life. What do you think is
the purpose of life on planet earth professor?
(hesitates) ... I suppose you can say the purpose of life
is to look after yourself ...
Victor: Is there any meaning in life on
Prof: No ... you get back what you put
into it ...
Victor: So, are you saying living on planet
earth has nothing to do with a future afterlife in a different
I don't think there is an afterlife ...
Victor: You seem to be uncertain about
that ... saying you do not think there is an afterlife
... do you accept or do you not accept there is an afterlife?
There is no afterlife ...
Victor: So, going back what you said earlier,
for the record, you are not qualified in these professions
and university disciplines I mentioned?
No, I’m not qualified in any of these except I know
something about chemistry.
You agree then, that your only area of professional expertise
is in the narrow area of theoretical physics, in cosmological
… (hesitating) …
Victor: ANSWER THE QUESTION PROFESSOR –
the question calls for a YES or NO answer!
Yes … my expertise is only in theoretical physics,
Would you be familiar with what is objective evidence and
Yes, yes I would be.
Would you agree that what is scientific is consistent with
using the same formula over time and space, keeping variables
constant and getting the same positive results?
..... Yes, I agree with that.
By contrast, would you agree that a PERSONAL belief –
such as blind faith, which cannot be independently supported
would in itself be subject to invalidation – to COMPLETE
invalidation, yes or no?
Yes, yes … I agree with that.
So, you agree that any statement you make as a layperson
could be absolutely wrong. Yes?
… I guess so … yes.
Do you make mistakes as a scientist, Professor?
… I’ve made mistakes in the past …
Do you make mistakes when you make statements not related
to your theoretical science?
Everybody makes mistakes …
Your answer is YES?
So, you accept that you make mistakes as a scientist and
when you make statements as a non-scientist. Right?
Right … Yes …
From what you said, you concede that you can make statements
as a layperson or a scientist that could be absolutely incorrect,
they could be wrong?
I suppose so …
You were quoted in the media recently that you do not accept
the existence of the afterlife – is that correct?
Yes, that’s correct.
Would you accept that cosmological theoretical
physics has absolutely nothing to do with KNOWLEDGE
and the EVIDENCE about the afterlife.
…. Yes, I accept that …
You agree that the two are completely independent and totally
separate from each other and are inevitably unrelated.
Yes ... but ...
So, in the strictest terms, does being an expert in scientific
cosmology give you any authority whatsoever on whether or
not there is definitive proof for the afterlife?
I just cannot see how physics - or anything else
- can definitively prove there is or there is not an afterlife
Victor: So, if you say that physics says
there is no afterlife, that would only be speculation ...
.... yes, I guess so ...
You are also on record for stating words to the effect -
to quote you, 'those who accept the afterlife are likely
to be afraid of the dark.' You said that?
… yes … I said that too. But ..
DON’T SAY BUT … No qualification – and
no justification to the answer please; again, answer YES
or NO to my question. Did you say that those who accept
the afterlife are likely to be afraid of the dark?
I remind you, you are under oath. Listen carefully. Have
you ever investigated the evidence for the afterlife Professor.
Yes or no please.
What evidence? ..... No I haven't ...
NO? ... NO? ... Just a while ago you called someone who
comes to conclusions without first investigating, a fool
and ridiculous. Are you a fool ... and ridiculous?
(No answer) ….
No need to answer that – the jury accepts you’ve
answered that already! Have you bothered to find out if
and what scientific and other literature is available about
Prof: No ... I have not ...
Victor: Have you ever read the classic
afterlife research A LAWYER PRESENTS THE CASE FOR THE
AFTERLIFE – presenting some twenty areas of afterlife
No, I have not.
Do you know Professor, that the afterlife evidence in this
book by an attorney in fifteen years has never been disproved
by any materialist genius scientist – not even for
the allurement of one million dollars?
…. No, I don’t know that.
How would you like to earn a cool million dollars professor?
What do I have to do?
You only have to disprove the evidence for the existence
of the afterlife presented by that lawyer. Got the courage?
What’s the matter professor? Are you an intellectual
coward or have you been professional negligent – or
both - when it comes to the afterlife?
Professor, you do not have to answer that question.
: You don’t have to – I accept the jury also
accepts that the Professor answered that question already!
I’m not an intellectual coward …
Victor: Professor, the record shows there
are millions of people throughout the world who read about
the evidence for the afterlife ... and you, a professor
who makes a negative statement about the afterlife have
not even read anything about the afterlife? Again, are you
an intellectual coward allowing your deeply entrenched,
negative prejudices to transcend over searching for the
truth about the afterlife?
Prof: (Hesitates ... does not answer ...)
Victor: We'll let the jury decide how you
answered that one ... Tell me Professor, for the record,
do you understand what electronic voice phenomena are?
No, I do not.
Victor: You agree then you have not investigated
any aspect of the afterlife evidence?
Prof: No, I have not.
Victor: Specifically, just for the record
then, have you ever, at anytime in your life, in your work
at outside your work come across the following
afterlife evidence - all have nothing to do with religion
or churches or beliefs: Instrumental Trans-communication,
Near Death Experiences, Out of Body Experiences, The Scole
Experiment, the Psychic Laboratory Testing; Mental mediumship;
Materializations of Helen Duncan and David Thompson; Proxy
Sittings; Remote Viewing; The Ouija Board; Apparitions;
Deathbed visions; Xenoglossy, Poltergeists; Reincarnation.
The physicists' acceptance of the afterlife. Have you ever
come across these specific areas of afterlife evidence?
No, I have not.
NO? YOU SAY NO??? Can you tell the court and the world then,
that your comment about the afterlife came from your TOTAL
IGNORANCE about the afterlife evidence?
Prof: (does not answer ..) .... Physics
tell me there is not likely to be an afterlife ...
Oh, then, you used science to prove there is no afterlife?
Professor: No I have not used science to
prove there is no afterlife ... it's my opinion ...
Victor: What objective and repeatable evidence
is there in physics that there is no afterlife?
Prof: (not answering ...)
Victor: PROFESSOR STEPHEN HAWKING, ANSWER
THE QUESTION!! (Victor looks at the judge and tells the
judge: Could you tell the witness to answer the question?
Judge (looks at the Professor): You have
to answer the question ...
Prof: remains quiet ...
Judge: Answer the question or else I will
hold you in contempt ...
Prof: There is no objective and repeatable
evidence in physics to show there is or there is no afterlife
Victor: Then not having investigated evidence for
the afterlife, you were not in a position to say there is
Prof:(Whispering ...) No, I guess I was
not in a position to make any statement about the afterlife.
Victor: (to the judge) Your honor, we did
not hear those last comments. Could you ask the witness
to repeat the answer speaking louder in his microphone so
that the jury members can hear him?
Yes, yes ... Professor ... please ..
Prof: (speaking louder than before) No,
I guess I was not in a position to make any statement about
the afterlife ...
Victor: Then do you think it is right for
you to create havoc in this world without being responsible
for what you say and do?
(does not answer) …
Victor: Some intellectuals - and others
- would call you a coward - for something you have not investigated
- pushing cowardice to its extreme ... agree with that Professor?
Prof: (does not answer) ...
(Victor looks at the members of the jury, raising his
voice) …. We are waiting …You said you
have not done any research about the the objective and repeatable
evidence for the afterlife? Why not? Too lazy?
I’m not lazy …
Why then did you NOT bother to review the most fundamental
and substantive scientific evidence for the afterlife before
you made a conclusion about something you admit know ABSOLUTELY
(no answer) …
You shock all of us with your LACK OF AFTERLIFE KNOWLEDGE!
You stated earlier that professional litigation lawyers
are the professionals who know what is admissible objective
and subjective evidence. Right?
… yes … right …
Just assume for one moment that the hundred or so scientists
who accepted the objective and repeatable evidence for the
afterlife are right, would you accept the evidence for the
existence of the afterlife?
I would have to examine the evidence ….
Just answer YES or NO to that question …
I would have to answer yes I guess ….
Have you come across a recent book by British scientist
Ron Pearson WHY PHYSICS PROVES GOD - which has
nothing to do with religion?
No I have not.
I will be mentioning a number of scientists who investigated
the afterlife - but without any reference to religion or
beliefs: Have you read the brilliant physicist Sir Oliver
Lodge’s masterpiece why he accepts the afterlife?
No … I have not.
Have you ever read about the materialization experiments
of that former skeptic, great scientist Sir William Crookes
which led him to accept the evidence for the existence of
No, I have not.
Victor: No? Have you read the brilliant
work of physicist Professor Jan W Vandersande on afterlife
Prof: No I have not ...
Victor: Have you ever read the most brilliant
proof for the afterlife we have in the world to-day - David
Thompson's miracle materializations - where the evidence
is objective and repeatable?
Prof: No, I have not ...
Victor (Also looking at the jury):
YOU HAVEN'T? ... WHY NOT?
Prof.: (does not answer ...)
Have you ever read Arthur Findlay’s
great works on his empirical evidence for the afterlife?
No, I have not.
Have you read the most impressive scientific afterlife research
of Professor Ernst Senkowski?
No, I have not.
Then what clearly follows is that you do NOT have authority
about the afterlife, right?
Putting it that way … I suppose so …
Just a little louder in the microphone professor, so that
the jury members can hear you.
I suppose so!
Now, professor, I want you to answer my clear short and
sharp question: in context of your answers here, do you
have any evidentiary based authority outside your narrow
area of theoretical physics – in relation to the afterlife,
yes or no?
… No …
Victor: Does this mean you are totally
ignorant - kind of an imbecile to use an extreme term about
matters to do with the evidence for the afterlife?
Prof: .... (hesitates, looks at the judge...)
Judge: Professor, you do not have to answer
Victor: Again, he has already answered
that question to the members of the jury. Now Professor,
have you read the great afterlife works of that brilliant
scientist Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?
No, I have not …
(addressing the judge) On this line of questioning your
honor, I would like to enter into evidence the list of some
of the scientists who investigated the afterlife and accepted
the afterlife - without religious beliefs. (To the Professor):
Professor, have you read any of the afterlife works by these
scientists and empirical afterlife investigators? Dr Peter
Bander, Dr Robert Crookal, Professor John Bockris, John
Logie Baird, Professor Arthur Ellison, Dr Peter Fenwick,
Professor Festa, Dr Edith Fiore, Professor David Fontana,
Dr Amit Goswami, Professor Gustav Geley, Professor Ivor
Grattan-Guinesss, Professor Stanislav Grof, Dr Arthur Guirdham,
Dr Glen Hamilton, Professor Charles Hapgood, Professor Sylvia
Hart-Wright, Professor James Hyslop, Professor William James,
Dr Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Drs Jeff and Jody Long, afterlife
investigator Mark Macy, (engineer/physics) George Meek,
Dr Raymond Moody, Dr Melvin Morse, Dr Morris Nertherton,
Dr Karlis Osis, Dr Peter Ramster (Psychologist), Edward
C Randall (Lawyer), Dr.Konstantine Raudive, Drs J.B. and
Louisa Rhine, Nobel Laureate Professor Charles Richet, Dr
Kenneth Ring, Dr Aubrey Rose, Professor Archie Roy (left)
Dr Michael Sabom, Dr Hans Schaer, Professor Marilyn Schlitz,
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Judge Dean Shuart, Dr Ian Stevenson,
Dr Claude Swanson, Dr Emmanuel Swedenborg, Professor Jessica
Utts, Dr Pim Van Lommel, Professor J.W. Crawford, Professor
Wadhams, Prof. Alfred Wallace, Dr Helen Wambach, Dr Carl
Wickland, Dr Carla Wills-Brandon, Dr Julie Beischel –
read any of these substantive scientists’ afterlife
… No I have not examined the afterlife evidence by
the scientists you mentioned.
Victor: Tell us professor, do you think
all these brilliant scientists I mentioned - some of them
Nobel Laureates - are afraid of the dark?
Prof: ... I guess not ...
Victor: (giving the Professor a stern look)
Prof: No - they are not afraid of the dark
And WITHOUT investigating the works of these scientists,
WITHOUT investigating why brilliant physicists accept the
afterlife, WITHOUT investigating the evidence, WITHOUT having
read anything about the afterlife, you stated in definitive
terms that there is no afterlife, right?
…. I guess so …
(Rhetorically) That’s not very intelligent
is it Professor?
(Does not answer).......
So, when you said there is no afterlife, did you
say that as a scientist?
No, not as a scientist.
Then as a layperson?
… Yes as a layperson …
As an afterlife UNINFORMED layperson?
… (no answer)
Yes, Professor, you must answer the question ..
: Yes, as an afterlife uninformed layperson …
Good. Nothing wrong with being honest occasionally.(“objection”
by Prof's lawyer …) Yes, yes I withdraw that remark.
You do make a distinction between being intelligent in the
narrow area of your science and that you may not be so intelligent
and not informed and un-read about afterlife matters. Right?
… I guess so …Yes, right ….
Now Professor, you CONCEDED you have not read anything about
the afterlife. You conceded you never read any of the works
of the scientists I mentioned. You conceded you have never
shown where, when, how and why the afterlife evidence produced
by scientists and lawyers could be wrong. You conceded that
one should never make a conclusion unless one first investigates
– they are your own words … Could you tell the
court and the world then how on earth you state there is
no afterlife when you HAVE NEVER INVESTIGATED THE AFTERLIFE,
WHEN YOU HAVE NEVER REBUTTED ANY AFTERLIFE EVIDENCE OR READ
ANY OF THE AFTERLIFE WORKS BY THE GREAT SCIENTISTS I MENTIONED
…(. Hesitating .., does not answer)
addressing the judge: Your Honor, could you direct the witness
to answer this very important question …
Yes, answer the question please Professor ….
… (remains quiet )…
Answer the question or I will hold you for contempt of court!
I’m lost for words …
Alright, then you admit then you were absolutely
WRONG in saying there is no afterlife, YES or NO?
… Yes, I guess I admit I was wrong in saying
there is no afterlife …
You admit you have NO EVIDENTIARY AUTHORITY AT ALL ABOUT
No … I have no authority about the afterlife
You admit it was professional negligence pushed to its extreme
on your part when you wilfully neglected to investigate
the brilliant scientific afterlife works of the scientists
I mentioned before you made those uninformed remarks about
Yes, yes …I admit I was rather negligent in not investigating
the afterlife works of the scientists.
As a matter of fundamental procedure, you concede that you
should not have come to any conclusions about the afterlife
before you rebutted the afterlife evidence and before investigated
the afterlife …right?
Yes, right, I was wrong when I made statements about something
I knew nothing about ….
Would you apologize to that class of hundreds of
millions of people you insulted by your colossal ignorance
about the afterlife ….
… no answer …
WE ARE ALL WAITING PROFESSOR … ARE YOU GOING TO BE
DECENT, WITH INTEGRITY, WITH HONESTY AND WITH PRUDENCE -
AND APOLOGIZE TO ALL PEOPLE YOU TRIED TO INSULT?
is a part of the summing up to the members of the jury by
attorney Victor Zammit about the Professor Stephen Hawking's
of the jury … accordingly, I say that this Professor
Hawking by his own admission, failed to investigate the
evidence for the afterlife. He failed to show where, when,
how and why the scientific afterlife evidence cannot be
right. He conceded he knows absolutely nothing about the
afterlife. He conceded he is totally ignorant about the
afterlife. He conceded he never ever read anything about
professor failed to realize that outside his area of specialization
as a theoretical physicist, he has NO authority at all to
speak, to insult, to denigrate those who accept the afterlife
– especially, those scientists who bothered to investigated
the afterlife first BEFORE they came to any conclusions
about the afterlife.
professor wrongly assumed that he is omniscient - he's all
knowing and infallible. He thought he could deliberately
mislead, misinform and misdirect the public about his own
personal, non-scientific negative prejudices about the afterlife
by using his status as a scientist. That is in a way cheating,
trying to fool everyone.
This professor's conclusions did NOT come from evidence.
His conclusions on the afterlife came from his deeply entrenched
negative personal anti-afterlife prejudices.
I submit to you ladies and gentlemen, that is most maliciously
unfair, most unjust, most inequitable.
Professor wrongly expressed an opinion without informing
himself about the matter. His statement saying there is
no afterlife is not admissible as an objective fact because
it was a personal opinion not backed by science. He made
that uninformed statement NOT as a scientist but as an afterlife
uninformed layperson. He himself states that as a scientist
one should investigate first before making claims that will
hurt people everywhere. He conceded he did NOT do that.
Because the matter was reported in the global media, that
becomes very serious on a global level.
professor himself stated he was professionally negligent
in making anti-afterlife statements when he had no knowledge
whatsoever about the afterlife.
referred to the existing afterlife evidence and he never
had the decency, the courtesy and the honesty to refer to
the scientific evidence of the other brilliant scientists
who proved that the afterlife, according to their experiments,
exists. That was huge omission by the Professor. And he
had the audacity, the effrontery, the gall to say that these
brilliant afterlife researchers - some of them worked at
genius level - are afraid of the dark! Or in the alternative,
this Professor is implying and imputing that those brilliant
scientists who accepted the afterlife are stupid!
he used his status as a Professor in theoretical physics
to promote his unproven anti-afterlife negative beliefs
and prejudices. Clearly that was a willful, deliberate and
intentional colossal abuse of power in the hands of someone
who confessed he was totally ignorant of the afterlife evidence.
Professor may be perceived to be brilliant by SOME atheistic,
anti-afterlife cosmologists in his own narrow field of specialization
– about cosmic science. But to-day here before you
he is not here as a scientist. He is here as a layperson
about his uninformed statement which received wide media
attention that there is no afterlife. But the huge problem
is that many people would not be able to separate his science
from his negative beliefs.That metaphorically means he has
led millions into confusion and darkness!
in this particular case, I can’t see you having any
other alternative but to find him liable for his gross negligence,
for his most unethical conduct, for misleading the people
and for spreading darkness around the world - and for making
himself look really professionally ridiculous – something
that history will never forget.
I urge all of you on the basis of the clear and definitive
evidence presented to you to find him LIABLE.”
lawyer who would like to defend Professor Stephen Hawking
is free to contact me to submit his defence of the Professor.
I’d be more than happy to publish any defence, rebutting
the issues I raised.)
In eighteen years, in context of the above, no attorney
has ever tried to defend Professor S Hawking. Updated 2018)
Presents the Case for the Afterlife: http://www.victorzammit.com