by Victor Zammit
Retired Lawyer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales,
and the High Court of Australia


A response by Victor Zammit to an article 'Challenging Times' by Barry WIlliams published in The Skeptic Summer 2001.

(Closed minded skeptics have failed miserably in Australia. Conversely, New Age support is growing at a fantastic rate - from a few thousand fifteen years ago to millions to-day buying, listening to radio and TV watching New Age material)

I am getting fed up with some of these uninformed, ignorant closed minded materialist non-entities skeptics trying to cheat, lie and deliberately mislead readers about my evidence for the afterlife and about my $1 million challenge.

In the Australian mainstream newspaper, THE TELEGRAPH, journalist Joe Casamento on a couple of occasions mid last year included in her page, rather facetiously, the suggestion that Australian billionaire and media owner, Kerry Packer, ought to apply for Victor Zammit's $1million dollar offer because Kerry Packer died for a few minutes and did not have a Near Death Experience.

The publicity of the Challenge in this article apparently upset some of the materialists including closed minded materialist defeatist Barry Williams.

Intellectually unequipped, this non-entity Barry Williams, a usually uninformed dogmatic materialist from Sydney Australia, took it upon himself to try to wrestle with my challenge (in the Skeptics' journal).

Barry used scurrilous, dirty, indecent language and blatant lies and wilful misrepresentations to try to denigrate me, thinking that by being dirty and unethical he will score a few cheap points. Of course he will fool and mislead the closed-minded materialists but he will not fool those who are independent minded. Why not?

Because, instead of trying to rebut the EVIDENCE I presented, this very low minded skeptic tried to attack the person. However he:

FAILED to rebut any single item of 200 pages of evidence for the afterlife!

FAILED to show why my evidence ought not be accepted.

FAILED to make a distinction between a 'belief' and an 'empirical fact.'

FAILED to rebut the highly controversial substantive evidence on EVP.

FAILED to grasp and understand the concept of objective-subjective evidence.

FAILED to understand the technicality of the onus-of-proof.

FAILED to show he is not just an amateur, dilettante skeptic.

FAILED miserably to do his research.

FAILED to represent my evidence as I presented it in my book.

FAILED to deal with evidence unemotionally and with proper equanimity.

FAILED to use decent language acceptable in professional debate.

FAILED to get off his lazy butt to do meaningful research about psi.

Barry shows he was enormously frustrated and angry because I presented objective evidence for the afterlife which showed that he's had the wrong beliefs all his life and this has upset him as it upset all materialists who read the book.

In his endeavour to ridicule, this misguided and uninformed materialist misrepresents when he states that "Mr Zammit's site leads one to the suspicion that he simply doesn't comprehend the difference between 'evidence' as it might apply to legal case and how it does apply in a properly conducted scientific investigation." If this materialist skeptic Barry had read the first chapter of the book he would have learned that I am formally qualified not only in technical legal evidence as a professional lawyer but also in measuring 'scientific' evidence; I have a Major in Scientific Method, the same scientific method used by scientists in their experiments around the world to-day.

This inevitably will completely make nugatory Barry's attempt to use an analogy to try to ridicule my (and my colleagues') expertise in evidence.

But, NOT being a lawyer, Barry totally out of his depth, tries to meddle in legal issues that are clearly above his head. For example, the Crown (the Prosecutor) does not need 'reason to suppose' someone might be responsible for some crime; the Prosecutor must have sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt before any action can be taken.

Barry is saying that the skeptic is challenging the paranormalist to "give us the evidence" that there is life after death. But when faced with TWNTYTHREE chapters of that evidence he does NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO REBUT ONE of them!!

Surely, the Australian skeptics can engage someone who knows how to rebut the substantive technical argument that I have on my webpage!! Why send this low level minded Barry when they can send a professional? Perhaps because the professional understands my evidence and concedes it cannot be rebutted!!

Any unrebutted evidence will permanently stay valid!!!

More of Barry's egregious blunders:

But there are more of Barry's colossal blunders, something which apparently he copied from the wilful misrepresentation of his idol J Randi: '(Zammit)' is asking you to prove a 'universal negative … and he also seeks to reverse the burden of proof.'

For your education Barry and also for other uninformed closed and negatively minded materialist skeptics: it is absolute rubbish that I am asking anyone to prove the negative. You only need an IQ of 20 to go to my website and you will find in expressly stated terms, "One million dollars is offered to any skeptic who can rebut the evidence for the existence of the afterlife."

The evidence for the afterlife is expressly set out in my book on the Internet!
The evidence is not implied, not imputed. For example, the Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) is positive, materially acceptable evidence which the skeptic has to rebut explaining why the positive results are not connected with the afterlife.

I state that psychic researchers have proved the legitimacy of the EVP and the existence of the afterlife. The onus now shifts onto the skeptic to rebut the evidence, to show that the voices produced are not those living in the afterlife. That is the universal rule which Barry seems to find difficult to understand OR better still, does NOT have the essential intellect to understand. I suggest some informed advice be sought from a lawyer about the accepted rules, procedure and protocol of rebutting a technical argument.

This means that you Barry, the skeptic, have to get off your lazy butt, to do some heavy research if you have the brains, about the history of EVP and what is happening around the world with EVP. The materialist skeptics usually will stop there because they learn they will never be in a position to properly and technically rebut the EVP phenomenon.

But the EVP is only ONE type of evidence. The materialist skeptic has to rebut some TWENTY TWO other points of evidence. As one ABC Radio skeptic admitted, the task is monumental and no skeptic will ever be in a position to rebut the presented objective evidence.

Materialist Barry also attacks me on a different level. He stated that just because an expert distinguished himself in the legal profession it does not mean that expertise carries onto psychic phenomena. This issue was also raised by that closed minded skeptic materialist, James Randi, who stated that Zammit's qualifications and expertise are unrelated to psychic phenomena.

To this I state that my qualifications and practise in law together with my qualification in scientific method at University level give me a high level of professional expertise as to what is 'admissible evidence' in psychic phenomena and the afterlife. The materialist laypersons, like Barry and Randi - ignorant of technicalities, would not have any idea whatsoever what the courts allow in evidence. When some 12 months ago I asked James Randi what is a 'dependent variable' in experimentation, he did NOT know, he did not reply!! I repeatedly stated that ALL the evidence I articulated in my book would be 'admissible evidence' in the highest Court of the land. And if it is not rebutted it will stay as permanently VALID admissible evidence.

More, more LIES from Barry!

Materialist Barry's attempt to negatively manipulate the reader's mind by wilful lying is really pathetic. Instead of rebutting the twenty three chapters of evidence he falsely claims that in my book on the Internet I quote from Professor Brian Josephson (he is not mentioned) and mention with approval 'Cayce' ( his name- correctly spelled is mentioned once in Chapter 13 cited with approval by parapsychologist Steven Kaplan) 'Nostradamus' (not mentioned) and 'Sai Baba' (not mentioned).

Interestingly, Barry tries to intentionally mislead the reader by omitting some of to-day's brilliant scientists I mention on my website who accept psychic phenomena and the afterlife, such as Dr Dean Radin, Professor Gary Schwartz, physicist Dr Peter Wadhams, Ron Pearson, award winning scientists Dr Roger Walsh, Dr Charles Tart, Dr Evan Harris Walker - just to mention a few.

Further, Barry denigratingly mentions 'other charlatans.' What charlatans?

Barry, just because you have an entrenched negatively prejudicial mind, does not mean that all readers are going to swallow your unsubstantiated rubbish about 'charlatans.' There are charlatans everywhere. Some who try to be medical doctors, others who try to fleece the public by appealing for donations as well as fraudulent alleged 'psychics.' But just because some crows are black it doesn't mean white crows don't exist. This is one of the main points I make in my book if you have the brains to understand it.

Further still, misguided Barry is trying to mislead and fool the reader by implying that my beliefs are supported by the abovementioned names. Where did I ever list my beliefs? What Barry has done is to wilfully misrepresent my beliefs which I never stated anywhere.

Other issues raised by Barry the skeptic did not relate to the challenge and do not warrant any response because they do not have literary merit at all.

Unable to rebut my substantive argument he picks on an inadvertently misspelt word (out of thousands of words) on my weekly website. So trivial, petty and pathetic and completely stupid! Typical closed minded materialist gutter level trick to try to compensate for the inability to rebut my argument!

Clearly, Barry Williams a typical loser and defeatist in psi by nature who appears to speak for the Australian skeptics has very badly blundered his way through something and shows he is above his head and out of his depth in something he does not understand or cannot understand. Barry clearly has shown, to use his own description which accurately describes his position, that he 'wouldn't know his arse from his elbow.'

-- Victor Zammit (March 2002)

<< Return to A Lawyer on The Skeptics

Copyright © 2001 Victor Zammit.  All rights reserved.  --