Victor Zammit’s Cross-examination of Professor Stephen
( 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 capitalised 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.)
Judge: (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?’
Pro Hawking: I don’t believe
Judge to court attendant: Proceed with an affirmation (an
oath designed for atheists).
Victor, friendly, smiling: How are
you Professor? You feel all right?
Professor: Yes, I do. Why do you
Victor: 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?
Professor: Yes, I’m in an
excellent state of mind.
Victor: Good. Tell us Professor.
Are you intelligent?
Professor: Yes I suppose I am.
Victor: 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?
Professor: I’ll leave that
to those scientists who call me that.
Victor: But have you come across
scientists with the same bias as yours who described you
as a genius, YES or NO?
Victor: 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 ...
Victor: What kind of a scientist
Prof: I am a theoretical physicist.
Victor: What do you mean by that?
Prof: I study theoretical physics,
Victor: 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?
Prof: Yes, that is right - I do
not work in a scientific laboratory...
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 results ...
Victor: Some newspapers informed
us that you are famous for your cosmic theories. So when
you come to conclusions about cosmology, you first …
Prof: Yes, that’s absolutely
Victor: Do you ever come to conclusions
about some aspect of the universe without first having studied
Prof: No, of course not. That would
be ridiculous. I cannot make conclusions unless I first
study the area. I’m a scientist.
Victor: 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?
Prof: … (hesitating)…I
use equations ...
Victor: But equations generally
are not about repeatable and objective evidence, is that
Prof: ... Yes … I guess that’s right.
Victor: 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… right?
Prof.: I suppose so. But I can show
you why I’m right …
Victor: But you can NEVER guarantee
that your conclusions on black holes are absolute and irreversible,
that they are one hundred per cent correct, RIGHT?
Prof: … (softly) I guess yes,
that’s right …
Victor: So, it is possible that in the future other physicists
may give us more accurate information about black holes?
Prof: Yes ... I suppose so ...
Victor: You said earlier you are
qualified in theoretical physics. Professor, are you qualified
in law - do you have a law degree?
Prof: Of course not.
Victor: So you do not have the professional
expertise to know what technically constitutes admissible
evidence and the process of litigation?
Prof: As I said, I don’t have
any knowledge of law or of litigation procedure!
Victor: this means that a litigation
lawyer would have the professional expertise about what
is admissible in evidence as objective and subjective evidence
more than a theoretical physicist, right?
Prof.: I guess so … it’s
quite obvious to me …
Victor: Your answer is YES?
Victor: Are you qualified in medicine?
Prof: Of course not. (Looks
at the judge and asks). Your
Honor, do I have to answer these questions?
Victor: Your honor, the question
of objective AUTHORITY is critical in this matter.
Judge: Yes, yes I understand …
(to the professor:) ... answer the question.
Prof: No, I'm not qualified in medicine ...
Victor: Professor, are you formally
qualified in architecture, engineering, biology, advanced
chemistry, advanced philosophy?
Victor: Have you ever formally studied
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: What do you think is the purpose of life on planet
Prof: (hesitates) ... I suppose
you can say the purpose of life is to look after yourself
Victor: Is there any meaning in life on earth?
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 dimension?
Prof: I don't think there is an
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?
Prof: I don't know ... at the moment
I cannot say there is ...
Victor: So, going back what you said earlier, for the record,
you are not qualified in these professions and university
disciplines I mentioned?
Prof: No, I’m not qualified
in any of these except I know something about chemistry.
Victor: You agree then, that your
only area of professional expertise is in the narrow area
of theoretical physics, in cosmological science yes?
Prof: … (hesitating) …
Victor: ANSWER THE
QUESTION PROFESSOR – the question calls for a YES
or NO answer!
Prof: Yes … my expertise is
only in theoretical physics, in cosmology.
Victor: Would you be familiar with
what is objective evidence and subjective evidence?
Prof: Yes, yes I would be.
Victor: 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 results?
Prof: Yes, I agree with that.
Victor: 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
Prof: Yes, yes … I agree with
Victor: So, you agree that any statement
you make as a layperson could be absolutely wrong. Yes?
Prof: … I guess so …
Victor: Do you make mistakes as
a scientist, Professor?
Prof: … I’ve made mistakes
in the past …
Victor: Do you make mistakes when
you make statements not related to your theoretical science?
Prof: Everybody makes mistakes …
Victor: Your answer is YES?
Prof: Yes …
Victor: So, you accept that you
make mistakes as a scientist and when you make statements
as a non-scientist. Right?
Prof: Right … Yes …
Victor: From what you said, you
concede that you can make statements as a layperson or a
scientist that could be absolutely incorrect, they could
Prof: I suppose so …
Victor: You were quoted in the media
recently that you do not accept the existence of the afterlife
– is that correct?
Prof: Yes, that’s correct.
Victor: Would you accept that cosmological
theoretical physics has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge
and the evidence about the afterlife.
Prof: …. Yes, I accept that
Victor: You agree that the two are
completely independent and totally separate from each other
and are inevitably unrelated.
Prof: Yes ... but ...
Victor: 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?
Prof: 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 ... right?
Prof: .... yes, I guess so ...
Victor: 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?
Prof: … yes … I said
that too. But ..
Victor: 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?
Prof: Yes …
Victor: I remind you, you are under
oath. Listen carefully. Have you ever investigated the evidence
for the afterlife Professor. Yes or no please.
Prof: What evidence? ..... No I
Victor: 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?
Prof: (No answer) ….
Victor: No need to answer that –
the jury accepts you’ve answered that already! Have
you bothered to find out if and what literature is available
about the afterlife?
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 evidence?
Prof: No, I have not.
Victor: Do you know Professor, that
the afterlife evidence in this book by a litigation lawyer
in eleven years has never been rebutted by any materialist
genius scientist – not even for the allurement of
one million dollars?
Prof: …. No, I don’t
Victor: How would you like to earn
a cool million dollars professor?
Prof: What do I have to do?
Victor: You only have to rebut the
evidence for the existence of the afterlife presented by
that lawyer. Got the courage?
Pro.: Maybe …
Victor: What’s the matter
professor? Are you an intellectual coward or have you been
professional negligent – or both - when it comes to
Judge: Professor, you do not have
to answer that question.
Victor : You don’t have to
– I accept the jury also accepts that the Professor
answered that question already!
Prof.: I’m not an intellectual
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?
Prof: No, I do not.
Victor: You agree then you have not investigated any
aspect of the afterlife evidence?
Prof: No, I have not.
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: 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?
Prof: No, I have not.
Victor: 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
Prof: (does not answer ..) .... Physics tell me
there is not likely to be an afterlife ...
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 no afterlife?
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?
Judge: Yes, yes ... Professor ...
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?
Prof: (does not answer) …
Victor: Some intellectuals - and others - would call you
denigrating something which you have not investigated cowardice
pushed to its extreme ... agree with that Professor?
Prof: (does not answer) ...
Victor: (Victor looks at the
members of the jury) …. We are waiting …You
said you have not done any research about the the objective
and repeatable evidence for the afterlife? Why not? Too
Prof: I’m not lazy …
Victor: 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 nothing about?
Prof: (no answer) …
Victor: You shock all of us with
your afterlife knowledge!
You stated earlier that professional litigation lawyers
are the professionals who know what is admissible objective
and subjective evidence. Right?
Prof: … yes … right
Victor: 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?
Prof: I would have to examine the
Victor: Just answer YES or NO to
that question …
Prof: I would have to answer yes
I guess ….
Victor: Have you come across a recent
book by British scientist Ron Pearson WHY PHYSICS PROVES
Prof. No I have not.
Victor: Have you read the brilliant
physicist Sir Oliver Lodge’s masterpiece why he accepts
Prof: No … I have not.
Victor: Have you ever read about
the materialization experiments of that great scientist
Sir William Crookes which led him to accept the evidence
for the existence of the afterlife?
Prof: No, I have not.
Victor: No? Have you read the brilliant work of physicist
Professor Jan W Vandersande on afterlife research?
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
Prof: No, I have not ...
Victor (Also looking at the jury): YOU HAVEN'T?
Prof.: (does not answer ...)
Have you ever read Arthur Findlay’s
great works on his empirical evidence for the afterlife?
Prof: No, I have not.
Victor: Have you read the most impressive
scientific afterlife research of Professor Ernst Senkowski?
Prof: No, I have not.
Victor: Then what clearly follows
is that you do not have authority about the afterlife, right?
Prof.: Putting it that way …
I suppose so …
Just a little louder in the microphone professor, so that
the jury members can hear you.
Prof: I suppose so!
Victor: 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?
Prof: … 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 the question.
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
Prof: No, I have not …
Victor: (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. (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
Prof: … 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 ...
Victor: 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,
Prof: …. I guess so …
That’s not very intelligent is it Professor?
Prof: (Does not answer).......
Victor: So, when you said there
is no afterlife, did you say that as a scientist?
Prof.: No, not as a scientist.
Victor: Then as a layperson?
Prof: … Yes as a layperson
Victor: As an afterlife UNINFORMED
Prof: … (no answer)
Victor: YOUR HONOR!!!
Judge: Yes, Professor, you must
answer the question ..
Prof : Yes, as an afterlife uninformed
Victor: Good. Nothing wrong with
being honest occasionally.(“objection” by Prof
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?
Prof: … I guess so …Yes,
Victor: 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
Prof: …(. Hesitating .., does
Victor- addressing the judge: Your
Honor, could you direct the witness to answer this very
important question …
Judge: Yes, answer the question
please Professor ….
Prof: … (remains quiet )…
Judge: Answer the question or I
will hold you for contempt of court!
Prof: I’m lost for words …
Victor: Alright, then you admit
then you were absolutely WRONG in saying there is no afterlife,
YES or NO?
Prof: … Yes, I guess I admit
I was wrong in saying there is no afterlife …
Victor: You admit you have NO EVIDENTIARY
AUTHORITY AT ALL ABOUT THE AFTERLIFE?
Prof: No … I have no authority
about the afterlife ….
Victor: 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 the afterlife?
Prof. Yes, yes …I admit I
was rather negligent in not investigating the afterlife
works of the scientists.
Victor: 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
Prof: Yes, right, I was wrong when
I made statements about something I knew nothing about ….
Victor: Would you apologize to that
class of hundreds of millions of people you insulted by
your colossal ignorance about the afterlife ….
Prof: … no answer …
Victor: 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?
Prof: ….. ___________________________
This is a part of the summing up
to the members of the jury by attorney Victor Zammit about
the Professor Stephen Hawking's testimony ...
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
This 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.
This 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.
And I submit to you ladies and gentlemen,
that is most maliciously unfair, most unjust, most inequitable.
This 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 a 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.
This professor himself stated he
was professionally negligent in making anti-afterlife statements
when he had no knowledge whatsoever about the afterlife.
He never 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!
Instead, 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.
This 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!
Really, 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.
Yes, I urge all of you on the basis
of the clear and definitive evidence presented to you to
find him LIABLE.”
(Any 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.)
A Lawyer Presents the Case for the