$1 Million Challenge
Preface and Conditions
(Plain English version)
million dollars is offered to any skeptic who can rebut the evidence
for the existence of the afterlife - see paragraphs 1, 2 and 3
I am NOT asking the applicant to prove 'there is no afterlife'
- ie, I am NOT asking anyone to 'prove
the negative'. There are a couple of mischievous 'closed-minded
skeptics' who are are being dishonest and misrepresenting my challenge.
My challenge is directly related to the expressly stated evidence
I presented in my book A LAWYER PRESENTS THE CASE FOR THE AFTERLIFE.
In other words the applicant has to REBUT the expressly stated
evidence. This is a normal procedural process
afterlife is not just a speculative claim like there may be unicorns
or there may be green cheese on the other side of the moon. There
have been top scientists, genuine mediums, and thousands of others
including empirical investigators like myself, who experienced
psi and afterlife communication. (See Chapter
2 of my book on the Net)
is claimed that there is now a substantial body of evidence which
supports the existence of the afterlife and which taken as a whole
cannot be satisfactorily accounted for except by the existence
of the afterlife.
have had complaints from genuine psychics and those who support
the validity of psychic phenomena that those who reject the existence
of the afterlife have never really examined the evidence.
claim they experienced a great deal of frustration when they tried
to apply for a skeptic's highly
million dollar challenge. It was put to me that the skeptic's
offer is not genuine. Also, it was suggested that the psychics
ought to put up a similar challenge reflecting the skeptic's
IS THE FUNDING? Naturally, the effort has to be commensurate with
the very high cash reward. Legal documentation that there is one
million dollars available will be shown to all bone fides
applicants and to any objective recognized authority. That
is no problem at all.
Because of the very high cash offer, the applicant has to rebut
the substantive objective evidence presented in Victor Zammit's
A Lawyer Presents
the Case for the Afterlife (http://www.victorzammit.com/book/
4th version) (see chapters 3 to 25) which includes: My Materialization
with David Thompson, Electronic Voice Phenomena, Instrumental
Transcommunication, the Scole Experiments, Mediumship - Mental,
Physical and Direct Voice, Xenoglossy, the Cross-Correspondences,
Proxy Sittings, Automatic Etheric Writing, Laboratory Experiments,
Poltergeists, Apparitions together with the evidence provided
by Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences which psychics
claim are supportive of and are directly linked with the afterlife.
2. Also, the applicant will have to prove in absolute terms that
40 senior police officers, police detectives and other police
officers in many States in the United States who validated the
assistance they received from psychics and mediums are lying.
These police officers accepted that psychic phenomena and contacting
victims in the afterlife are real. These testimonies are contained
on my page PSYCHIC
DETECTIVES. The applicant will automatically disqualify himself/herself
from participating in this challenge if and when the applicant
is unable to do so.
Further, the applicant will have to show in absolute terms why
the stunningly accurate information (all forty-two identified
variables) stated in the television series SENSING MURDER (episode
'LAST ORDERS') by two world class forensic psychic mediums Deb
Webber and Kelvin Cruickshank is not valid. Both Deb Webber and
Kelvin Cruickshank stated they obtained the information from the
afterlife dimension from the victim - read
Here is the challenge for those skeptics who have been continuously
campaigning in the media that there is no afterlife: those closed-minded
skeptics who have been crusading around the world denigrating,
destroying and demeaning the credibility of gifted psychics, trying
to dismiss the positive evidence being produced for the afterlife;
those skeptics who have been cruelly twisting and manipulating
psychic truth to reduce its effect; those who unconscionably have
tried to destroy the reputations of some of the greatest and most
brilliant 'classical' scientists and psychic writers who ever
walked this planet earth like Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver
Lodge, Sir William Barrett, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Arthur Findlay
and so many others!
I concede that the skeptics' offer has been used very successfully
and has provided huge propaganda against psychics and mediums.
It has misled an made fools out of some journalists, radio and
TV interviewers. It has been a powerful tool for the dissemination
of global darkness. The media's pet rent-a-skeptic vociferates
on behalf of some 2% of the population who are closed minded skeptics
yet these skeptics have been given exaggerated time and space
in the media.
Although there is sponsorship for the offer, I am fully and solely
responsible for the said offer.
Given the circumstances it is only reasonable, fair and equitable
to match and to mirror as far as possible the skeptics' fundamental
conditions one by one as the skeptics have had them on the Internet
for a number of years now.
NOTE CAREFULLY: The applicant is not required to 'prove the
negative' as skeptical debunkers try to deliberately mislead readers:
the evidence is positively expressly stated (as outlined
in the subject book A LAWYER PRESENTS THE CASE FOR THE AFTERLIFE).
Then the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate WHERE, WHEN,
WHY, and HOW the expressly stated evidence is not valid.
9. 'The challenge' refers to the offer of one million American
dollars. The 'offeror' refers to Victor Zammit who is making the
challenge. 'The Committee' refers to a group of people expert
in afterlife evidence and will be chosen JOINTLY WITH THE SUCCESSFUL
APPLICANT OF STAGE ONE - see below. The 'afterlife evidence' refers
to the evidence mentioned above in the Preface. 'Applicant' refers
to a person applying to meet 'the challenge.' Stage One refers
to the first stage of the challenge where the applicant explains
in clear terms how the applicant is intending to rebut the evidence.
Stage Two, is the stage where the applicant (as in the skeptics'
offer) becomes the claimant and clearly explains in the English
language in academically acceptable format his rebuttal of the
Stage One- Initial submission.
there have been applicants who wasted a great deal of our precious
time and money who had not examined the evidence in detail, it
has become essential and a pre-requisite that prior to any actual
submission of any rebuttals of the evidence in Stage Two of the
Challenge, a potential applicant must initially submit to the
offeror a detailed exposition of how the applicant is going to
rebut the evidence outlined in the above Preface.Further, see
The offeror and the applicant will agree that the applicant has
demonstrated the technical skills to rebut the evidence. This
is a fundamental and most important condition.
. In relation to 2 above the decision of the offeror or his appointed
representative will be absolute, irrevocable and final.
The applicant agrees that all data of any sort gathered as a result
of the application may be used freely by the offeror or the Committee
in any way they choose.
The 'Committee' shall comprise experienced adjudicators qualified
empirically in litigation and empiricism and will be appointed
jointly by the offeror and the applicant.
Stage Two- Rebutting the evidence
agreement on condition 2 above has been reached the claimant will
submit his/her rebuttals to be placed before the Committee.
The applicant and the offeror accept that the decision of the
Committee in relation to the submissions will be absolute, irrevocable
The applicant agrees that the level of proof required to rebut
the evidence will be the Cartesian test, "beyond any doubt".
This means that there has to be absolutely no doubt at all in
the minds of the Committee that the 'evidence' has been rebutted.
All correspondence in this challenge must be communicated in the
English language and sent to: The Challenge, P.O. Box 1810 Dee
Why, Northern Beaches, NSW Australia 2099 by registered mail.
All costs incurred by the applicant in relation to this challenge
will be borne by the applicant.
Whilst this rule is independent to and separate from the awarding
of the above stated prize, the applicant agrees not to take legal
action against the committee, or the challenger and or his reprentatives
in relation to anything outside the actual challenge - the applicant
is unreservedly and unqualifiedly responsible for the applicant's
own risks - physical, emotional, psychological howsoever caused.
The applicant agrees that in context of this challenge the applicant
is not a commercial consumer.
Upon successfully proceeding to Stage Two the claimant will be
given all other relevant details.
Before the applicant makes a first submission (see paragraph 1
above) he/she must submit a document properly witnessed by a litigation
lawyer with at least five years experience in practising law up
to Supreme Court level stating that the lawyer has explained to
the applicant what technically constitutes admissible evidence
and the differences between objective, subjective and anecdotal
evidence. Secondly, the same lawyer afore referred to must also
explain the preface and the conditions to this challenge and that
these have been understood and accepted by the applicant. This
submission is to be forwarded to THE CHALLENGE, PO Box 1810, Dee
Why, Northern Beaches, NSW AUSTRALIA 2099 by registered mail.
Staff check mailbox and vet all mail every day.
24. Because some applicants have wasted precious time, money and
energy, two fundamental conditions have been added:
25. Because the afterlife evidence is highly technical, first,
the applicant must demonstrate understanding of Scientific Method;
and thirdly, the applicant must have been identified in recognized
public news-media as a genuine investigator of the afterlife.
Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore stated, the offeror personally
guarantees that payment of one million dollars will be made on
results as determined by the jointly appointed committee.
Victor Zammit (updated 21st February 2010)
<< Return to