LEGAL "SCIENCE" v SKEPTICAL LABORATORY SCIENTISTS

Most people are aware of the value of scientific method in conducting rigorously controlled experiments in relation to the paranormal. The work of the great pioneers of Afterlife Science like Sir William Crookes and Sir Oliver Lodge working with physical and trance mediums established the genuineness of physical mediumship. The Rhine Research Institute gave hard experimental evidence for psychic phenomena and the Windbridge Institute for mental mediumship.

But many mainstream, reductionist closed-minded scientists take a very unscientific stand on the afterlife by refusing to be cross-examined on their claims that there is no evidence for the afterlife. They have not done any direct experiments in the area and make outrageous statements based purely on their own untested negative prejudices.

The legal process demands an examination of the character and motives of a witness. It allows for cross examination to test the extent of knowledge and credibility of the witness. It rigorously pursues the skeptical scientist to show specifically where, when, how and why the evidence for the afterlife cannot be accepted.

If a witness (eg, a closed minded scientist) is sworn to tell the truth in a courtroom situation, but does not tell the truth, the witness could go to prison for years for ‘perjury’ – lying while under oath. Not only that, when asked a question, the witness MUST answer the question – otherwise the witness will be in contempt of court and could end up in prison. As I stated in my cross-examinations of those couple of closed minded skeptics – see cross-examinations – you will see that the witness MUST answer the question put to him.

For example if a closed minded skeptic is asked, “Why is it that some of the most intelligent scientists (naming a few of those scientists) who scientifically investigated the afterlife – accepted the afterlife?” The witness MUST answer that.

Also, the closed minded witnesses MUST also answer all questions to do with the scientific evidence for the afterlife – that which is objective and repeatable. At the moment these skeptical scientists can unilaterally make ridiculous claims against paranormal science – knowing they do not have to answer a question and if they do, they know they do not have to answer honestly.

No genius skeptical scientist, no flamboyant closed minded skeptic, no anti-afterlife academic materialist has ever agreed to be cross-examined on their knowledge of the scientific investigation of the afterlife in public. This is because they know they will be publicly and internationally humiliated.

Outside the courtroom skeptics avoid dealing with the scientific substance of the paranormal and the afterlife evidence – they don’t have to answer these critical questions. They’ve been doing this for the last 150 years. But NOT if they are pinned down in a witness box where they MUST answer all questions, where truth inevitably will out.

<< Return to Index