|
AUSTRALIAN SKEPTIC DESCENDS TO THE DEEPEST LEVEL OF IDIOCY!
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
|
