As I started a thread about James Randis challenge, I thought that it's only fair to bring Victor Zammits challenge up too.

http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html

He says that someone has to rebut all of his evidence for the afterlife and no one has so far. He is a lawyer so my scepticism says to me that he would also have a few tricks up his sleeve.

I haven't looked at everything on his site but what I have seen is convincing and he does make a very good point. I can't help thinking that I'm biased though  ::).

The only thing opposing people seem to say about him is that he's crazy etc which isn't really a valid argument and doesn't give them any credibility by throwing insults. It has also been said that there is no evidence on his site but that would make his challenge easily winnable, also there is evidence so it's another cheap shot no doubt.

What do you think?

Andy

This challenge is a joke. Other than the verbal and written challenge there is no proof of the money. Secondly, asking for someone to disprove afterlife theories requires taking each piece of "theoretical" evidence and testing it completely.

Many pieces of theoretical afterlife evidence are completely unverifiable until you are dead, and equally untestable in an acceptable scientific fashion.

I will say that the Scole experiment is actually a perfect example of how NOT to test a medium. The testers allowed the mediums to pick the time and the place instead of a white room with steel chairs in a laboratory after a full cavity body search of the mediums. (which would have actually been a scientific approach.) Further, the testers were able to show periods where in the darkness it was possible for someone to actually switch video tapes.

Finally, Victor Zammit will always call the afterlife the "Realm of Light" It is a "mystical" realm of light that everyone goes to and he will keep saying "realm of light" like it's a ritual or something... Just saying it because it really bothers me.

Victor Zammit is big on materialization mediums. Which he states are mediums that are able to cause spirits to manifest in different forms in near darkness... the spirits are able to materialize through "ectoplasm."

Further, Victor recommends that if spirits manifest like this without your consent, you should call the GhostBusters immediately. (Especially if the manifestation is within your fridge.)

I jest, but let's just say that if I was trying to convince the world that the afterlife existed, I would definitely try to hide the fact that Victor Zammit exists and is pro afterlife, because when a scientist examines the evidence and listens to the way Victor talks, even if they can't disprove everything.... they will soon realize that Victor has a very "hokey" aspect to him.

Have yu read his book? I find it very interesting because all of his statements are guided by the logic. If God does really exist, He's a "Logical Being", so we may try to speculate on  the Afterlife only on the basis of a logical thinking.
My 2€-cent worth...

Yes, I have read his book. Yes, the "evidence" for the afterlife is not all bad by any means. The information he is showing is very reasonable and shows that the afterlife is a very good possibility that should be tested... throughly and correctly. Something neither he nor any of the selected cases of evidence have truly done.

Victors #1 thing is materialization mediums. That's fine, but let's get these mediums in a completely controlled scientific environment with 10 or more cameras covering every inch of the place and tester chosen light sources which can be dimmed as requested by the medium.

These conditions have not been met for any of the evidence presented, therefore the evidence itself cannot be accepted as more than questionable results at best.

Yes, I agree with you about the materialisations, but in the other end, you should admit that Zammit's arguments are very well exposed and are based on a jurisprudential way. In a nutshell, if 100, 200 or more witnesses had you seen stealing -for ex.- foods in a mall, even if no one can find the stolen stuffs, you are  charged with thieving. It's not an objective proof (like the materialisations claims) but a testimonial one that' s as solid as a smoking gun.
Zammit collected an enormous amount of these proofs, from NDE's ADC's, to automatic writing and, from my modest point of view, the "queen" of all: The Cross Correspondences:
http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/crosscorrespondences.htm
a very interesting experiment that no one has yet redone.

Claudio

Thanks for pointing out the Cross correspondence thing. I had read Myers years ago but did not recall anything about that. Apparently there is a book pub ~2008 about it...The Eager Dead, or something like that.

In looking into this more, I found a quote from Myers


Quote:

On another occasion, Myers wrote that “to believe that the mere act of death enables a spirit to understand the whole mystery of death is as absurd as to imagine that the act of birth enables an infant to understand the whole mystery of life.”  He added that he was still groping…surmising…conjecturing.

sent from the other side. somethng to keep in mind.

http://www.aspsi.org/feat/life_after/tymn/CROSS_CORRESPONDENCE.htm
(source)

I wonder why this has not happened again? Did it take a combination of a scholar who knew or knew of several mediums? Something to do with the era in which it occurred? The scholar part would have developed a particular type of mental focus in Myers, was that handy for this sort of work?  Is this why Houdini was going to try to send a message? and why didn't his attempt work?

Well here is an account of one example. This is sort of tedious, in the age of the sound bite and elevator speech, this would not hold many folks' attention for very long. But if you can see the overview (and follow the whole thing, Ifind it confusing) it is sort of interesting:
http://www.prairieghosts.com/cross_corr.html

Thanks for the links, will read them during the weekend. ;)
I think that the ancient experiments of cross-correspondences have demonstrated the reality of communication with Dead People, no need to repeat them... isn't so? ::)

Actually, if this were a scientific experiment, they would need to be repeated. In scientific terms, you need to show "ruggedness" and "repeatability", which isn't done enough in the medical studies that pop up in the news.

On a personal level, that may not be necessary. How many times does one have to fall in love to prove to one's self that "in love" is a real state?  : )

The Myers cross communication example might not be so easy to repeat. There were lots of emotional connections among some of the people involved, though that does not include the mediums. It is an interesting story.

I agree Lucy on all points.

Also, I am aware of the Myers "story" but is there any proof that this was not an elaborate hoax? I mean, from what I can tell from the web, it's word of mouth information that is unscientifically tested and highly questionable, albeit, an intriguing read.

I believe there is an enormous gap between what can be classified as beyond 'reasonable' doubt and that which can be 'beyond all possible doubt'. I'm not sure anything can be classed in the latter category- after all how do I know when my children come home from school that they are not really very clever alien imposters beyond all doubt ?!

As far as I'm concerned beyond reasonable doubt is good enough and much within the afterlife field comes within that category...

:)

Further- applying that level of proof to the Scole Experiments I would say that the test should be whether a skilled conjurer could produce a similar array of phenomena under the same conditions. To my knowledge, so far there have been no takers ...