If you watch Victor Zammit's many videos on the net you will notice the afterlife is always described as the "Realm of Light."

(Please picture me standing before you holding up my hands to form the quotation marks for emphasis.)

I understand a lot of his afterlife evidence, but I see no reason to assume the afterlife is definitely defined as "Realm of Light." In fact, there are many conflicting NDE's which would suggest multiple possibilities and variations of reality in the afterlife. Even hellish scary NDE's.

The bottom line?

I think Victor Zammit has some nice work put together for his case for the afterlife... Why does he have to ruin it with his.... "Realm of Light"?

His web site for those that do not know:
http://www.victorzammit.com/

I never heard of Victor Zammit as I don't go around the websites reading about other people's adventures, but I have been around the astral planes including the afterlife places. Some are very dark indeed. I've been to some so dark it is hard to see. One I went to is like night time all the time. Thousands of people are there of violent character, waging running gang fights, bashings and killings and such. There are streets and buildings there, just like cities here. The lightest parts of the plane, where things are most illuminated, is where straight lines of constructions intersect, like along the edges and corners of buildings, walls corners, curbs, sharp ledges, and such. It is because the energy of the atoms runs along the structures in lines and converges at the corners and combines to make these parts show up as brighter lines along the edges. Otherwise everything is quite dark. Astral matter has its own light, so it needs no other light source, but some of it has such low light that it doesn't show up unless it is structured in such a way to amplify its low light. An interesting phenomenon I think.

There are other astral planes I have been to where there is light and it is quite bright and colourful, but the people who get about there are very dangerous to astral travellers. (unlike those in the above mentioned dark plane who can't see an astral traveller because their tuning is different) They are magicians of various sorts. Not the primitive voodoo types, they are no great problem -though they would be to a novice - but these are the advanced workers who know their task and are committed to it. Other planes are also light but dangerous to western souls who might venture there. Don't think that those who hate us here somehow like us when we get to the other side, oh no, they hate us just as much there too. To venture into their planes/heavens is dangerous indeed and some will follow you back and have their methods of doing harm. I have had direct conflict with some of these types. But that is because of where I go and what I do. 

There are of course the higher planes, the planes of the friendly religions, the Christian and western "sectarian" planes, and planes where people are just friendlier. If someone says its all a nice and rosy realm of light out there then they haven't ventured to the darker places and the hostile places.         

Hi heisenburg,

Thanks for the link, interestingly Michael Roll who I mentioned in my last post has commented on the report  . He has experienced physical mediumship with someone called Rita Gould.

I wasn't aware that David Thompson is over here as often as he is if at all tbh, so it is possible for me to book a session myself. I will have to think about it though as the idea of it freaks me out a bit. Thanks again for your post.

I wasn't knocking physical mediumship in my last post afterall I made my feelings about it clear in the Scole thread that I started, particularly the claims that it was blatantly fraudulent. I just think it's wrong for Zammit to claim that it's the ultimate proof for survival of conciousness when there are many other areas which can leave a person in no doubt that we do live on after death.

Andy   

Dave,

I can agree with the line that you quoted too, I did notice it before when you quoted the whole thing.

Yeah, the internet is full of crap not just about afterlife stuff but pretty much anything, it's very rare to be able to search for something and get a quick answer to what you're after from my experience.

I found this which you should find interesting and it's pretty shocking really in my opinion, it's from the site I posted earlier but I'll post this one directly as it's quite important in itself.

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/scientificproof/scientificproof1.html

It says it all really.

Andy

heisenberg69 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 5:22pm:


  Very well said David, and completely agree. 

1heisenberg69 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 5:22pm:


Hi Dave,

It's clear that they only tell us the side of the story which they want us to hear. However, what does that say about their side of the story when they are keeping certain key points from us?

Anyway, all of the areas that you mentioned are pieces to a puzzle. I agree that they all need to be investigated fully and not brushed off with a pathetic explanation which does not make sense. When we can put them all together then we may start to get somewhere.

Andy

'When we can put them all together then we may start to get somewhere.'

That is the challenge and excitement of this thing !

Victor used the following (in my opinion) weak argument... this is a complete record of our contact with each other:

This is listed as most recent response to oldest!!!!!

Thanks for your interest in the matter.

But when a scientist expresses says something about the afterlife, people accept his opinion as fact.


So there’s no point wasting precious time on this one Mitch.


Best,


Victor


From: Mitch Shelton [mailto:SadSoul@gmx.com]
Sent: Friday, 20 January 2012 2:35 AM
To: victorzammit
Subject: RE: Attack on Steven Hawking is wrong


I regard the color red as the best color in the world.

Used in the same context as Steven Hawking.

Steven Hawking presented one thing:

an oppinion.

The bottom line is that an oppinion does not have to be based on facts and even more ironic an oppinion does not have to be even remotely sensible.

Victor Zammit, I propose the following challenge to you:

I challenge that you post a legitimate poll on your web site, leaving the visitors to be the JURY. You may post the following in it's entirety, including my name as I am not ashamed in anyway:

------------------------------------------------
I, Mitchell Shelton am here to represent the defendant, Steven Hawking. Who, although has no further comments on his behalf, would like to allow me to state his side of the defence on his behalf.

I bring to the court the following which is an exact quote, as recorded of Steven Hawking as evidence:

QUOTE: "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." - END QUOTE

Victor Zammit has written multiple pages critisizing and belittling Steven Hawking for the above Quote, which, I intend to prove by the end of this hearing is completely taken out of context.

I would like to bring your attention to the careful wording that Steven Hawking has chosen to use in this quote, specifically, the one letter word "I." Whenever the word I is utilized in a sentence it creates ownership. In this case the ownership means that Steven Hawking is merely stating an oppinon.

If, in reality, the context was intended to be taken as a fact.... the Single letter "I" would have been unused in his statement.

In conclusion, I would like to compare the court to a simple statement starting identicle to Steven Hawkings:

"I regard the color green as an ugly color that will ruin that display."

When you consider your verdict, please ask yourselves:

"Does an oppinion have to be based on facts?"

My client, Steven Hawking, feels that no further comment is needed on his part for expressing his oppinion.

I rest my case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

----- Original Message -----
From: victorzammit
Sent: 01/17/12 04:46 PM
To: 'Mitch Shelton'
Subject: RE: Attack on Steven Hawking is wrong


That’s funny Mitchell.

Context is the critical thing for consideration. When Hawking says, “I believe the brain is a computer” he is in fact stating and accepting that “the brain is a computer”. Simple.

‘Context’ is the key issue.

Best,

Victor

From: Mitch Shelton [mailto:SadSoul@gmx.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2012 11:55 PM
To: victorzammit
Subject: RE: Attack on Steven Hawking is wrong

Exactly! Your dead correct: Steven Hawking stated that

"I believe the brain to be as a computer  .."

Not: "It is a FACT that the brain is the same as a computer." You are twisting information to fit your own needs. Steven Hawking never stated that his statement of oppinion should be taken as FACT. Therefore the entire basis for your argument is based on wordplay. I would win in a court situation. Sincerely,     Mitchell Shelton, the skeptic that has beaten you.

----- Original Message -----


From: victorzammit


Sent: 01/17/12 04:17 AM


To: 'Mitch Shelton'


Subject: RE: Attack on Steven Hawking is wrong

Stephen Hawking himself said ."There is no heaven or afterlife .." 

You cannot get any clearer, definitive statement than that about Hawking


personal beliefs.

Notice carefully, Hawking does not make the distinction between the physical


brain and the MIND.


He ASSUMES that the mind and the physical brain are the same thing - WRONG!

When Hawking says "I regard ." - that is exactly the same thing if he said,


"I believe the brain to be as a computer  .."

I 'jumped' on Hawking because Hawking violated the most important law in
science - NOT TO MAKE ANY CONCLUSIONS BEFORE INVESTIGATING.   
Hawking has NOT studied the critical aftrlife evidence and has not shown -


as he should have - WHERE, WHEN, HOW and WHY the empirically elicited


afterlife evidence cannot be valid.
  _____ 

From: Mitch Shelton [mailto:SadSoul@gmx.com]

Sent: Monday, 16 January 2012 8:29 PM

To: vz@victorzammit.com

Subject: Attack on Steven Hawking is wrong

QUOTE:
"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm
not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do
first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its
components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers;
that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
Note that although Steven Hawking does not specify that he believes this VS
stating it as a fact, he uses the word "regard" which more or less implies
that the following statements are his view. If he was making the statement
as fact he would have instead said:
"The brain IS a computer which will stop working when its components fail."
Victor is clearly jumping on Steven Hawking because he is a well known
figure and pouncing on him is exactly the kind of drama a lot of people wish
to read.
I am officially calling Victor out on this one.