 |
 |
 |
 |
|
COMMENT |
Promoter of the $1M challenge to sceptics ducks my request for
evidence
|
| As to 'Dick' asking me to ask Alan Crossley some questions. No, I will NOT deal with nor negotiate with proven cowards, liars and amateurs. The whole of this 'Dick’s' article is highly venomous, vile and scurrilous and full of lies. It is a personal attack on me. |
Why has Victor Zammit removed it? Doesn't he want people to know that he has directly refused to attempt to provide confirmatory evidence of his claims? Seems so. Yet, Victor Zammit so enjoys issuing challenges to others, such as his $1M and $500,000 challenges. When the boot is on the other foot, however, his bravado seems to desert him.
My challenge, however, remains open. Any time Victor Zammit wants to change his mind he is more than welcome to contact me. And for the record, let me quickly rebut this erroneous statement:
| Now, this uninformed critic is offering me a few cents (relative to the half a million dollars I am offering to anyone who can show fraud etc in our materializations) to invoke Crossley and cross-examine him. |
The challenge did not call on Mr Zammit to "invoke" Alan Crossley, or "cross-examine him". The challenge, clearly stated, involves Victor Zammit simply asking the personality claiming to be Alan Crossley five questions which I will provide. If Alan Crossley is absent from the seance, the questions and answers could be communicated through a 3rd party.
Anyhow this is how he first acknowledged my original article on his claims:
| A COWARD ATTACKS VICTOR: in my next Friday Report I'll be rebutting that guy who thinks he's a smartass by launching an attack against Victor. Typical of this coward, an uninformed defeatist and a know-nothing he does not have the testes, the courage, the honesty and integrity to send me the 'dirty' article. Coward! That shows colossal cowardice pushed to its extreme! Next Friday chum! Note. This statement has also been removed |
Charming man, isn't he? I'm accused of being a
"coward" and not having "honesty and integrity" because -
according to Mr Zammit - I never sent him the article.
Notwithstanding the hysterical nature of these accusations, the
obvious point to make is why would I not want him to see
it? I offered him a challenge to demonstrate that his claims are
true, so it is in my interest for him to read the article.
Nevertheless, Mr Zammit seems to completely miss this point and
boldly pounds away at his keyboard, making allegations without
the slightest shred of evidence to back them up.
In
reality, I sent him an email with a link to the article on the
day it was published on my website - Sunday 18th May. To
prove this, I have recorded a short video of
my email account and my Sent Items folder. My email
to him can be clearly seen, time stamped as being sent on this
date. (For those of you who can be bothered with this side
issue, you can see the video
here.) This video completely
disproves Mr Zammit's claim that I never sent him the article.
And this is an important point to bear in mind when one
considers the veracity of any other claims made by Mr
Zammit - particularly in relation to his sensationalist claims
pertaining to David Thompson's alleged physical mediumship.
Now let me turn to Victor Zammit's
main article, and address some of the issues
contained therein:
Firstly, he does not
give a link to my original article so his readers cannot see
what I actually wrote, and in what context. Not exactly fair;
particularly since he makes so many ludicrous and factually
incorrect representations of what I wrote. I
will refute these later in this article. Secondly, one
cannot help but be bemused at his childish reference to me as
"Simon Dick". Is this really a mature, intelligent and
professional investigator I'm debating with here, or a 12 year
old schoolboy? If Mr Zammit wishes to portray himself as a
serious and credible investigator then he is certainly going the
wrong way about it with such idiotic nonsense.
| The main thrust of his complaint is that Alan Crossley did not materialize for the Circle of the Silver Cord. But, we notice very carefully, this complainant, 'Dick' acknowledges that voices were recorded. This means that the Circle produced evidence that some entity was speaking. |
Yes, of course the circle produced "evidence" that some "entity was speaking". That is not disputed. It is the identity of this person that is in question, not whether they spoke or not.
Victor Zammit continues:
|
Why would people accept that it was Alan
Crossley who came through? Firstly, the entity himself claimed to be Alan Crossley. That was noted with great care. |
So, we should all accept and believe that it was Alan Crossley because he claimed to be Alan Crossley? This kind of reasoning only perpetrates the sceptics' argument that Spiritualists are credulous and gullible fools who will accept the veracity of spirit communication without question. This statement is also incompatible with what Mr Zammit says on another page of his website when he writes:
| Again, I have to re-state, we do NOT and have NEVER guaranteed that those who come through are who they claim to be. The discretion is left up to the person listening to the spirit voices. |
So if Mr Zammit cannot guarantee the spirit
communicators are who they say they are, why does he:
A.) Explicitly make the claim that it was Alan
Crossley: "Three brilliant British mediums, Gordon
Higginson, and for a very short time Helen Duncan, and one
dedicated investigator of physical mediumship Allan (sic)
Crossley materialized to pass information on to us."
B.) Contend that
we should still believe that it was Alan Crossley because "the
entity himself claimed to be Alan Crossley"?
Mr Zammit's statements are simply not logical
or coherent. He states people should "accept" it was Alan
Crossley because "the entity himself claimed to be Alan Crossley",
while elsewhere stating that he cannot guarantee the
communicators are who they say they are.
| For myself whether or not the spirits are who they say they are, is not all that important. But I go on the totality of the evidence. |
The fact that Mr Zammit doesn't think the
authenticity of the communicators at David Thompson's seances is
"important" is quite astonishing. Not only does it demonstrate a
fundamental lack
of understanding and appreciation of the purpose of physical
mediumship, but it also condones
fakery. That this fakery is being perpetrated from the other
side makes no difference. The sole purpose of physical
mediumship is to provide evidence for the survival of bodily
death. And the very best evidence a spirit communicator can give
is to provide personal evidence to a loved one: The relaying of
a shared experience known only to the spirit communicator
and the recipient, for example. This is the kind of
evidence which demonstrates the authenticity of the
communicator. This is the kind of evidence which
convinces a sitter that the communicator was genuine. And
this is the kind of evidence which an imposter would find it
very difficult to provide.
This is why I
question the veracity of Mr Zammit's specific claim that it was Alan Crossley
who
communicated through David Thompson. There simply was no
evidence of this kind given. A voice in the dark claiming to be
Alan Crossley, in itself, provides no credible evidence of the
identity of the speaker.
| But I go on the totality of the evidence. |
There certainly wasn't any other evidence given that it was Alan
Crossley. Let's be clear
about this. If the communicating spirits are
not who they say they are, then there is clearly some problem with the mediumship. And this is a
very serious matter. Some readers will remember when another
physical medium, Colin Fry, was allegedly controlled by a
mischievous spirit (LINK). This led to Colin being seen
holding a seance trumpet when the lights came on in the middle of a seance.
It is therefore imperative, if the mediumship is to develop
successfully, that the medium's guides are able to prevent
mischievous entities from gate-crashing the seance. For if they
cannot, then the imposters can create havoc.
Not only can such low level entities cause
disruption and harm on a physical level, but the messages
issuing from such a source will not be honest, sincere or
reliable. How on earth could they be? And for those attending a
physical phenomena seance, the identity of a communicator is of
paramount importance. After all, who would want to receive a
message from an entity pretending to be a loved one?!
Moving on:
| Secondly a member of Stewart Alexander's Circle who claimed to have been a very close friend of Alan and heard Alan says he felt the contact was genuine "His voice on hearing it sounded like his earthly one ..." |
Why doesn't Victor Zammit name this mysterious
person he claims is a member of Stewart Alexander's home circle?
Who, exactly, is this person who declares that "the contact was
genuine" and insists that Alan Crossley's voice "sounded like
his earthly one"? Mr Zammit fails to tell us. Why? The alleged
voice of Alan Crossley is so unlike his earthly one in so many
ways. Not just the sound; but in choice of words, presentation,
style of speech, character and personality. I am satisfied that,
in common with myself, nobody who knew Alan while on earth would
be the slightest bit impressed by the voice in David Thompson's
seance.
So, I will give Victor Zammit the opportunity
to withdraw his claim that a member of Stewart Alexander's
circle made the testimonial in support of the David Thompson
seance voice. Let this be clear: The ONLY members of
Stewart Alexander's home circle who knew Alan Crossley are
Stewart himself and his circle leader, Ray Lister. If Victor
Zammit refuses to withdraw his statement then I will have no
hesitation in contacting these two gentlemen to solicit their
response to Mr Zammit's claim. I would prefer not to have to do
so. In the interests of TRUTH, I request
that he publically withdraw his claim.
Mr Zammit continues:
| Thirdly there were two important witnesses at the seance who stated the contact was genuine. They were the reason why Alan Crossley materialized. What we did not reveal to the world before – only to a few people - is that at the materializations session, the grandson of Helen Duncan, David Duncan, was there present with us. That is the reason that Alan Crossley and Helen Duncan and Helen Duncan's guide Albert all materialized. |
The reader will note that, again, Mr Zammit
clearly states that it was Alan Crossley. He
qualifies the reason for Alan Crossley's appearance by
stating "there were two important witnesses at the seance".
But neither of these "two important witnesses" personally
knew Alan (or any of the other alleged "materializations"
for that matter). Thus, their opinion that "the contact
was genuine" has no more significance than Victor
Zammit's.
In her testimonial, which can be found here, Christine Morgan writes about Gordon Higginson allegedly materialising before writing about Alan Crossley.....
"Alan Crossley, a great physical mediumship researcher and friend of my fathers also came through that evening. He greeted me personally, spoke about my dad several times, shook my hand, felt my face and stroked my hair, this causing me to be very moved. Two people in the spirit of whose work I revere, of whom I have only heard about, and here they were speaking and touching me like they knew me personally."
So, by Christine Morgan's own admission she has "only heard about" Alan Crossley and never personally knew or met him. Yet Victor Zammit, conveniently, makes no mention of this highly important and relevant fact.
Upon reading the testimonial from David Duncan, which can be found here, we find this perplexing statement:
"Then came a cavalcade of spirit manifestations - not only known to at least one of the guests present, but also would have been known to Spiritualists the world over - Gordon Higginson, Leslie Flint, Alan Crossley, Albert Stewart and Helen Duncan. Each of them speaking very clearly and recognisable to those who knew them when they lived on this material world."
Who, exactly, are these people who "knew them when they lived on this material world" and consider that the voices are "recognisable"? David Duncan doesn't say. A glaring omission if his claim is to be taken seriously. In the case of Alan Crossley, no one present in the seance room personally knew him. And his voice is patently NOT "recognisable". I knew Alan for over 15 years and consider that the voice in the seance sounds nothing whatsoever like Alan Crossley did. I have spoken to other people who knew Alan personally, and they say the same. The reader can compare the two voices for themselves and form their own opinion, here.
On a different page of his website, which can be found here, Victor Zammit again refers to these "two important witnesses":
| Spirit visitors usually come through when there is a close-tie of affection and a particularly urgent reason to do so. The reason Alan Crossley came through with his friend Helen Duncan on that particular night was that Helen Duncan's grandson and the daughter of a close friend of Alan Crossley were guests in the seance. So someone who had close contact with Crossley - stated that it was Alan Crossley who materialized. |
There certainly was no "close tie of affection" between Alan Crossley and the two witnesses, how on earth could there be - they had never, ever met. Further, Mr Zammit's claim that "someone who had close contact with Crossley - stated that it was Alan Crossley who materialized" is completely delusory. How could they have had "close contact" if they never knew him?
In the final analysis, Mr Zammit's three stated reasons for accepting "that it was Alan Crossley who came through" do not stand up to detailed examination and scrutiny. His first reason - that we should accept it was Alan Crossley because he claimed to be Alan Crossley - not only condones the acceptance of a communicator's identity without credible, supporting evidence but is completely at odds with his own admission that he cannot guarantee the authenticity of the spirit communicators.
Victor Zammit's second reason - that "a member of Stewart Alexander's Circle who claimed to have been a very close friend of Alan and heard Alan says he felt the contact was genuine" is not supported by any corroborative detail in the form of the name of this person. This is a glaring omission when quoting from a testimonial.
The third reason - that "there were two important witnesses at the seance who stated the contact was genuine" is completely absurd since neither of these two people had even met or knew Alan Crossley.
Victor Zammit goes on to write:
| The fact is that we have definitive evidence of spirit activity and we at least have the spirit voices as hard core substantive evidence of their materializations. And the previous mentioned tape voice correlations I made show at least there is a prima facie case made out that the voices are all different and different from David Thompson's. |
The evidence for spirit activity certainly does not satisfy all criteria, so it can hardly be classed as "definitive". In the case of the communicator claiming to be Alan Crossley, all Mr Zammit has presented us with is an unrecognisable voice and the testimony of two "witnesses" who had never even met him. Hardly, "hard core, substantive evidence", is it?
| What is most unfair about 'Dick’s' article is the lie that the ONLY evidence the Circle has produced of the afterlife is voices in the dark. |
I never said any such thing. I advise him to re-read my article properly. Perhaps then he will realise the folly of his statement.
Victor Zammit claims:
| To my knowledge, David Thompson is the only materialization medium to allow independent highly qualified investigators to investigate his materialization mediumship every week for over fifteen months. |
What evidence has Victor Zammit received that David Thompson is, specifically, a "materialization medium"? What materializations has Mr Zammit actually seen? There are no accounts on his website of witnesses actually seeing materialisations. One cannot claim, with any credibility, that a physical medium is a "materialization medium" when the phenomena are produced in the dark. Materialisations should be seen in order to be validated as such. Perhaps Mr Zammit is unaware of the fact that all materialisation mediums are physical mediums, but not all physical mediums are materialisation mediums.
And who are these "independent, highly qualified investigators" Mr Zammit refers to? The circle members? If so, how can they be independent? And what are their qualifications as investigators of "materialization mediumship". How many materialisations have they seen before? Where? When? Who was the medium? Mr Zammit fails to give the reader any of this information to validate and support his statements. Instead, we only have his word for it. And that, unfortunately, doesn't inspire much confidence.
Mr Zammit states that I allege that:
| Since David Thompson's phenomena are produced in the dark the primary sense being relied on is hearing and thus the evidence is not empirical because it is not observable by the senses. |
A glance at my article will prove that Victor Zammit is, yet again, making completely erroneous and misleading statements. Here is what I actually said:
Nowhere do I say that "the evidence is not empirical because it is not observable by the senses". I clearly state that empirically based evidence is "observable by the senses" and Victor Zammit is, primarily, relying on his sense of hearing during these seances. In making such a palpably false claim, Victor Zammit merely exposes his inability to accurately report the facts.
Mr Zammit states that I wrote:
|
that Victor's description of himself as
a writer and researcher on the empirical evidence
for the afterlife is ambiguous. Victor: What is so ambiguous about ‘empirical’? For the informed, it is very easy to understand. ‘Empirical’ at university level relates to any experiment which strictly adheres to scientific method. It would be fundamentally wrong to have an a priori ‘theory or system’ – you have a hypothesis to test and only scientific method to work with. 'Dick' shows he is a layperson erroneously relying on dictionary definitions and a misplaced ego! |
The term "empirical evidence" is certainly ambiguous in relation to Mr Zammit's use of it. There are various usages and meanings. Mr Zammit, inadvertently admits this when he makes a distinction in the meaning of 'empirical' by relating it, specifically, to "university level".
Empirical evidence can be described as being acquired through direct observation, preferably under controlled circumstances, with results reported in well-defined units of measure. Is Mr Zammit's "empirical evidence" produced under controlled conditions? No. Non of the sitter's are controlled, for example.
Empirical evidence can also be termed as provable by means of observation or experiment. Does Victor Zammit's empirical evidence actually prove anything paranormal is taking place? No. He provides evidence, but evidence isn't always the same as proof. Are there one or more theories for the origination of the evidence? Mr Zammit doesn't say. Does the empirical evidence fully or only partly confirm the theory Mr Zammit propounds? Again, he doesn't say. He gives no precise detail.
So, exactly what is the structure and nature of Mr Zammit's "empirical" evidence? He never defines it - and that is precisely why his description is "ambiguous".
Mr Zammit presses on and claims that I stated:
| Victor is basing his assumptions purely upon a voice in the dark which claims to be Houdini or Conan Doyle and this is ridiculous and unscientific. |
More erroneous misrepresentation. Here is what I actually wrote:
Victor Zammit doesn't seem to understand what a
question mark is.
He continues by claiming
that I stated:
|
That I have not produced any evidence
for materialization having taken place.
'Dick' does not put his money where his mouth is. I offered $500,000 to anyone, including this 'Dick', to show that what we are doing, producing objective, repeatable evidence is not valid. But one condition was that if the challenger failed, he would have to hand over $500,000 to us. Yet of the vehemently negative critics, not even this vociferous 'Dick', had the testes, the courage, the motivation, the stomach to take us on. If he were definitively sure, he would have made a quick half a million dollars. But, this uninformed negative Spiritualist showed that he KNOWS that we are producing hard core objective and repeatable evidence. Put up or shut up 'Dick'! |
One can only shake one's head, yet again, at Victor Zammit's blatant falsification. I never stated that he hasn't "produced any evidence for materialization having taken place." I never even mentioned the word "materialization" in any of the points I made. The only time the word appears in my article is when I directly quote Victor Zammit from the April 4th Afterlife Report.
And finally, this little gem:
|
The voice of Alan Crossley was different
from his voice while alive. Here, 'Dick' continues to go from bad to worse – he shows more ignorance of basic materialization. The voice in materializations will sometimes sound different to voices when the person was alive, particularly for an inexperienced communicator. |
Mr Zammit's eyesight
must be failing him. He obviously couldn't see this paragraph in
my article:
In conclusion, it is regrettable that so many of Mr Zammit's statements are inaccurate and misleading. As a consequence, one has to treat with extreme caution the accuracy and reliability of his other claims relating to David Thompson's mediumship. In spite of all the grandiose claims of "materializations" which are "taking the world by storm", much of Mr Zammit's evidence is merely anecdotal. He makes bold claims, but when challenged to provide some supporting evidence he refuses to even entertain the idea.
Physical mediumship has always courted controversy because it is so open to accusations of fraud. Victor Zammit only pours more 'coals on the fire' by his heated and sensationalist claims for David Thompson's mediumship. As a consequence, Victor Zammit should expect people to ask questions, contest his claims and query his assertions. This is how progress develops.
It is unfortunate, both for his reputation and the credibility of his claims, that he chooses to answers his critics with so much abuse and so little propriety.
|
All content © The Psychic Times 2004-2008. All rights
reserved. |