Psychic Chat

UK Spiritualist Churches

England & Wales

East London

West London

East Midlands

West Midlands

Greater Manchester

Merseyside and North Wales

North Lancashire and Cumbria

North Yorkshire

Northern England

South Western England

South Yorkshire

Southern England

South Wales

Scotland & Northern Ireland

Scotland and N. Ireland

Zammit Ducks My Thousand Pound Challenge

By SIMON FORSYTH

Victor Zammit, the self-styled researcher on the empirical evidence for the afterlife and chief propagandist for the alleged physical medium David Thompson, has replied in typical fashion to my  previous article on his claims. In a rather hysterical response, bubbling with personal abuse, fizzing with wild accusations and foaming with venomous invective, Mr Zammit offers plenty of bluster but little substance. You can read his reply  here.

Sadly, but not unsurprisingly, Mr Zammit refused to accept my offer to pay one thousand pounds to the charity of his choice if he can provide verifiable evidence to substantiate his claim that my close personal friend, Alan Crossley, materialised through David Thompson’s mediumship. This evidence is in the form of answers to five questions I proposed to ask. Mr Zammit’s refusal of my challenge is quite ironic since it is well known that he likes challenges - his $1M challenge to the sceptics is proof of that. You can read it here.

How strange then, that he rejects my challenge to him. If he is so sure of the high calibre of David Thompson’s mediumship, of the “stunning evidence” and the “world shattering” substantiation which is “taking the world by storm”, then why doesn’t he accept my little challenge? The reader can only draw their own conclusion as to why Victor Zammit chooses to duck out of it. This is what he originally stated on his website -  it has since been removed by Victor Zammit:

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.

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.

Anyhow, Victor Zammit writes:

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.

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.

Mr Zammit also makes the following admission:

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.

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 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, 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.

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:

On his website Victor describes himself as “a full time writer and researcher on empirical evidence for the afterlife.” This is rather an ambiguous description since ‘empirical’ can mean ‘relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory’. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are  observable by the senses. And since most, if not all, of David Thompson’s phenomena is produced in the dark then the primary sense Victor is relying upon during these seances is his hearing. Hardly scientific, is it? Moreover, in the cases of Houdini, Churchill and Doyle the voices sound nothing like they did on earth and do not provide any audible evidence whatsoever in order to substantiate their validity.

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 lay person 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:

So, upon what exact evidence is Victor basing his assumptions upon? A voice in the dark claiming to be Harry Houdini or Conan Doyle? As ‘evidence’, this is totally unscientific and can only be dismissed as ridiculous.

Victor Zammit doesn’t seem to understand what a question mark is.

He continues by claiming that I stated that he has 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. He completely misrepresents my point that:

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:

The argument could be given that it is not always possible for the voice of the communicator to exactly match the voice as it was on earth. This may indeed be the case, and this is why in such instances it is extremely important that the evidence provided by ‘non matching’ voices is credible and verifiable.

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.

DNA Found to Have “Impossible” Telepathic Properties

Scientists are reporting evidence that contrary to our current beliefs about what is possible, intact double-stranded DNA has the “amazing” ability to recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. Somehow they are able to identify one another, and the tiny bits of genetic material tend to congregate with similar DNA.

The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.

Even so, the research published in ACS’ Journal of Physical Chemistry B, shows very clearly that homology recognition between sequences of several hundred nucleotides occurs without physical contact or presence of proteins. Double helixes of DNA can recognize matching molecules from a distance and then gather together, all seemingly without help from any other molecules or chemical signals.

In the study, scientists observed the behavior of fluorescently tagged DNA strands placed in water that contained no proteins or other material that could interfere with the experiment. Strands with identical nucleotide sequences were about twice as likely to gather together as DNA strands with different sequences. No one knows how individual DNA strands could possibly be communicating in this way, yet somehow they do. The “telepathic” effect is a source of wonder and amazement for scientists.

“Amazingly, the forces responsible for the sequence recognition can reach across more than one nanometer of water separating the surfaces of the nearest neighbor DNA,” said the authors Geoff S. Baldwin, Sergey Leikin, John M. Seddon, and Alexei A. Kornyshev and colleagues.

This recognition effect may help increase the accuracy and efficiency of the homologous recombination of genes, which is a process responsible for DNA repair, evolution, and genetic diversity. The new findings may also shed light on ways to avoid recombination errors, which are factors in cancer, aging, and other health issues.

Source: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/02/dna-found-to-ha.html

‘Brain scans may help validate near-death experiences’ claims doctor

‘Brain scans may help validate near-death experiences’ claims doctor

ONE OF the world’s leading researchers into near-death experiences (NDEs) has called for the use of brain scans to help discover if changes have taken place in the brain after an NDE.

PMH Atwater

Dr PMH Atwater, based in Virginia, USA, told The Psychic Times:

“There is a pattern of psychological and physiological changes after an NDE. These can be incredible. For example, the average near-death experiencer is without vital signs for between five to twenty minutes, but it’s not unusual to find this extending for an hour or more. It is not exceptional for people to revive in the morgue. Yet, no matter how long they are deprived of oxygen and the heart is not beating, these people literally come back smarter than they were before.

“Whether they have extreme or partial intellect enhancement, they invariably come back as creative intuitives and creative problem solvers. I call the near-death experience a brain shift. This is why I want before and after brain scans. If we can establish clinically that the NDE changes the structure of the brain it will be a tremendous discovery.

“As far as I’m concerned the after effects of an NDE are what validate the experience. You cannot talk about the experience without talking about the after effects.”

Dr Atwater is one of the original researchers of the near-death phenomenon, having begun her work in 1978 after experiencing 3 NDEs herself the previous year. Today, her contribution to the field of near-death studies is considered on par with those of Raymond Moody, author of the world famous book Life After Life. Her first two books, Coming Back to Life and Beyond the Light, are considered the bibles of the near-death experience. She has served two terms on the board of the International Association for Near-Death Studies.

Her research is comprehensive and original. “So far, I’m the only person we know of who uses police investigative techniques in near-death research,” she states. This research comprises the experiences of over 3000 adults and 277 children. The findings are startling.

“My research shows that after the near-death episode, forty-eight percent of the children between the ages of birth and fifteen years that I had sessions with tested as genius (average IQ being 150-160) with no genetic markers to account for it. In the sub group of children, between three to five years of age, the number jumps to eighty-one percent. The younger the child, the more apt they are to have an extreme jump in intelligence. Now, if you go even further and look at children with a near-death scenario between birth and eighteen months, those who had a dark or black light experience instead of a white or bright light experience, the IQ rating begins at 182.”

Dr Atwater’s research includes ‘before’ and ‘after’ IQ comparisons. These show that the intelligence jump comes right after the near-death episode had occurred.

“Ninety-three percent of all the children came back loving math, science and history and eighty percent of those also had an enhancement in musical ability,” she said. “Now, if you are familiar with the brain, you know that the regions for music and math are right next to each other. It’s as if they are being linked together, as if they are one functional unit.

“Even those who did not test out with extraordinarily high IQs evidenced uniquely creative and intuitive minds, numerous faculty enhancements, an unrelenting curiosity, and exceptional knowledge soon after reviving. Some were gifted with foreign languages. Adult experiencers also returned more intelligent than before, and many became intuitive problem solvers. All of this occurred without genetic markers of any kind to account for what happened.

“Overall, child experiencers are natural computer whizzes. Many become physicists and inventors once grown, or masters of the arts and humanities; some are professional psychics. Older teenage and adult experiencers are most often drawn to healing, counselling, and ministerial roles afterward. Not so the younger kids, at least not the majority. But mention math or science, and they’re all aglow. History intrigues them, along with anything to do with times past, as if it might apply to who they were before in past lives.

“Most (85 percent) of the kids with the greatest acceleration in mathematical ability also acquired an intense and passionate love of music. In the brain, math and music functions are located next to each other. Children’s near-death states seem to activate both of these regions, as if they were a single unit. The child who returns from a near-death episode is a remodelled, rewired, and refined version of the original. The changes children undergo are more dramatic than those of adults. Not, I suspect, because their after effects are different, but because they are still in the process of basic brain development when the episode occurs. They are hit with a life-changing experience at a time when they are most vulnerable to the power of such a shift.”

Dr Atwater explained that children of any age can have an NDE.

“That includes newborns and infants. What they describe, once they are able to verbalize, can be quite shocking to parents who are unfamiliar with the startling reality of near-death states.

“With a research base of 277 child experiencers, I can say that the vast majority (76 percent) of children’s scenarios are rather simple, featuring only three or fewer elements. Things like loving nothingness, friendly darkness, a special voice, an out-of-body experience, or a visitation of some kind. The closer the child is to puberty, the more apt he or she is to have a longer, more involved episode. Still, kids’ cases run the gamut from hellish to heavenly, regardless of age. The youngest to have a terrifying experience was only nine days old. This baby girl was traumatised by ghoul-like beings who threatened her when she died during surgery. The event haunted her throughout her growing years until the age of twenty-eight, when she had a second near-death experience that explained the first one.”

Dr Atwater is adamant that her research provides concrete evidence that the mind and brain are separate. She also documents physiological changes, such as lower blood pressure, increased allergies, sensitivity to light and sound, and less tolerance for pharmaceuticals and other chemicals. She is therefore not impressed by the arguments put forward by the sceptics of her work.

“Every single sceptical theory or argument put forward to explain NDEs has been disproved and discredited by clinical research”, she explained. “This includes all the work of Susan Blackmore. For example, one of her explanations for NDEs is that they can be caused by lack of oxygen to the brain. We now know through studies conducted by the US navy into deep oxygen deprivation that NDEs do not match that at all.

“They are quite distinctively different from the studies done by the navy. Although the basic imagery and some of the basic patterning is similar, the navy’s findings showed they weren’t as detailed and they did not display the same pattern of physiological and psychological after effects. Nor did they come up with these incredibly detailed out of body experiences. Nor did their subjects bring forth information that they could not possibly have known.”

Dr Atwater pointed to the research conducted by Pim van Lommel as the most impressive clinical study ever done on NDEs.

“It was the best because it involved about a dozen different hospitals, covering over 300 people and two follow up studies. He was exceedingly thorough. Among the things he was able to prove was that all of the people were brain dead. And they still had long, involved NDEs. In essence, what he proved was that other-worldly journeys are real and not fantasy. They are part of the human condition.

“The brain is not the origination of the mind. The brain and mind are separate. In the future we are going to get even more evidence for all of this as more research is done. So much, in fact, that anybody who dismisses the idea that mind and brain are separate is just going to look silly. I don’t think we are very far away from this. It is only a matter of time.

“More medical people are now willing to consider the reality of the near-death phenomenon and the effect it has on experiencers. Much of this turn-around in relative acceptance is because of the Pam Reynolds case that was reported on in cardiologist, Michael Sabom’s book Light & Death. Pam’s case is the first absolute medical proof that an individual can see and hear when dead (without vital signs, brain dead as well), and can have a long, fully involved near-death experience absent of any brain response whatsoever. Since her case cannot be refuted, medical science has had to reconsider its position.

“Even though this has occurred, there is still reluctance amongst medical people to admit what cannot be denied. Any further breakthrough will depend on continuing research, and specifically with medical researchers with sterling reputations - who are willing to put their reputation on the line. Several such people are now doing just that. We’ll have to wait for results. But even solid evidence that cannot be refuted is not enough to convince a person with a closed mind. Only a personal experience can do that.

“It is time now we mature as a society and admit and recognise that we have all the proof we need to establish that human beings are more than just their physical body and senses. There are other realities that we can reach.”

Speaking of her own NDEs, Dr Atwater said:

“I died 3 times in 1977 over 3 months. Twice in January of that year and once in March. It was this third NDE that specifically put me in research. It was a long complicated episode. During that third NDE I reached that plane that many reach. Many people call it The Plane of All Knowing where you just suddenly know all things and all the puzzles of life unravel themselves and you understand everything and the why of things.

“I reached that point, and afterwards a voice spoke to me. I call it The Voice Like None Other because it was completely different to anything I had heard before. It was so huge, and powerful. It permeated everything. It was very specific and it said ‘Test Revelation. You are to do the research. One book for each death.’ Then it showed me what that meant.

“It named books two and three but didn’t name book one. It showed me what was to be in each book. It didn’t tell me how to do it or how long it would take or how much effort would be involved, but it was specific in other areas. So I went along with it and said I would do it. Then I came back to life. I sensed it was God’s voice, but of course I have no way of proving that.

“As a researcher of near-death states, I can assure you that any type of near-death experience can be life changing. But as an experiencer, I can positively affirm that being bathed in the light on the other side of death is more than life changing. That light is the very essence, the heart and soul, the all-consuming consummation of ecstatic ecstasy. It is a million suns of compressed love dissolving everything into the one great brilliance of all that is and all that ever was and all that ever will be.

“You know it’s God. No one has to tell you. You just know….”

Dr Atwater’s website can be found at: www.cinemind.com/atwater/

Dr. Schwartz continues life after death research

by Michael E. Tymn

In an exclusive interview with The Psychic Times, bestselling author and acclaimed scientist, Professor Gary Schwartz, reveals why his quest for the scientific evidence for life after death will never convince the sceptics

Gary Schwartz

“The quest continues…”

SO WROTE Dr. Gary Schwartz, famous research scientist at the end of his 2002 book, The Afterlife Experiments. Subtitled Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death, the book tells of experiments carried out with five prominent mediums by Schwartz and his research partner, Dr. Linda Russek, in their University of Arizona Human Energy Systems Laboratory.

Highly sceptical about the whole subject of mediumship when he first met Susy Smith, a medium and popular author on psychic matters, in 1995, Schwartz, who received his doctorate from Harvard University and served as a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University before moving to Arizona, gradually came to accept the reality of mediumship.

“I can no longer ignore the data and dismiss the words,” he wrote in his popular but somewhat controversial book. “They are as real as the sun, the trees, and our television sets, which seem to pull pictures out of the air.”

Allison DuBois

Among the mediums studied by Schwartz has been John Edward, who hosted a popular television program, Crossing Over, and, more recently, Allison DuBois. DuBois’ life as a psychic legal investigator is the model for the new American television weekly drama, Medium. In its third week of showing during January, the program drew an estimate 15.8 million viewers and ranked ninth among all prime-time programs.

While also involved in energy medicine and healing research, Schwartz is continuing with his life after death research.

“We are not just doing research to get percent hits under different levels of control [as is the focus of the book],” he told The Psychic Times. “We are now interested in studying the process. The whole idea of how you establish that the medium is actually receiving communication from a genuine conscious, decision-making person (spirit) is a very important question, and we’re now asking questions as to what the afterlife is like. That takes the work substantially further.”

Schwartz pointed out that in the ‘discarnate intention’ experiment, there are 18 life questions and 38 life after death questions.

“The reason we do the life questions first is to be sure the medium is getting accurate information about a particular deceased,” Schwartz explained. “That allows the medium to earn some credibility before we get into the afterlife questions and take them seriously. And if you have multiple mediums independently contacting the same deceased persons and asking the same questions of the afterlife to the extent that you get replication of information, you then have a scientific way of drawing a conclusion, saying, ‘yes, it’s very possible this deceased person is experiencing the afterlife in this way and another deceased person is experiencing it differently’.”

It is too early in this experiment for Schwartz to make any generalizations as to what his findings into the reality of life after death are, but he did comment briefly.

“There is a massive amount of data and we are in the throes of analyzing it now”, he said. “There is only one thing I feel comfortable talking about now, even though we have all these questions. What I find most amusing and potentially reassuring is that when people are ‘dead’ it’s easier for them to ‘multitask’ in the afterlife. Meaning, to do multiple things at the same time but also to be in ‘multiple places’ at the same time as well. The capacity for doing non-local and multi-process activities is just easier than when you are in the physical and located in a very specific place. That’s something that has been universally observed.”

University of Arizona Human Energy Systems Laboratory

Since the release of The Afterlife Experiments, Schwartz has come under attack by the fundamentalists of science, the people some refer to as ‘debunkers’ or ‘pseudo-sceptics’ of life after death, but whom Schwartz kindly calls ’super-sceptics.’ They have scoffed at his research, calling it ‘junk science’ while pointing out that the studies detailed in the book were not double-blind or subject to replication, two fundaments of hard science.

In fact, Schwartz has since done double-blind and even triple-blind studies (where the researcher, the medium, and the sitter were kept in the dark), but they have been equally unacceptable to the scientific fundamentalists.

“Based on my repeated observations of them and my experience with them, I would say that there is no experiment that I could even imagine designing that would convince them,” Schwartz said. “Let’s say, for example, that we design an experiment where the mediums are sequestered and locked in a room with no telephone or communication and we have them watched by security guards to be certain no one provides them with information from the outside. Well, then these sceptics will ask how we can be sure the guards weren’t paid off by the mediums, how we can be sure the guards weren’t involved in fraud. The truth is that if you are absolutely convinced that the phenomena can’t be true, then no matter what experiment you design, you can always find some way in which there might be fraud. Therefore, you are going to dismiss it, or you’re going to admit that you got it in that case but you want to see it replicated by other people. Then you want to see it replicated again, and it just goes on and on.”

University of Arizona Human Energy Systems Laboratory

Schwartz recalled recently talking with one of the super-sceptics, a university professor, and asking him what his reaction would be if he were able to observe positive results for the reality of life after death in a multi-centre double-blind study.

“He said he would want to see it replicated a few more times before he’d take it seriously,” Schwartz said, “but I pointed out to him that the whole purpose of a multi-centred study is that you have independent laboratories replicating the phenomenon. We’ve already built in the replication, so I asked him why he’d need to see it a few more times, and his answer was, ‘Gary, one of the things I’ve become interested in is why it is that I have no control over my beliefs.’ Now, if you can’t change your beliefs as a function of evidence, that’s a sad state of affairs.

“I’m not hopeful that the super-sceptics will accept any degree of data, but I’m not doing research for them. We’re just doing the work. We want to know if it is true. Our project is called Veritas (Latin for truth) for a reason.”

Schwartz added that he is just beginning research relative to the mindset of the super-sceptic, hoping to find out what pathology drives their closed-mindedness. As frustrating as the scientific fundamentalists are, Schwartz finds that the mainstream media is just as difficult to deal with when it comes to his findings into life after death. He recalled that after attending a memorial service for Montague Keen, the renowned British psychical researcher, last year, he was interviewed by a London reporter.

“He got 15 to 20 facts wrong, some of which he literally changed because he thought it would read better for the London public,” Schwartz lamented. “He’s not a bad guy and was sort of trying, but he got it garbled.”

In jest, Schwartz added that the mediums outdo the media when it comes to accuracy.

As Schwartz sees it, the biggest problem with the media is that they see only two sides.

“I was recently contacted by a national television show which wanted to have a medium for research and then wanted to have a sceptic,” he explained, “and I said you are telling this as if there are only two stories. There’s the medium and science versus the sceptic. I told him he had it wrong, that there are three stories here. There are what the mediums claim, there are what the sceptics claim, then there is the science which attempts to look at what the truth is. Science is actually the third story. Somebody can criticise the science, but that’s a different issue. The media is making a huge mistake when it sees it as two stories only. They’re looking for conflict, not resolution.”

Orthodox religion has ignored Schwartz’s research into life after death, apparently satisfied with faith alone, even though that faith might be turned into conviction with Schwartz’s findings.

“It’s remarkable how this research has been for the most part ignored by religion,” Schwartz said, “but, frankly, I’m relieved.”

In spite of the attacks by the scientific fundamentalists, the indifference of orthodox religion, and the ignorance of the mainstream media, Schwartz courageously moves on with his research into life after death, feeling that it is having some impact on the public.

“I think it is ultimately the research mediums, like Allison DuBois, as they become visible and public,” he concluded, “who will awaken the public to the science, and then the people can go to the science and reach their own conclusions.”

Warren Caylor Seeks Sitters

Warren Caylor Seeks Sitters

Controversial physical medium Warren Caylor is searching for new sitters as the fall-out from the Psychic News test seance fiasco still rumbles on.

Caylor, 37, who is preently touring the USA has placed an advert on his website….

Doctor Cites ‘Power Greater Than Us’

Sometimes healers get healed. At least that seems to have been the case with Richard Bingold — whose conversion story we featured some years ago.

Richard, who is now in his seventies, and founded what he calls the Miraculous Pilgrim Rosary Healing Ministry, received a hip replacement in 2005 and, shortly afterwards, while praying at a church in Rouses Point, Vermont, suffered a vertical shear of bone in such a way that it made a loud cracking sound (or something did).

It was from what doctors call the greater trochanter, and in essence what it meant was that there was now a space between crucial bone connections — one that doctors said could never heal by itself.

They might try, said the doctors, to wire it together. And Bingold agreed. He was limping. He had been in pain for 26 months. There was a 17-millimeter difference in the lengths of his legs.

X-rays were taken days before the surgery (as they had also been taken for several years), and that’s when one of the doctors, Daniel M. Ward, of Longwood Orthopedic Associates in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, called to report the impossible — that the shear of bone had by itself become reattached to the spot from which it has split — closing an eight-millimeter space between one part of the hip and what is known as the partial lateral.

He told Richard that several surgeons were shown the x-rays and were astonished. “I am a devout Catholic,” the surgeon told Bingold. “And in all my years of surgery and experience, this could only happen through Divine intervention.”

In fact, the most remarkable part of the story is that a surgeon went on the record about his astonishment. Doctors are usually extremely reluctant to acknowledge a potential supernatural factor. Surgeons are perhaps more so.

“The x-rays were reviewed prior to surgery and it was quite clear that based on his change in his symptoms, essentially now he was pain free and was not limping,” wrote Dr. Ward in a formal letter dated April 29 this year. “I had inquired to Richard about what he had done and essentially he had been praying about his hip and hoping that there was some sign that the path he had chosen in his life was the correct path.”

Bingold once ran a lucrative private-investigation firm (with Eddie Egan of French Connection fame) in South Florida but converted after a close brush with death in a boating accident during a stakeout. He now travels widely, ministering and leading pilgrimages to places such as Medjugorje in Bosnia, Hercegovina.

Continued the doctor: “At this time I do not have a good explanation medically why the trochanteric piece and his extreme disability, which had been present for almost two and a half years, suddenly became dramatically better. From a scientific and medical standpoint I cannot explain this. I have been doing orthopedic surgery now and have been involved in orthopedics for almost twelve years and cannot explain why this essentially went on to be a healed trochanteric fragment at this time. Richard has his beliefs as to why this happened and I would agree that this is quite possibly a power much greater than ours.”

Video Of The Month

Alan Crossley was one of the foremost experts on physical mediumship. In this revealing video he talks about his amazing experiences with Helen Duncan and Alec Harris.

Victor Zammit Attacks Psychic News Editor

VICTOR Zammit, the self-styled “empiricist” and promoter of physical medium David Thompson, has launched another extraordinary attack upon me. However, this time I’m not alone. Oh, no…  He has also targeted Psychic News editor Susan Farrow in his vitriolic ‘gunsight’.

In the September issue of the Psychic World offline newspaper, Mr Zammit accuses me of telling “lies” to Psychic News and infers Susan Farrow published them in an attempt to “subtly attack the credibility of myself as a professional, as an empiricist… but more likely because I also write for the Psychic World.”

Mr Zammit’s latest childish outburst is in relation to my criticisms published in Psychic News of his claims regarding the alleged materialisation of Alan Crossley at a David Thompson seance.

I originally voiced my scepticism in a previous article in The Psychic Times (published some months before this website was updated with it’s new design). Link

My second article, responding to Zammit’s reply on his website, can be read by clicking on this link.

Zammit’s latest hysterical outburst in Psychic World is nothing short of shameful. By attempting to defame both myself and Susan Farrow with untruthful, unsubstantiated smears he clearly demonstrates that he is incapable of mature, rational, fair-minded debate. Further, his distortions and blatent untruths regarding Susan Farrow and myself highlight just why his claims regarding David Thompson cannot be trusted whatsoever.

It is a great pity that he drags debate into the gutter with his foul-mouthed, insulting tirades.

And this man was a lawyer?

Anyhow, below, I reproduce an article I have penned to Psychic World in reply to Zammit’s September article:

Setting The Record Straight

In his article in the September, 2008 issue of Psychic World (World Shattering Materialisations In Sydney!), Mr Victor Zammit concocted some seriously erroneous and defamatory allegations regarding myself, Psychic News editor Susan Farrow and the thousand pound challenge I issued to him.

I should like to respond to his brazen assault on truth and accuracy and set the record straight regarding these fatuous and spurious fabrications.

I would also like to reference the main points of my website articles regarding the credibility of Mr Zammit’s claims of the alleged materialisation of Alan Crossley. PW readers will then be afforded the facts relating to the reasoning behind my thousand pound challenge, as opposed to the unsubstantiated rantings contained in Mr Zammit’s September article.

Firstly, in his article, I note that he is not man enough to actually name the person he is so vociferously abusing, preferring instead to bestow upon me the monikers of ‘S’ and ‘Simon Dick’.

Such juvenility does nothing to uphold his claim to being a “professional” researcher. “Professional” researchers, by definition, behave in a “professional” manner when debating issues relating to their claims - not like a 12 year-old schoolboy.

He states in his article that he was “informed” that I “probably never attended a materialisation session…”

Since Mr Zammit often refers to David Thompson as a materialisation medium - in spite of the fact that his séances are mostly held in complete darkness and no materialisations are ever actually seen by the sitters – I can only presume that by “materialisation session” he is actually referring to a physical phenomena séance.

In this regard, I have to inform him that he has been badly deceived by his alleged ‘informant’. It appears that even empiricists and lawyers can be fooled rather easily at times.

I have sat with 2 physical mediums (as apposed to materialisation mediums) and one transfiguration medium. I was a member of Stewart Alexander’s circle in Elton, near Chester and was also a committee member of the Noah’s Ark Society for Physical Mediumship.

Mr Zammit would be well advised to check his facts before insinuating completely bogus information.

By repeatedly stating that David Thompson produces materialisations, it is clear that Mr Zammit is ignorant of the fact that for a materialisation to be regarded as such it needs to be seen. The fact of the matter is that all materialisation mediums are physical mediums but not all physical mediums are materialisation mediums.

In a recent item on his website, titled Brilliant Video of William Materialising, his confusion is startlingly clear:

“Last Monday the Circle of the Silver Chord released parts of a film clip which shows materialisation medium David Thompson’s guide ‘William’ in full form behind a curtain.”

How on earth can the film clip ’show’ the “full form” if it is behind a curtain?

Victor Zammit merely assumes it is a full form behind the curtain - unless he has X Ray vision! Further, his statement clearly undermines his claims to being an “empiricist” who only reports the facts. For, there is no credible “empirical” evidence to support Mr Zammit’s claim.

Since the film was taken in poor light conditions, the released clip only shows an unidentifiable blob protruding between the curtains. We are, therefore still waiting for verification that the full video actually shows “William materialising”, as Mr Zammit claims. I won’t be holding my breath…

Since David Thompson’s alleged materialisations are always in the dark, he cannot at present be creditably termed a materialisation medium.

Indeed, he has previously admitted on the Spiritualist Chatroom website:

“I totally agree at this point I am not a full form materialization medium…”

Some well known materialisation mediums include Alec Harris, Helen Duncan, Hunter Selkirk, Ethel Post-Parrish, Florence Cook, Bertie Lilly Candler, Nettie Nichols, Elizabeth Grover, Effie Moss, Dorothy Henderson, William W Aber and William Eglington

All of them produced materialisations in light – unlike David Thompson.

Mr Zammit claims to be an empiricist, an expert “in using scientific method to measure phenomena” and an expert in the admissibility of evidence. Then let him produce the specific observable and measurable evidence he has gathered; the exact experimentation techniques he has followed and what precise hypotheses he has formulated, tested, discounted and accepted in order to arrive at the conclusion that David Thompson is a materialisation medium.

I am sure many Spiritualists, psychical researchers and scientists interested in physical mediumship would be very interested in examining and discussing his data. Not only concerning Mr Thompson’s materialisation phenomena, but his mediumship in general.

Has Mr Zammit had the fruits of his research forwarded for peer review and publication in any of the various psychical research magazines around the world?

One such publication is The European Journal of Parapsychology. This is a peer-reviewed journal for research, particularly theoretical and theory-driven empirical work, relating to the field of parapsychology.

An ideal vehicle, one would have thought, for Mr Zammit to show-case his empirical evidence for David Thompson’s mediumship. However, to date, his research has never been published in this or any other credible publication, as far as I’m aware.

Mr Zammit never tires of proclaiming himself a “professional”, an “empiricist”, an expert in “scientific method” and the “admissibility of evidence”. Well, why doesn’t he prove it?

Let him put his qualifications to good use by presenting a research paper on David Thompson’s mediumship for review and examination by independent professionals.

He continues his article by stating I: “tried to discredit David’s mediumship and the credibility of the circle…”

Anyone who reads my original article will clearly see that it merely highlighted the fact that he gave not one shred of credible and convincing evidence that the alleged communicator was the materialised form of Alan Crossley, as he so boldly claimed.

Some facts:

1. The ‘materialisation’ was not seen by anybody in the séance room. It was pitch black.

2 The voice of the ‘materialisation’ displayed none of the character, personality or mannerisms of Alan Crossley.

3. At two points in the séance recording ‘Alan’ addresses Mr Zammit by his surname only - something Alan never did when talking to people. This is completely out of character. But Mr Zammit wouldn’t know this, since he and everybody else in the séance room never knew him.

In his PW article, he inaccurately reported this opening exchange and quoted ‘Alan’ as addressing him as “Victor”. This is patently not true, as anyone listening to the audio can hear:

Victor Zammit: “This is Victor here, Alan”.

‘Alan Crossley’: “Oh, you’re Zammit!”

Later, ‘Crossley’ declares: “I hear that you cause a lot of controversy, Zammit.”

4. The voice of the ‘materialisation’ sounded nothing like Alan Crossley. (The argument could be given that it is not always possible for the voice of the communicator to exactly match the voice as it was on earth. This may indeed be the case, and this is why in such instances it is extremely important that the evidence provided is credible and verifiable.)

5. The ‘materialisation’ gave no evidence (personal or otherwise) to confirm and verify his identity.

So, a ‘materialisation’ which none of the sitters actually saw claims to be Alan Crossley. This ‘materialisation’ sounds nothing like Alan Crossley, displays none of the personality or mannerisms of Alan Crossley and gives no personal evidence whatsoever that it is Alan Crossley.

I therefore asked the perfectly obvious and logical question in my article: “Where is the evidence” that it was Alan Crossley? My personal belief is that it certainly was not Alan Crossley, who I had known closely for a number of years.

I therefore decided to issue my challenge to Mr Zammit to provide evidence for his unsubstantiated and sensationalistic claims, by way of asking questions only the real Alan Crossley would know. If I was provided with the correct answers, then I offered to pay one thousand pounds to the charity of Mr Zammit’s choice.

These are the basic points I raised in my original article and which prompted him to indulge in an orgy of personal abuse and fabricated allegations, both on his website and in the September issue of Psychic World.

He continued:

“Clearly this uninformed ‘S’ did not understand that the group had only come through on that occasion because of the presence of David Duncan and Christine Morgan.”

The “group” Mr Zammit refers to are the alleged materialisations of Gordon Higginson, Helen Duncan and Alan Crossley.

David Duncan was Helen’s grandson and Christine Morgan’s father was a friend of Alan Crossley - but it should be noted that no one at the séance personally knew any of these three communicators.

In her testimonial, Christine Morgan writes:

“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 Mr Zammit makes no mention of this highly important and relevant fact.

On his website, he 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 séance.

“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?

On his website, he alleged the following:

“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 didn’t Mr 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”?

He fails to tell us. Why?

He has subsequently claimed that the mysterious circle member wishes to remain anonymous. If such is the case, then why did they give permission for him to use their testimonial?

Providing anonymous testimonials to back up your claims is certainly not “professional”, or indeed, credible.

Frankly, it is absurd.

The Stewart Alexander Circle were directly implemented and involved in this affair, wholly because of Mr Zammit’s unsubstantiated claim. Whilst, understandably, they were reluctant to become involved in the matter, they were honour bound to state the truth and did so by issuing the following statement – which is on public record - through their circle leader:

“Following the claim made by Victor Zammit on his website that a member of Stewart Alexander’s circle commented upon the spirit voice alleged to be that of Alan Crossley, I would like to make the following statement on behalf of The Stewart Alexander Circle:

“No member of our circle has released any statements to Victor Zammit or anybody else in relation to the alleged spirit voice of Alan Crossley. Further, the only members who knew Alan personally were Stewart and myself, and we deny any knowledge of the quote Mr Zammit uses in his article.

Ray Lister, circle leader.”

In his article in PW, Mr Zammit alleges I: “made a silly offer of one thousand pounds if I would call Alan Crossley back and cross examine him”.

Yet again, he gets his facts completely wrong. I never requested that he “call him back” or “cross examine” him. I requested that he “ask the personality claiming to be Alan Crossley 5 questions which I will provide”.

If Alan Crossley was not present then the questions and/or answers could be relayed via another spirit communicator. It was a simple and straight forward challenge that he flatly refused to agree to, deriding it as “silly”.

What is highly ironic about this jibe is the fact that in his June, 2008 online Early Report Mr Zammit refers to the spirit of the Princess of Wales, allegedly communicating through Andrew Russell-Davis.

He writes:

“I have been asking readers to submit questions that they would like answered in order to test whether ‘Diana’ is who she claims to be. This is a continuous endeavor to validate that she is who she claims to be.”

So, it isn’t silly for people who never knew ‘Diana’ to ask her questions, but it is “silly” for a personal friend to ask ‘Alan Crossley’ questions?

What unmitigated nonsense!

If he is so sure of the high calibre of David Thompson’s mediumship, of the “stunning evidence” and the “world shattering” substantiation which is “taking the world by storm”, then one would assume that he would be only too willing to try and ask a few questions in order to validate Mr Crossley’s communication.

After all, he is only too keen to ask ‘Diana’ questions in order to procure this result.

So, why does he ‘move the goalposts’ when the same request is made in relation to David Thompson’s mediumship?

In his Psychic World article he went on to issue completely fictitious allegations relating to both mine and Psychic News editor Susan Farrow’s motives relating my thousand pound challenge.

He claims I “fooled” website owners, was then “dumped” by them and then claims the motivation for my challenge was to “whip up some excitement for his miserably failing website.”

Quite how I “fooled” them and in what way is not explained. Neither does he elucidate as to how I was “dumped”. And my website actually makes a profit through advertisements, but Mr Zammit obviously doesn’t let facts get in the way of his defamatory fantasies.

He continued by inferring I somehow fooled the editor of Psychic News, Susan Farrow, who fell for my “lies” and published my comments in an attempt “to subtly attack the credibility of myself as a professional… but more likely because I also write for the Psychic World.”

Again, let the reader note that he provides not one shred of evidence, not one modicum of corroboration and not one single scrap of proof to support his shameful and contemptible assertions. This alone should reveal just how much credibility and basis in truth they actually have.

Mr Zammit’s belligerent attitude to my critical examination of his assertions regarding the alleged Alan Crossley materialisation immediately prevents any further meaningful dialogue of the salient points from being discussed.

For, instead of calmly and ‘professionally’ addressing the central questions and points made, he indulges in malicious disparagement of both Susan Farrow and myself with totally concocted and unrelated smears.

Ad hominem attacks are no substitute for factual argument, and only suggest that Mr Zammit has no valid answers to any of my points and concerns regarding his claims pertaining to the Alan Crossley ‘materialisation’.

His behaviour is a complete disgrace and just highlights why I and so many others have grave misgivings over his conduct in regard to promoting David Thompson’s mediumship.

Mr Zammit clearly has a lot to learn in respect to providing corroboration and evidence when making serious allegations. As a qualified lawyer, he should know that a case can’t be made without evidence to support it.

It is unfortunate that he chooses to so blatantly ignore this fact in his odious diatribe.

He assures readers that he knows no trickery is going on during séances because The Circle of the Sliver Chord has:

“… professional investigators who were with intelligence agencies. There is also a former police officer with professional investigation experience. There’s a psychologist with expertise in scientific method, professional journalist and a retired attorney – an expert in the admissibility of evidence.”

But none of these qualifications relate to psychical research and the investigation of the authenticity of séance room phenomena.

How many other physical mediums have these ‘professionals’ investigated or even sat with? What precise expertise, experience and training have they had in the specific investigation of physical mediumship?

Are any of these ‘professionals’ experienced and skilled magicians or escapologists; experts on the legerdemain which can occur during séances?

Mr Zammit has never furnished this information, which is vital when ascertaining if The Circle of The Silver Chord is as qualified to assess the veracity of David Thompson’s mediumship as he alleges.

If he is so keen to demonstrate that David Thompson’s mediumship produces the phenomena he claims, then why hasn’t he invited experienced, independent researchers to a test sitting?

Mr Zammit could quite easily contact The Australian Institute of Parapsychological Research, for example. They have various investigators with actual real life experience and knowledge of how to conduct credible investigations pertaining to paranormal phenomena.

He could also contact the Society for Psychical Research in London. I’m sure they would be more than delighted to arrange a test sitting for Mr Thompson whenever he visits England.

The occurrences in Mr Thompson’s séance room, which Mr Zammit alleges on his website are “taking the world by storm!” are clearly nothing of the kind since nobody outside Spiritualism and psychical research has ever heard of David Thompson. Unfortunately, his boasts merely illustrate his unfortunate tendency for exaggeration and hype when describing Mr Thompson’s mediumship.

Such wild and inaccurate claims do nothing for the credibility of physical mediumship. It is a serious subject, and should be treated as such by those who report on it.

Until Mr Zammit provides more substantive, cogent evidence to support his melodramatic claims of “world shattering” materialisation phenomena and the like, I’m afraid his assertions will continue to be treated with caution by a great many people.

Particularly so in light of the fabricated, defamatory and hate-filled abuse he hurls at people who ‘dare’ to ask questions, present a differing view or seek additional verification for his sensationalistic declarations.

———————

Ray Taylor, Psychic World’s editor, has stated he’ll publish it in the November issue. We’ll see…