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.