# No sceptic has debunked his 23 proves for afterlife

malganis

## Main Question or Discussion Point

http://www.victorzammit.com/

no sceptic has debunked his 23 proves for afterlife. So, what do you think?

## Answers and Replies

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
arildno
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Complete nonsense.

Complete nonsense seconded.

russ_watters
Mentor
He's asking for people to debunk every piece of evidence ever presented for the paranormal. An utterly impossible task and therefore an unfair one. His unclaim is self-debunking.

Anyway, I disagree that it's nonsense: for it to be nonsense, he actually has to make concise, positive claims, which he does not appear to do. Its not nonsense, its just meaningless word-salad.

arildno
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
russ_watters said:
Anyway, I disagree that it's nonsense: for it to be nonsense, he actually has to make concise, positive claims, which he does not appear to do. Its not nonsense, its just meaningless word-salad.
:rofl:
A very good point; a meaningless word-salad it is (or possibly a foul brew of wordy stew).

Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
caveat: this is from a 1 minute scan of his website...
THE ULTIMATE EVIDENCE... there is nothing more powerful than personal experience.
Anecdotal evidence is essentially useless except as a starting point for real research. Looks like you can expect arguments mainly consisting of quotes from true believers and famous people. I see that he was quick to use Einstein's "mediocre minds" quote (a favorite among crackpots).

malganis
Oh, noone took time to examine the evidences he presents. I guess you all came with made up mind about the topic. Now dont tell me you are objective about the paranormal. You are just afraid that your beliefs might be wrong as many are.

Gee what a surprise, you had an agenda. Well for starters he uses "NDE" as proof. Too bad NDEs are bs since a certain percentage of people get the experience the exact same "afterlife" when they just pass out with no risk of death at all due to a shock like state. Of course people can say "well my experience surely was more than that" but that's not proof. A statement is not scientific proof.

And besides when a crackpot decides to take on the stagnated and dogmatic mainstream science the burden of proof lies on him, not on the people who actually practice sciences.

malganis
i did not come to this forum with an agenda. I found the link on my uni student forum as i am preparing for a test. But when i found that forum about scepticism and debunked i thought to myself why not to post to see the responses. It's kinda hard for me to understand close-minded sceptics.

If you want to learn about NDE i suggest you this site

www.near-death.com

malganis said:
Oh, noone took time to examine the evidences he presents.
Is there a list somewhere of his "23 proofs". The whole page is densely packed with a collage of things, and I don't know where I'm supposed to look for his "proofs".

malganis
a book is on the right and you can d/l it for free.

Meaningless word-salad sounds like a good description of the page, but I personally wouldn't use it becouse it might be offenisive to some salads

arildno
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
LENIN said:
Meaningless word-salad sounds like a good description of the page, but I personally wouldn't use it becouse it might be offenisive to some salads
Yes, russ watters made an unforgivable mistake here:
He really should have written: "A tasteless, meaningless word-salad"

SGT
From Chapter 6:
David Ash and Peter Hewitt's book, The Vortex, (1994) gives, among other things, one scientific explanation for materialization. They argue that Einstein's formula$$E=mc^2$$— energy equals mass to the speed of light, shows that mass 'm' is equivalent to energy 'E'.

This explains how materialization and dematerialization operate by matter being transformed into energy. When people try to argue that this equation is all theory but cannot be demonstrated they should be reminded that less than one ounce of matter was transformed into energy to destroy Hiroshima.
I don't know from where did Zammit get the information that less than one ounce of matter destroyed Hiroshima, but supposing he is right, the dematerialization of a 75kg man would provide energy to destroy a whole country.

russ_watters
Mentor
malganis said:
a book is on the right and you can d/l it for free.
Unless there is a concise list of 23 proofs, saying there is a list of 23 proofs is a little misleading, don't you think??
Oh, noone took time to examine the evidences he presents. I guess you all came with made up mind about the topic. Now dont tell me you are objective about the paranormal. You are just afraid that your beliefs might be wrong as many are.
There is much in that site (the above, first and foremost) that sets off the "skeptic alarm" of even the most open-minded skeptic (no, "open-minded skeptic is not a contradiction in terms).

russ_watters
Mentor
LENIN said:
Meaningless word-salad sounds like a good description of the page, but I personally wouldn't use it becouse it might be offenisive to some salads
I had a salad for lunch (chef salad, French dressing), and meant no offense.

Ash and Hewitt ask: why should the speed of the movement of the vortex be limited to the speed of light? They argue that once the movement of the vortex exceeds the speed of light, then a person or thing will enter into superenergy, a new dimension, a new world. But in that new dimension the person or thing will be as solid as you and me in this dimension. The only thing is that the vortices will be swirling at a speed faster than on the earth plane.
Yeah, why can't there be some magical vortex where you can go faster than light, despite all the evidence to the contrary! Oh I have another idea I just pulled out of my ass! What if you go so fast you like totally swirl out of our dimension and into another! That hangs together so well it must be true!

Gez, it's like listening a stoner talk about philosophy.

you must study the heart and brain ... what makes those organs function .. is it energy that keeps the life force going. I dont think food and water and air is enough to power the emount of energy that the concious mind produces. They say energy can not be created or destroyed. That is proof to me there is some type of after life, in a sense that the energy, or life force energy that keeps the brain and heart going transfers form. Like everthing else. That is also proof that we are all one energy broken up in all types of forms.