David Farrant- Psychic investigator.
- Thread starter brodski
- Start date
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
For Mivarvia
For Mivarvia,
Re: You said (referring to CLD’s, Paul’s and ‘ Kilgor Trouts comments):
Me, too, David. I'm not laughing AT you, but at CLD's cleverness here. And yes, you are quite a sport.
I know, Minarvia, I also thought CLD’s piece was quite funny – if not brilliant! I am not in the least bit offended by the humour of this. I was only briefly worried when I thought he might have misconstrued my request about the avatar!
For now,
David (Farrant)
For Mivarvia,
Re: You said (referring to CLD’s, Paul’s and ‘ Kilgor Trouts comments):
Me, too, David. I'm not laughing AT you, but at CLD's cleverness here. And yes, you are quite a sport.
I know, Minarvia, I also thought CLD’s piece was quite funny – if not brilliant! I am not in the least bit offended by the humour of this. I was only briefly worried when I thought he might have misconstrued my request about the avatar!
For now,
David (Farrant)
Last edited:
Minarvia
fading orb
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,224
CLD, you're killing me over here! (Dabbing a tear from my eye from laughing) : )
David undoubtably has a terrific sense of humour, but one of these days he may just be afraid to pop in here for fear of what he will see has occurred while he was away!
Either that or he'll choke on his coffee like I just did with my Coke...
David undoubtably has a terrific sense of humour, but one of these days he may just be afraid to pop in here for fear of what he will see has occurred while he was away!
Either that or he'll choke on his coffee like I just did with my Coke...
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
For Minarvia
Hi Minarvia,
I know I've said this elsewhere, but the other person has absolutely NO sense of humour. Which is one reason, I have to admit, I find it even funnier!
For now,
David
It does make you wonder though, what CLD is capable of doing next!
Hi Minarvia,
I know I've said this elsewhere, but the other person has absolutely NO sense of humour. Which is one reason, I have to admit, I find it even funnier!
For now,
David
It does make you wonder though, what CLD is capable of doing next!
The Overseer
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 137
To DavidFarrant
I'll be looking forward to the answer to that thermometer question too.
Then, on a related note, you could try mine.
I'll boil my questions down into one, to make it easier for you to answer as well:
Are the sources I cited have during this thread, the ones that quote you, accurate in content: yes or no?
I'll be looking forward to the answer to that thermometer question too.
Then, on a related note, you could try mine.
I'll boil my questions down into one, to make it easier for you to answer as well:
Are the sources I cited have during this thread, the ones that quote you, accurate in content: yes or no?
The Overseer
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 137
To CLD
That's a pretty good rendering, by the way.
Your use of photo-shop never ceases to amaze me, both in quality and the amount of time you must have on your hands!
I guess you've actually gone into planning stages with Sony by now.
Oh, and I think my head exploded reading through that wonderfully simple and clearcut answer you gave on saving avatars.
That's a pretty good rendering, by the way.
Your use of photo-shop never ceases to amaze me, both in quality and the amount of time you must have on your hands!
I guess you've actually gone into planning stages with Sony by now.
Oh, and I think my head exploded reading through that wonderfully simple and clearcut answer you gave on saving avatars.
Last edited:
Simple cut, paste, select, rotate, and adjust skintones. Total elapsed time: 15 mins.
Yes. We are already planning the third video game title in the series: "FARRANT STRIKES BACK", or alternately "MORE TEA, VICAR?".
Yet another simple cut n' paste job using Farrant's posts and global search and replace editing function.
Glad to see you guys can laugh at yourselves, though.
Last edited:
Minarvia
fading orb
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,224
Yes. We are already planning the third video game title in the series: "FARRANT STRIKES BACK", or alternately "MORE TEA, VICAR?".
QUOTE]
Will there be a PSP version? If so, put me down for one!
David, not to flood you with questions, as I know you are working on others, but when you have time I have one. I'll quote a paragraph of yours -
What I am really trying to say is, that as part of such a ‘learning process’, certain things are naturally discarded as you go along and new understanding takes their place. For example when I was young, to a certain extent, I took very literally the existence of ‘spirits’ (that retained their ‘earthly characteristics’); whilst I now realise that this is not, in fact, the case. But having said that, spiritualism was useful – if not essential – for me as part of this ‘learning process’. So it served a ‘fateful purpose’, if you like.
I was wondering if there was any one significant event in your life, or perhaps research you had done, to cause such a dramatic shift in belief? Or was it a gradual process with no one event as a trigger?
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
For The Overseer
For Overseer,
To clarify the position for you yet again, Overseer, I am not going to answer any of your questions here or elsewhere, but I will tell you again why I will not answer you.
You have only one source for your information, and one source ONLY. You were a member of a violently hostile message board controlled solely by Mr. Manchester – a message board which (as its name implies) is dedicated to the existence of ‘real life’ vampires. That was not, and still is not, my concern.
But when you were a member of that board, you began to challenge me publicly to answer questions about 37-year-old newspaper reports, the majority of these relating to the so-called Highgate ‘vampire’ case at which I was at the centre (at the time).
The questions you were asking were solely the result of malicious propaganda being fed to you by Mr. Manchester (invariably using aliases) and a couple of his cronies. You asked these questions from this message board only. I told you publicly at the time, that I would not answer anybody posing questions to me from that board, but I nevertheless invited you (again publicly) to join my own message board where I said your points could be answered publicly and directly. You refused this suggestion, still expecting me to answer you from there and, after a while, this invitation was withdrawn.
This was the reason that I refused to answer you. This is also the reason I am refusing to answer you from here.
You last asked here if your sources were correct. (I find this quite an incredible question as you now admit that you have not even read any of the original newspaper reports, so how could you even know?)
I find the fact that you could even ask such a question just further evidence of your naivety. I mean honestly, how can you expect information fed to you about myself to be correct or accurate?
The questions you ask are really ancient ones and are in any event based on newspaper reports which were later clarified by the reporters concerned in a libel action I took against the News of the World in 1981 – something else, no doubt, that Mr. Manchester did not tell you.
If ANYBODY else here asks me questions about such newspaper reports (not that I would imagine they would want to) I will answer them.
Why? Because in that event such questions would be genuine. Yours are not.
David Farrant
For Overseer,
To clarify the position for you yet again, Overseer, I am not going to answer any of your questions here or elsewhere, but I will tell you again why I will not answer you.
You have only one source for your information, and one source ONLY. You were a member of a violently hostile message board controlled solely by Mr. Manchester – a message board which (as its name implies) is dedicated to the existence of ‘real life’ vampires. That was not, and still is not, my concern.
But when you were a member of that board, you began to challenge me publicly to answer questions about 37-year-old newspaper reports, the majority of these relating to the so-called Highgate ‘vampire’ case at which I was at the centre (at the time).
The questions you were asking were solely the result of malicious propaganda being fed to you by Mr. Manchester (invariably using aliases) and a couple of his cronies. You asked these questions from this message board only. I told you publicly at the time, that I would not answer anybody posing questions to me from that board, but I nevertheless invited you (again publicly) to join my own message board where I said your points could be answered publicly and directly. You refused this suggestion, still expecting me to answer you from there and, after a while, this invitation was withdrawn.
This was the reason that I refused to answer you. This is also the reason I am refusing to answer you from here.
You last asked here if your sources were correct. (I find this quite an incredible question as you now admit that you have not even read any of the original newspaper reports, so how could you even know?)
I find the fact that you could even ask such a question just further evidence of your naivety. I mean honestly, how can you expect information fed to you about myself to be correct or accurate?
The questions you ask are really ancient ones and are in any event based on newspaper reports which were later clarified by the reporters concerned in a libel action I took against the News of the World in 1981 – something else, no doubt, that Mr. Manchester did not tell you.
If ANYBODY else here asks me questions about such newspaper reports (not that I would imagine they would want to) I will answer them.
Why? Because in that event such questions would be genuine. Yours are not.
David Farrant
The Overseer
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 137
To DavidFarrant
Not quite dedicated to the specific subject matter you talk about, is it? But, if you want to use the logic of its name being justification for its subject matter alone, then there should be a very interesting explaination forthcoming on your Highgate Vampire Society message board...
As to "concern", if it wasn't one, why would you even bring it up, when I haven't?
It's nice ground to cover...if I had actually cited News of the World in the first place. The problem is, I haven't. I was asking you about the specific content of certain articles. These include: The Hampstead & Highgate Express, BBC's 24 Hours, London Evening News and Pentacle Magazine. Are you saying that the reporters in all the articles I cited, took the stand in your favour in regards to your libel suit? Did they admit to printing false information against you? Remember, I'm talking about the articles I cited.
I can make my own assumptions here, but let's see what you have to say...
Wrong on several counts. Firstly, the 'net is largely my (but not only) source of information. This includes your own webpage, which I have cited from. I was a member of a message boards affiliated with Manchester, correct. I have made no secret of this. But to call it "violently hostile", however, is kind of a moot point, considering your own forum was "violently hostile" too. The forums you refer to are run by members of the Vampire Research Society or other associates. However, you do not cite the name of any of the boards, but jump ahead and openly state that they were dedicated to the existence of "'real life' vampires". Let's give an example of the one I patroned the most (using "The Inquisitive One" as my username): The Cross and The Stake. Here is its "mission statement":
Not quite dedicated to the specific subject matter you talk about, is it? But, if you want to use the logic of its name being justification for its subject matter alone, then there should be a very interesting explaination forthcoming on your Highgate Vampire Society message board...
As to "concern", if it wasn't one, why would you even bring it up, when I haven't?
Among other things, yes. I also queried you on the content of your own "replies". Here's the thread in question.
Manchester did not personally feed me any "malicious propaganda" as it were. It is correct to say that newspaper accounts (among other things) which incorporated yourself, and were in turn reproduced by Manchester and his associates, were a source of my questions. Sources I've also asked you on here to deny or confirm. You still haven't. I did not only ask them from C & S, but also from my own. The reason I didn't accept your invitation to join your forum was twofold: 1) I thought that by doing so, I would have been banned from the forum I was already on. I am not sure if this is official policy though, 2) considering the evasiveness and selective answering you had already been engaging in, it didn't seem all that encouraging to join your forums. To be fair, I also extended you an invite to join my forum, via the Secretary of your Highgate Vampire Society forum, but this seems to have been totally ignored. Or not passed onto you.
Well, you've given other bizarre reasons, like my questions not being "genuine". I don't know what the challenge has been to confirm or deny the content of certain press reports (among other articles).
Not the original newspapers themselves, no. Nonetheless, citations are still given. Marc Mullen's 2005 article, however, I have fully read. That appears on the web. I've also read transcripts of the BBC program (24 Hours) you appeared on. I have, however, still given you the most relevant extracts on them. Your quotes, your actions. I've done so in context. All you have to do, is say are they wrong, or are they right? Quite simple.
Not fed to me, but found. Looked up. As to expectations of accuracy, that is where you come in my good man. What do you think I've been asking you all this time?
If my questions are so "ancient" - cite where I've taken them from. You can do this, surely. Ah, yes. Your libel action against News of the World in 1981. Would you like to clarify, specifically, what that libel action was for? What did the News of the World have to say about you to qualify that charge?
It's nice ground to cover...if I had actually cited News of the World in the first place. The problem is, I haven't. I was asking you about the specific content of certain articles. These include: The Hampstead & Highgate Express, BBC's 24 Hours, London Evening News and Pentacle Magazine. Are you saying that the reporters in all the articles I cited, took the stand in your favour in regards to your libel suit? Did they admit to printing false information against you? Remember, I'm talking about the articles I cited.
I invite them to do so as well.
But how would you know? Also, for the sake of it, define how my questions are not "genuine".
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
For Minarvia
You asked:
David, not to flood you with questions, as I know you are working on others, but when you have time I have one. I'll quote a paragraph of yours -
What I am really trying to say is, that as part of such a ‘learning process’, certain things are naturally discarded as you go along and new understanding takes their place. For example when I was young, to a certain extent, I took very literally the existence of ‘spirits’ (that retained their ‘earthly characteristics’); whilst I now realise that this is not, in fact, the case. But having said that, spiritualism was useful – if not essential – for me as part of this ‘learning process’. So it served a ‘fateful purpose’, if you like.
I was wondering if there was any one significant event in your life, or perhaps research you had done, to cause such a dramatic shift in belief? Or was it a gradual process with no one event as a trigger?
Just to say I will answer this for you tomorrow. In fact, I had originally given your question priority, but was interupted by less serious questions.
So please allow me 'till tomorrow, and I will answer this,
For now,
David
You asked:
David, not to flood you with questions, as I know you are working on others, but when you have time I have one. I'll quote a paragraph of yours -
What I am really trying to say is, that as part of such a ‘learning process’, certain things are naturally discarded as you go along and new understanding takes their place. For example when I was young, to a certain extent, I took very literally the existence of ‘spirits’ (that retained their ‘earthly characteristics’); whilst I now realise that this is not, in fact, the case. But having said that, spiritualism was useful – if not essential – for me as part of this ‘learning process’. So it served a ‘fateful purpose’, if you like.
I was wondering if there was any one significant event in your life, or perhaps research you had done, to cause such a dramatic shift in belief? Or was it a gradual process with no one event as a trigger?
Just to say I will answer this for you tomorrow. In fact, I had originally given your question priority, but was interupted by less serious questions.
So please allow me 'till tomorrow, and I will answer this,
For now,
David
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
For Minarvia
For Minarvia,
Sorry for any delay.
Quoting myself from a previous reply you asked:
What I am really trying to say is, that as part of such a ‘learning process’, certain things are naturally discarded as you go along and new understanding takes their place. For example when I was young, to a certain extent, I took very literally the existence of ‘spirits’ (that retained their ‘earthly characteristics’); whilst I now realise that this is not, in fact, the case. But having said that, spiritualism was useful – if not essential – for me as part of this ‘learning process’. So it served a ‘fateful purpose’, if you like.
I was wondering if there was any one significant event in your life, or perhaps research you had done, to cause such a dramatic shift in belief? Or was it a gradual process with no one event as a triggger?
This is a very relevant question, Minarvia, but a very difficult one to answer in short. But I want to answer it concisely so I will; but obviously this will mean leaving out many things that might otherwise perhaps be seen to be relevant.
So very simply: There was no one particular event that suddenly ‘transformed’ was research into unexplained phenomena – psychic phenomena in particular.
It was rather a sequence of events and cases that occurred over many years; from my fascination with ‘ghosts’ and the unseen when I was very, very young; through the stage I was involved in (rather influenced by) spirititualism; to my later Initiation into the fertility religion ‘Wicca’; to the original formation of the BPOS back in 1967, and to the subsequent involvement of the Society in cases of unsolved psychic phenomenon.
All these things really influenced me. The ‘learning process’ here really began when I was very young, and continued to take place as things went along.
Looking back in retrospect (but only general) it was throughout the 1980’s that I gradually began to give much less importance to the existence of ‘outside entities’ (or spirits’) in that it began to ‘dawn’ on me that there might be some entirely normal explanations for frequently reported ‘apparitions’ (whether visual or audio) and the like.
My attitude towards many of these things, therefore, began to change accordingly.
As I have said before here, if people happen to read old articles or other writings of mine on this subject, they should bear in mind such articles were written in accordance with my particular stage of development at the time. I would not now go back and attempt to change any of these explanation or opinions about such matters as they represented (and still do represent) one or another particular level of understanding at the time. To try and ‘change the past’, I feel would be dishonest; especially when this can only really be understood or realised in the immediate present.
Anyway, I hope this helps to clarify what you asked,
David (Farrant)
For Minarvia,
Sorry for any delay.
Quoting myself from a previous reply you asked:
What I am really trying to say is, that as part of such a ‘learning process’, certain things are naturally discarded as you go along and new understanding takes their place. For example when I was young, to a certain extent, I took very literally the existence of ‘spirits’ (that retained their ‘earthly characteristics’); whilst I now realise that this is not, in fact, the case. But having said that, spiritualism was useful – if not essential – for me as part of this ‘learning process’. So it served a ‘fateful purpose’, if you like.
I was wondering if there was any one significant event in your life, or perhaps research you had done, to cause such a dramatic shift in belief? Or was it a gradual process with no one event as a triggger?
This is a very relevant question, Minarvia, but a very difficult one to answer in short. But I want to answer it concisely so I will; but obviously this will mean leaving out many things that might otherwise perhaps be seen to be relevant.
So very simply: There was no one particular event that suddenly ‘transformed’ was research into unexplained phenomena – psychic phenomena in particular.
It was rather a sequence of events and cases that occurred over many years; from my fascination with ‘ghosts’ and the unseen when I was very, very young; through the stage I was involved in (rather influenced by) spirititualism; to my later Initiation into the fertility religion ‘Wicca’; to the original formation of the BPOS back in 1967, and to the subsequent involvement of the Society in cases of unsolved psychic phenomenon.
All these things really influenced me. The ‘learning process’ here really began when I was very young, and continued to take place as things went along.
Looking back in retrospect (but only general) it was throughout the 1980’s that I gradually began to give much less importance to the existence of ‘outside entities’ (or spirits’) in that it began to ‘dawn’ on me that there might be some entirely normal explanations for frequently reported ‘apparitions’ (whether visual or audio) and the like.
My attitude towards many of these things, therefore, began to change accordingly.
As I have said before here, if people happen to read old articles or other writings of mine on this subject, they should bear in mind such articles were written in accordance with my particular stage of development at the time. I would not now go back and attempt to change any of these explanation or opinions about such matters as they represented (and still do represent) one or another particular level of understanding at the time. To try and ‘change the past’, I feel would be dishonest; especially when this can only really be understood or realised in the immediate present.
Anyway, I hope this helps to clarify what you asked,
David (Farrant)
The Overseer
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 137
To DavidFarrant
Hi DavidFarrant,
Firstly, who could you possibly be referring to with this comment, I wonder:
Hint. Hint. Hint.
Anyway, onto more important matters:
A "particular stage in development". That's an interesting comment. Are you actually alluding to the articles I've been citing as being accurate after all? That they did indeed cite you as having a belief and intent to stalk out a vampire? Because, if this is the case, it would be a highly impossible admission, considering that you adamantly state that you have never believed in vampires.
No one's asking you to change the past, DavidFarrant, only confirm (or deny) it. You still appear reluctant to do so.
Oh, and I believe that you are still being expected to answer a question about the brand of thermometer you use in your investigations.
Hi DavidFarrant,
Firstly, who could you possibly be referring to with this comment, I wonder:
~ #372
Hint. Hint. Hint.
Anyway, onto more important matters:
~ #373
A "particular stage in development". That's an interesting comment. Are you actually alluding to the articles I've been citing as being accurate after all? That they did indeed cite you as having a belief and intent to stalk out a vampire? Because, if this is the case, it would be a highly impossible admission, considering that you adamantly state that you have never believed in vampires.
No one's asking you to change the past, DavidFarrant, only confirm (or deny) it. You still appear reluctant to do so.
Oh, and I believe that you are still being expected to answer a question about the brand of thermometer you use in your investigations.
Minarvia
fading orb
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,224
Yes, it did. And it makes sense that the shift in your views was along those lines as opposed to an "overnight" conversion. Thank you for such a thorough response!
I'll be doing some more reading and I'll be sure to ask any questions that occur to me. And I think I'll take your advice.
The Overseer - see this thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72796 and the two warnings that are posted in it - consider from this point onwards that they apply to you - the puerile feud will not be continuing on this Forum.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Darat
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
For Minarvia
Thanks for that,
I will try and answer any further queries you have about what I have posted here, without evading anything if I can help it! So please do ask if you feel I have missed anything.
Anyway, for now,
David (Farrant)
Thanks for that,
I will try and answer any further queries you have about what I have posted here, without evading anything if I can help it! So please do ask if you feel I have missed anything.
Anyway, for now,
David (Farrant)
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
For CLD
Do I believe in 'voodoo dolls'!, 'yes' or 'no'?
CLD. You know my opinion on these 'yes' or 'no' questions!
'Voodoo dolls' have certainly been known to exist, yes.
I think what you probably want a 'yes' or 'no' to, is do they 'work'.
If that is what you mean, and you re-phrase your question, I can then answer 'yes' or 'no' to it . . . And I will.
You would then be left with your requested 'yes' or 'no' answer.
If you required further qualification after that, you would just have to ask me normally!
For now,
David Farrant
Do I believe in 'voodoo dolls'!, 'yes' or 'no'?
CLD. You know my opinion on these 'yes' or 'no' questions!
'Voodoo dolls' have certainly been known to exist, yes.
I think what you probably want a 'yes' or 'no' to, is do they 'work'.
If that is what you mean, and you re-phrase your question, I can then answer 'yes' or 'no' to it . . . And I will.
You would then be left with your requested 'yes' or 'no' answer.
If you required further qualification after that, you would just have to ask me normally!
For now,
David Farrant
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
For Cuddles
The answer to your question Cuddles is 'yes'.
It was only possible to answer 'yes' or 'no' to this because you included the important word 'can' in your question.
So. That is your answer. No doubt you will want to get back to it.
For now though,
David (Farrant)
The answer to your question Cuddles is 'yes'.
It was only possible to answer 'yes' or 'no' to this because you included the important word 'can' in your question.
So. That is your answer. No doubt you will want to get back to it.
For now though,
David (Farrant)
Last edited:
Since Cuddles is offline and I can't help it, I'll take this one.
David, precisely, in what way(s) do you believe a wax effigy can be used to influence, manipulate or affect the object of attention?
Thanks for the answer to the voodoo doll question, Dave. One more quick one. Theoretically speaking, if you were to participate in a wrestling match with someone who was pretending to be a vicar, and you were to be awarded certain items of the individual's clerical vestment should you win, what would you consent to offer (of equal value) to your opponent, should you lose?
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
For Paul
That's all right, Paul. I'm sure Cuddles won't miss talking to myself.
You asked basically why I believed that a wax effigy (or 'voodoo doll) could harm or even kill a person when fashioned in that person's likeness.
Firstly, can I just say (as I have said many times before), I do not really 'believe' in anything. When you come to understand something clearly, there is no need to believe in it. You can just see it. Perhaps this is fairly somple in relation to objective things; it becomes much more difficult when we come to look at ourselves (and lets face it, many of us don't).
To your question:
I think there are two main points to this. I find the second point of far more interest (yes, I'm coming to it!) although I even presume that you might even agree with the first.
The first main point that many races of people, especially 'primitive' ones (don't like the word 'primitive' as I not being 'racist') do fall ill or even die when being 'cursed' by such effigies.
No. I do not have the proof 'in my pocket' but that should be easy enough to find out if you really wanted. I know that there cases on record (especially in Hahiti) where people have been 'cursed' and either fallen seriously ill or even died as a result of it. That would be the first thing to establish and I have seen doctors being interviewed who have confirmed the person was 'beyond medical help' after being so 'cursed'.
This would be for you to establish, as I'm really too occupied to take on such a task.
But if you can accept that this DOES happen, the second important question comes in . . . "How does it work?"
Common sense should tell most people that there is absolutely no power in the clay effigies themselves; they are only and simply the element of clay, which is non-intelligent and powerless.
The answer must surely be that it is the person's BELIEF that such an effigy has power over him or her. It is this belief that causes the outward effect, whether it be illness or even death.
If you were to remove a person's belief in the 'power' of the effigy, the curse simply wouldn't work.
The mind is capable of having a direct effect upon the body; especially so when such belief is 'channeled' in such a direction and aided by fear and superstition.
I hope that explains what I meant.
David Farrant
That's all right, Paul. I'm sure Cuddles won't miss talking to myself.
You asked basically why I believed that a wax effigy (or 'voodoo doll) could harm or even kill a person when fashioned in that person's likeness.
Firstly, can I just say (as I have said many times before), I do not really 'believe' in anything. When you come to understand something clearly, there is no need to believe in it. You can just see it. Perhaps this is fairly somple in relation to objective things; it becomes much more difficult when we come to look at ourselves (and lets face it, many of us don't).
To your question:
I think there are two main points to this. I find the second point of far more interest (yes, I'm coming to it!) although I even presume that you might even agree with the first.
The first main point that many races of people, especially 'primitive' ones (don't like the word 'primitive' as I not being 'racist') do fall ill or even die when being 'cursed' by such effigies.
No. I do not have the proof 'in my pocket' but that should be easy enough to find out if you really wanted. I know that there cases on record (especially in Hahiti) where people have been 'cursed' and either fallen seriously ill or even died as a result of it. That would be the first thing to establish and I have seen doctors being interviewed who have confirmed the person was 'beyond medical help' after being so 'cursed'.
This would be for you to establish, as I'm really too occupied to take on such a task.
But if you can accept that this DOES happen, the second important question comes in . . . "How does it work?"
Common sense should tell most people that there is absolutely no power in the clay effigies themselves; they are only and simply the element of clay, which is non-intelligent and powerless.
The answer must surely be that it is the person's BELIEF that such an effigy has power over him or her. It is this belief that causes the outward effect, whether it be illness or even death.
If you were to remove a person's belief in the 'power' of the effigy, the curse simply wouldn't work.
The mind is capable of having a direct effect upon the body; especially so when such belief is 'channeled' in such a direction and aided by fear and superstition.
I hope that explains what I meant.
David Farrant
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
For CLD
You asked:
Theoretically speaking, if you were to participate in a wrestling match with someone who was pretending to be a vicar, and you were to be awarded certain items of the individual's clerical vestment should you win, what would you consent to offer (of equal value) to your opponent, should you lose?
I was going to put your answer as a PS to Paul's question, but somehow I considered it would't be quite the right place for it!
I am afraid I would have precious little to offer, except perhaps my plastic vampire fangs. He would be welcome to these and they would come in handy for his 'vampire pictures'.
I can tell you what I would claim as a treasured trophy, however. I would be satisfied just with that ridiculous-looking tea-pot cosy that he wears on his head. Just that. Nothing more!
For now,
David
You asked:
Theoretically speaking, if you were to participate in a wrestling match with someone who was pretending to be a vicar, and you were to be awarded certain items of the individual's clerical vestment should you win, what would you consent to offer (of equal value) to your opponent, should you lose?
I was going to put your answer as a PS to Paul's question, but somehow I considered it would't be quite the right place for it!
I am afraid I would have precious little to offer, except perhaps my plastic vampire fangs. He would be welcome to these and they would come in handy for his 'vampire pictures'.
I can tell you what I would claim as a treasured trophy, however. I would be satisfied just with that ridiculous-looking tea-pot cosy that he wears on his head. Just that. Nothing more!
For now,
David
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
I have been ghosting (arf!) this thread and the others connected with it for some time now and have to say that Mr Farrant has been a damn good sport. If he is guilty of anything, I would say 'incorrect labelling', use of 'generic' terms for what he purports to have witnessed, and being perhaps a bit over-zealous in his conclusions.
Mr Farrant seems to be reporting matters as he interpreted them on the ground at the time, and freely admits to not really having any proof or rational (as we would like it) explanation for his experiences - but he's not asking us to believe anything - he's not trying to 'sell' us anything. I think some forumites have taken 'critical thinking' to an extreme whereby they get hung-up - and cannot see past - Mr Farrant's liberal usage of terminology, and are becoming entangled in semantic word games. He is simply telling us what he thinks he has seen or experienced. For the record, I believe there are probably rational/less 'exciting' explanations for his experiences - but I wasn't there so I will not/cannot suggest any.
I do however agree with his explanation of voodoo dolls. I have read many articles on this subject - in order for voodoo and voodoo dolls to 'work', the victim or subject has to have been brought up in environment sympathetic to the voodoo religion; indeed I would go as far as to say these people are conditioned - even 'brainwashed' in the same way as cult members, and it is the victim's belief in the effects that causes the effects.
In a similar vein (arf!) Mr Farrant do you believe that only those people of a certain mindset, who believe in and want to see 'paranormal phenomena' actually see them? Is the interpretation of an event linked to the mindset of the observer in the case of the paranormal? If I had been with you in Highgate Cemetary, do you honestly believe I would have seen or experienced anything at all, or are you simply more susceptible to the 'paranormal' than I am? I realise I am asking you to surmise how I would feel, but I am genuinely interested in what you think.
Mr Farrant seems to be reporting matters as he interpreted them on the ground at the time, and freely admits to not really having any proof or rational (as we would like it) explanation for his experiences - but he's not asking us to believe anything - he's not trying to 'sell' us anything. I think some forumites have taken 'critical thinking' to an extreme whereby they get hung-up - and cannot see past - Mr Farrant's liberal usage of terminology, and are becoming entangled in semantic word games. He is simply telling us what he thinks he has seen or experienced. For the record, I believe there are probably rational/less 'exciting' explanations for his experiences - but I wasn't there so I will not/cannot suggest any.
I do however agree with his explanation of voodoo dolls. I have read many articles on this subject - in order for voodoo and voodoo dolls to 'work', the victim or subject has to have been brought up in environment sympathetic to the voodoo religion; indeed I would go as far as to say these people are conditioned - even 'brainwashed' in the same way as cult members, and it is the victim's belief in the effects that causes the effects.
In a similar vein (arf!) Mr Farrant do you believe that only those people of a certain mindset, who believe in and want to see 'paranormal phenomena' actually see them? Is the interpretation of an event linked to the mindset of the observer in the case of the paranormal? If I had been with you in Highgate Cemetary, do you honestly believe I would have seen or experienced anything at all, or are you simply more susceptible to the 'paranormal' than I am? I realise I am asking you to surmise how I would feel, but I am genuinely interested in what you think.
Thanks for the answer re: the plastic teeth. One other question. Theoretically, of course; would you have objection if, prior to the match, your opponent disported himself unclothed for three minutes before donning a specially prepared purple robe?
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
For CLD
PLEASE CLD . . . I've just finished dinner!
For now,
David
PLEASE CLD . . . I've just finished dinner!
For now,
David
Minarvia
fading orb
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,224
HA!!!
I thought the same thing when I read that!Anyway, a poster above has a very good question that I also would like your opinion on. If, say, I do not believe in ghosts or vampires (or any such paranormal manifestation) do you think I would experience one if I were in the same place as you at the same time and YOU experience it?
Another way to put it is to paraphrase a man on a ghost hunting tv show who said, "there are no haunted places; only haunted people."
Do you believe he is right? I, personally, would love to see a real ghost, but since I do not believe in them (at least I am pretty sure I don't) would that exclude me from the experience?
Thanks in advance!
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
For Minarvia
I was going to answer that point from 'SatansMaleVoiceChoir' tomorrow, so, as you are really asking the same thing, I hope you won't mind if I answer this tomorrow.
I think actually this is a very important point but I think it needs a bit of clarification - for what this is worth!
So, if you don't mind, I'll answer this tomorrow for you and SMVC (I hope he won't mind the abbriaviation of his name!). It is a very complex point, but I hope I might be able to shed some clarification on it from my point of view.
Although for now, and for you both really,
David Farrant
I was going to answer that point from 'SatansMaleVoiceChoir' tomorrow, so, as you are really asking the same thing, I hope you won't mind if I answer this tomorrow.
I think actually this is a very important point but I think it needs a bit of clarification - for what this is worth!
So, if you don't mind, I'll answer this tomorrow for you and SMVC (I hope he won't mind the abbriaviation of his name!). It is a very complex point, but I hope I might be able to shed some clarification on it from my point of view.
Although for now, and for you both really,
David Farrant
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
For SatansMaleVoiceChoir
You asked me if . . .
In a similar vein (arf!) Mr Farrant do you believe that only those people of a certain mindset, who believe in and want to see 'paranormal phenomena' actually see them? Is the interpretation of an event linked to the mindset of the observer in the case of the paranormal? If I had been with you in Highgate Cemetery, do you honestly believe I would have seen or experienced anything at all, or are you simply more susceptible to the 'paranormal' than I am? I realise I am asking you to surmise how I would feel, but I am genuinely interested in what you think.
With regard to you might have seeing the same thing had you been with me in HC, the truthful answer is I don’t know. However, I strongly suspect that you would have done as this was not a case of ‘individual projection’ (although I am sure this can and does happen).
One reason for this is that many other independent people had already reported a very similar thing at or around the same location.
I have personally concluded now, that what I saw was a visual projection of some energy form (yes, unknown to material science but not unknown to ‘esoteric science’ – sorry!) that was somehow ‘fed’ by that particular location. When these things happen, they tend to occur in particular cycles i.e. such energy might become active for a given period only to lie dormant for another given period. This period seems to have been (roughly) from 1968 through to the early 1970’s and affected other locations (such as old pubs and buildings) in the surrounding Highgate area).
It then appears to have lied dormant for several years (or, at least was not so regularly reported), although in 2005 it seems to have become ‘active’ again when two independent witnesses reported seeing a ‘tall black-clad figure’ in Swain’s Lane (the lane that runs alongside Highgate Cemetery). Around this latter period, there also came reports form other nearby locations; one, for example, being the old Flask pub where electric clocks would simultaneously stop on a regular basis, bottles would mysteriously fly off shelves and some people reported seeing a ‘tall dark figure’. There were similar instances at other pubs and residences nearby (all reported by other independent people).
This, of course, begs the question (and please bear in mind that this applies to many hundreds of reports across the country) “what exactly IS this energy that can actually affect material objects and sometimes materialise to be witnessed visually”? Again, I am not sure. But I have stressed before that my main form of investigation is assimilate the Effects, not to speculate about an apparently invisible Cause that might be responsible for these same effects. (I have my own opinions on that but I am certainly not going to ‘display’ these here for obvious reasons!).
You mention that some people can actually create ‘ghosts’ themselves. I am sure this happens on some other occasions but I would say that the case cited above is not one of them. I personally do not consider that it is so strange that, under certain conditions, people can actually ‘see’ a thought. After all, we all ‘see’ thoughts as mental images all the time; so why can not an external image (‘picture’ or ‘thought’) be witnessed outside of this mass of pulpy substance we call the brain?
So my answer/s must be that I suspect that you would have also witnessed what I did had you been there. And yes, some people are actually capable of ‘creating’ ghosts themselves; but certainly not all the time.
For now, and thank you for the question,
David Farrant
You asked me if . . .
In a similar vein (arf!) Mr Farrant do you believe that only those people of a certain mindset, who believe in and want to see 'paranormal phenomena' actually see them? Is the interpretation of an event linked to the mindset of the observer in the case of the paranormal? If I had been with you in Highgate Cemetery, do you honestly believe I would have seen or experienced anything at all, or are you simply more susceptible to the 'paranormal' than I am? I realise I am asking you to surmise how I would feel, but I am genuinely interested in what you think.
With regard to you might have seeing the same thing had you been with me in HC, the truthful answer is I don’t know. However, I strongly suspect that you would have done as this was not a case of ‘individual projection’ (although I am sure this can and does happen).
One reason for this is that many other independent people had already reported a very similar thing at or around the same location.
I have personally concluded now, that what I saw was a visual projection of some energy form (yes, unknown to material science but not unknown to ‘esoteric science’ – sorry!) that was somehow ‘fed’ by that particular location. When these things happen, they tend to occur in particular cycles i.e. such energy might become active for a given period only to lie dormant for another given period. This period seems to have been (roughly) from 1968 through to the early 1970’s and affected other locations (such as old pubs and buildings) in the surrounding Highgate area).
It then appears to have lied dormant for several years (or, at least was not so regularly reported), although in 2005 it seems to have become ‘active’ again when two independent witnesses reported seeing a ‘tall black-clad figure’ in Swain’s Lane (the lane that runs alongside Highgate Cemetery). Around this latter period, there also came reports form other nearby locations; one, for example, being the old Flask pub where electric clocks would simultaneously stop on a regular basis, bottles would mysteriously fly off shelves and some people reported seeing a ‘tall dark figure’. There were similar instances at other pubs and residences nearby (all reported by other independent people).
This, of course, begs the question (and please bear in mind that this applies to many hundreds of reports across the country) “what exactly IS this energy that can actually affect material objects and sometimes materialise to be witnessed visually”? Again, I am not sure. But I have stressed before that my main form of investigation is assimilate the Effects, not to speculate about an apparently invisible Cause that might be responsible for these same effects. (I have my own opinions on that but I am certainly not going to ‘display’ these here for obvious reasons!).
You mention that some people can actually create ‘ghosts’ themselves. I am sure this happens on some other occasions but I would say that the case cited above is not one of them. I personally do not consider that it is so strange that, under certain conditions, people can actually ‘see’ a thought. After all, we all ‘see’ thoughts as mental images all the time; so why can not an external image (‘picture’ or ‘thought’) be witnessed outside of this mass of pulpy substance we call the brain?
So my answer/s must be that I suspect that you would have also witnessed what I did had you been there. And yes, some people are actually capable of ‘creating’ ghosts themselves; but certainly not all the time.
For now, and thank you for the question,
David Farrant
Minarvia
fading orb
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,224
First off, thanks for the reply for what SMVC asked and I also wanted to know! I know that you can only hypothosize what another may experience as far as such manifestations go.
As for people "creating ghosts" I've never thought of the possibility of people seeing thoughts. That is an intriguing idea. Do you also believe that people "creating ghosts" is what is experienced by some as poltergeist activity? Sorry to wander from the main point, but for me it begs that very question as well. I've heard so much about poltergeists that I just have to ask!
As for people "creating ghosts" I've never thought of the possibility of people seeing thoughts. That is an intriguing idea. Do you also believe that people "creating ghosts" is what is experienced by some as poltergeist activity? Sorry to wander from the main point, but for me it begs that very question as well. I've heard so much about poltergeists that I just have to ask!
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
For Minarvia
Thank you for that Minarvia.
I will come back to your question about 'poltergeists' and the possibility of 'seeing a thought' tomorrow. The two could be indirectly connected; although basically, in a way, the two might be seen to go together.
So, until tomorrow, and thank you for your original query.
For the moment,
David
Thank you for that Minarvia.
I will come back to your question about 'poltergeists' and the possibility of 'seeing a thought' tomorrow. The two could be indirectly connected; although basically, in a way, the two might be seen to go together.
So, until tomorrow, and thank you for your original query.
For the moment,
David
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
Mr Farrant; thank you for an honest answer. While I am loathe to acknowledge the existence of 'ghosts' in the traditional sense, I am very interested in your 'energy' theory.
I personally believe that there may be areas/locations which may produce 'energy fields', which affect the human brain and are interpreted according to the mindset of the person affected. This would explain why many people are so convinced they have had a 'paranormal' experience. Is this what you are driving at?
I personally believe that there may be areas/locations which may produce 'energy fields', which affect the human brain and are interpreted according to the mindset of the person affected. This would explain why many people are so convinced they have had a 'paranormal' experience. Is this what you are driving at?
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
For SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Thank you for that. You said:
I personally believe that there may be areas/locations which may produce 'energy fields', which affect the human brain and are interpreted according to the mindset of the person affected. This would explain why many people are so convinced they have had a 'paranormal' experience. Is this what you are driving at?
That is certainly one very important aspect that I was driving at. Only one aspect, maybe; but perhaps a very relevant one.
Probably, like yourself, I dislike the word 'ghost' because - as I have tried to point out - many 'ghosts' may be little more than 'replayed pictures' with no intelligence as such. I can only clarify that by saying that I do not accept that ghosts or 'spirits' exist solely as independent 'outside entities' with a 'thinking mind' or that are even aware of humans.
I do not mean that these can not take the form of (strong) lingering impressions that can not be 'picked up' by some sensative people. But if such exist, I feel that these only exist as such 'impressions', which are obviously subject to varying human interpretation.
It would appear, that these 'impressions' can be 'stronger' at certain locations on the earth's surface, and that also 'elemental conditions' can affect the potency of these.
So it would appear, we might be agreeing on a very similiar thing. But, as you may appreciate, material proof does not exist (at present anyway) so it is a little difficult to discuss here.
Having said that, I would say that 'proof' does in a way exist. Cases of such unexplained phenomenon literally date back over centuries. I realise past superstition and ignorance about such things does not help; but the very fact such stories and accounts date back for so long should tell people something. Well, I cannot deal with cases in the past, obviously, but the cases I have dealt with in the present have led me to conclude that the substance is indeed there, if not the actual 'proof' or facts.
On a similiar note, there may be other aspects that can seen to be the cause of such phenomena (such as the poltergiest, for example) which may have a much more 'human origin'.
But I will not extend upon that now to avoid confusion about what I have just said.
Thanks again SMVC. (Hope you don't mind the abbreviation, but it helps my terrible typing!)
For now,
David (Farrant)
Thank you for that. You said:
I personally believe that there may be areas/locations which may produce 'energy fields', which affect the human brain and are interpreted according to the mindset of the person affected. This would explain why many people are so convinced they have had a 'paranormal' experience. Is this what you are driving at?
That is certainly one very important aspect that I was driving at. Only one aspect, maybe; but perhaps a very relevant one.
Probably, like yourself, I dislike the word 'ghost' because - as I have tried to point out - many 'ghosts' may be little more than 'replayed pictures' with no intelligence as such. I can only clarify that by saying that I do not accept that ghosts or 'spirits' exist solely as independent 'outside entities' with a 'thinking mind' or that are even aware of humans.
I do not mean that these can not take the form of (strong) lingering impressions that can not be 'picked up' by some sensative people. But if such exist, I feel that these only exist as such 'impressions', which are obviously subject to varying human interpretation.
It would appear, that these 'impressions' can be 'stronger' at certain locations on the earth's surface, and that also 'elemental conditions' can affect the potency of these.
So it would appear, we might be agreeing on a very similiar thing. But, as you may appreciate, material proof does not exist (at present anyway) so it is a little difficult to discuss here.
Having said that, I would say that 'proof' does in a way exist. Cases of such unexplained phenomenon literally date back over centuries. I realise past superstition and ignorance about such things does not help; but the very fact such stories and accounts date back for so long should tell people something. Well, I cannot deal with cases in the past, obviously, but the cases I have dealt with in the present have led me to conclude that the substance is indeed there, if not the actual 'proof' or facts.
On a similiar note, there may be other aspects that can seen to be the cause of such phenomena (such as the poltergiest, for example) which may have a much more 'human origin'.
But I will not extend upon that now to avoid confusion about what I have just said.
Thanks again SMVC. (Hope you don't mind the abbreviation, but it helps my terrible typing!)
For now,
David (Farrant)
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
Thank you once again Mr Farrant for your answer.
I have seen many theories that 'ghosts' are a result of 'emotional imprints' in areas where strong emotions have been 'discharged' - usually as a result of violence/death. I have also read that certain locations or materials (rock/stone etc) with 'the right' magnetic fields can allegedly act as a 'psychic recording device' for strong emotions. Do you agree with this theory?
I don't wish to appear confrontational, but merely to pose a genuine question, as I am very interested in your comments and opinions, but; given the above statement, what is your opinion on the apparent 'hostility' directed towards you by the Highgate Cemetery phenomenon? Obviously you're aware that any directed 'hostility' by the phenomenon would indicate a rudimentary intelligence on its' behalf.
I sincerely hope you continue to post in this thread as I have many questions to which I would be interested in your answers and theories.
As for the abbreviation of my screen name - no problem; it happens on every site on which I use it, and it makes sense to abbreviate. You know who you're referring to, and so do I - no dramas!
Many thanks!
I have seen many theories that 'ghosts' are a result of 'emotional imprints' in areas where strong emotions have been 'discharged' - usually as a result of violence/death. I have also read that certain locations or materials (rock/stone etc) with 'the right' magnetic fields can allegedly act as a 'psychic recording device' for strong emotions. Do you agree with this theory?
I don't wish to appear confrontational, but merely to pose a genuine question, as I am very interested in your comments and opinions, but; given the above statement, what is your opinion on the apparent 'hostility' directed towards you by the Highgate Cemetery phenomenon? Obviously you're aware that any directed 'hostility' by the phenomenon would indicate a rudimentary intelligence on its' behalf.
I sincerely hope you continue to post in this thread as I have many questions to which I would be interested in your answers and theories.
As for the abbreviation of my screen name - no problem; it happens on every site on which I use it, and it makes sense to abbreviate. You know who you're referring to, and so do I - no dramas!
Many thanks!
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 392
ForSatansMaleVoiceChoir
Thank you for that,
If you don't mind, I am really going to have to go through this tomorrow. I also still have to answer Minaveria's question so I could do both at the sme time.
One interesting point you make though; and this is the possibility that the entity I witnessed appeared to be 'hostile'. Yes. I would say that it was. But not in the sense that the energy had any 'active intelligence' (which I may have thought at the time) but that the energy itself was simply of a highly negative nature. I think it is possible (in fact I know) to pick up such energy (or thought patterns) from living people; whether these survive after death is, of course, a completely separate matter.
So I'll finish my reply to you tomorrow,
For the moment,
David (Farrant)
Thank you for that,
If you don't mind, I am really going to have to go through this tomorrow. I also still have to answer Minaveria's question so I could do both at the sme time.
One interesting point you make though; and this is the possibility that the entity I witnessed appeared to be 'hostile'. Yes. I would say that it was. But not in the sense that the energy had any 'active intelligence' (which I may have thought at the time) but that the energy itself was simply of a highly negative nature. I think it is possible (in fact I know) to pick up such energy (or thought patterns) from living people; whether these survive after death is, of course, a completely separate matter.
So I'll finish my reply to you tomorrow,
For the moment,
David (Farrant)
Much as I hate to bring the voice of skepticism back to this skeptical forum, but do you suppose we could have some evidence for these theories while we're at it? This discussion is all very nice, but it really doesn't have any place on this board.