David Farrant- Psychic investigator.

Do you believe voodoo dolls can work? By "work" I mean, can things done to a wax doll have an effect on a person that the doll is supposed to represent.

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)

DavidFarrant said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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

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

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.

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?

For CLD

PLEASE CLD . . . I've just finished dinner!

For now,

David

DavidFarrant said:

PLEASE CLD . . . I've just finished dinner!

For now,

David

Click to expand...

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!

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

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

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!

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

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?

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 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?

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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)

SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.