David Farrant- Psychic investigator.

[DavidFarrant]

As some people here may have gathered, I have been taking a ‘long holiday’ from my thread. It was getting a little heated, and I actually reached the stage (what with people like the Overseer trying to divert it) that I was getting nowhere.
However, as I remember, there has been considerable interest here in the so-called ‘Highgate Vampire’ case, and my involvement in it, there might be a little news piece that might be of interest to some.
It is an online Californian radio show, hosted by Don Ecker (sorry, that name must sound like ‘sacrilege’ to some people here, who would certainly not accept the existence of his prime subject, UFOs!)
Anyway, back to the point, here he is just talking about vampires, mainly, and nothing else.
Here is the link:

http://www.patriotbrigaderadio.com/a...s.php#highgate

Just hope it might be of interest to some of you!
Yours for the moment,


David Farrant

[Senex]

I clicked your link and didn't discover what you wanted discovered. I did discover a few fellows who aren't deep thinkers.

[Wheezebucket]

Oh look, more wacky nonsense.

[DavidFarrant]

I was only hoping that you might discover that the whole story about 'vampires' - the Highgate 'vampire' in particular - was just sheer nonsense (or 'wacky nonsense' as Wheezebucket so aptly said).

It has been mentioned here so much in the past, which is the only reason I 'tuned you into it'.

I still don't wish to discuss that case here, but as some of the facts were being broadcast, just thought they might be of interest (though only in relation to that case, that's all).

David Farrant

[Miss Whiplash]

David, this may come as a shock, but few if any people here are still interested in non-existent vampires. You would reach a bigger audience if you used your own website and message board for the announcement.

[DavidFarrant]

I already have. In fact, some 48 hours before it was posted here!

Its in the News Section.

David Farrant

[Rrose Selavy]

Yep. Vampires do not exist. There are still some places where that is considered "news".

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

I actually reached the stage that I was getting nowhere.

That's where you started. If you want to actually get somewhere, you have to actually answer questions instead of launching into long, rambling posts about nothing.

[DavidFarrant]

Hello again Cuddles. I was just taking a long-deserved break, that's all. But as you're here again . . .

You said:

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant
I actually reached the stage that I was getting nowhere.
That's where you started. If you want to actually get somewhere, you have to actually answer questions instead of launching into long, rambling posts about nothing

Before I get on with my well deserved 'holiday', could I ask you one final 'yes' or 'no' answer question?

It is:

"Have you stopped deliberatly misinterpretating my posts and explanations yet?"

You can only answer a simple 'yes' or 'no', remember!

Well?

For now,

David Farrant

[Paul]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

Hello again Cuddles...

Now David, you should know better, if Cuddles can answer that one YES or NO, you can do the same with this:

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[DavidFarrant]

Cuddles originally asked me if I believed in 'vampires', (or something like that) 'yes' or 'no'?

I had to clarify the meaning of the word 'vampires' with you (if you recall) and said that it was impossible to answer 'yes' or 'no' to some questions. Cuddles insisted that it was (possible to answer 'yes' or 'no' to questions) and asked me if I believed in the existence of 'psychic phenomena', (ghosts, etc).
whereas I pointed out that some questions could not be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

That is all I was demonstrating again to Cuddles in the light of her latest post. She still has not shown that it is possible to do so.

If it was (possible) to answer my last question, all she had to do was answer 'yes' or 'no' to it.

I was not attempting to enter into any 'word games', just to show that in the nebulous subject of psychic phenomena and the paranormal, it is just not possible to answer a simple 'yes' or 'no' to some questions.

Unless, of course, a given person may have a given belief in the first place and expects some simple answer that might not in any way oppose their particular line of thinking (then a 'yes' or 'no' might prove highly convenient).

I was not 'trying to do betterthan that'; just reversing the sequence to get the point across. Some things cannot be questioned without being properly explained.

That's all I was trying to convey.

David Farrant

[The Overseer]

Hi Senex,

Quote:

The Overeer, I apologize for being harsh. Sometimes I find myself having a few beers and reading the replies on this site and behaving unforgivably harsh. I'm sorry.

Hahaha, that's ok, Senex. I'm more than happy to respond to your posts, all the same!

Quote:

You believe in the supernatural. Perhaps you could give us insight into what you believe. More people than not believe in the supernatural -- perhaps you could be the person who explains what we are missing.

That's a good question. At the risk of going slightly off topic here, I'll briefly summarize it: by belief in the supernatural, in conjunction with my religion, I believe in God, in Satan, in angels and demons. I believe that Jesus was/is the Son of God. My view of the supernatural/paranormal is seen with that in mind. I've had an instinctual leaning towards my religion since I was a child. I used to have discussions about it, and still do.

What are you missing? I guess the faith in believing in something beyond our realm. The faculty to open your mind to other possibilities. This is understandable, and in some way, I admire the skeptics for their critical approach. I apply it in my own way too: I don't accept all manifestations of the supernatural. I believe that a certain amount of rigor needs to be applied to investigating it - to sort the wheat from the chaff, as it were. I think it's pretty much the reason why parapsychology/psychic research isn't taken seriously by other scientists.

But naturally, obtaining evidence of the supernatural, is a tough and elusive process.

Quote:

The majority of people are on your side and we might just need to read the numbers to go over to the other side.

They're on my side? Wow! I wouldn't have been able to tell that from a lot of the posts directed against myself!

Hi David,

Quote:

As some people here may have gathered, I have been taking a ‘long holiday’ from my thread. It was getting a little heated, and I actually reached the stage (what with people like the Overseer trying to divert it) that I was getting nowhere.

David, how the hell was I trying to "divert" it...by answering your questions/posts? How ludicrous.

Quote:

However, as I remember, there has been considerable interest here in the so-called ‘Highgate Vampire’ case, and my involvement in it, there might be a little news piece that might be of interest to some.

Why do you attack me for bringing up the subject of vampires...yet tend to do so yourself?

However, seeing as you're on the topic again, let's try to re-address some important matters by breaking open some old chestnuts.

You're pretty hard-line against the blood-sucking corpse variety of vampires (however open-minded you present yourself on matters of the supernatural), dismissing them as "wacky", and whatnot.

Feel free to address these extracts:

Quote:

Mr David Farrant, 24, who reported seeing a ghost last month, returned to the spot last weekend and discovered a dead fox. ‘Several other foxes have also been found dead in the cemetery,’ he said at his home in Priestwood Mansions, Archway Road, Highgate. ‘The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died. Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory as being the most likely answer. Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest'.

~ "Why Do the Foxes Die?", The Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970.

In light of the above post, have you ever believed in the existence, or possible existence, of blood-sucking vampires?

Quote:

Laurence Picethly: Have you ever seen this vampire?”
David Farrant: I have seen it, yes. I saw it last February, and saw it on two occasions.

~ 24 Hours, 15 October 1970.

Quote:

So we stalked. Cross in one hand to ward off the evil spirits, stake in the other, held at the ready. Farrant stalked among the vaults, past the graves, in the bushes and by the walls. When we had finished he started stalking all over again.

~ Barrie Simmons, "Midnight Date With Highgate's Vampire", (London) Evening News, 16 October 1970.

Now, before you say the cops set you up (after being arrested in Highgate Cemetery, while allegedly attempting to hunt a vampire), let it be noted, that you were arrested in August 1970 (if I recall), yet as is revealed, you were extolling a vampire interpretation long before this time.

Before you also complain about the age of the articles again (despite their relevancy to your career), let's look at this quote...from two years ago:

Quote:

Mr Farrant said: "The sighting of a tall, black figure in April on Swains Lane makes me think the vampire is active again.

~ Marc Mullen, "Highgate Vampire at it again!", Pentacle Magazine, Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:58 AM.

Do you a) dispute the accuracy of the above quotes?:

YES or NO

...and b) are the words/actions cited yours?:

YES or NO

If they're not, I will happily contact the above papers/website/tv station and make them print a retraction for deceiving their viewers/readers. I'll be doing you a favour, David! Clearing your name!

I'll also e-mail Mr. Mullen and chastise him for being a liar, as well as reprint his retraction here.

Your call:

YES or NO.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

Cuddles originally asked me if I believed in 'vampires', (or something like that) 'yes' or 'no'?

I had to clarify the meaning of the word 'vampires' with you (if you recall) and said that it was impossible to answer 'yes' or 'no' to some questions. Cuddles insisted that it was (possible to answer 'yes' or 'no' to questions) and asked me if I believed in the existence of 'psychic phenomena', (ghosts, etc).
whereas I pointed out that some questions could not be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

That is all I was demonstrating again to Cuddles in the light of her latest post. She still has not shown that it is possible to do so.

If it was (possible) to answer my last question, all she had to do was answer 'yes' or 'no' to it.

I was not attempting to enter into any 'word games', just to show that in the nebulous subject of psychic phenomena and the paranormal, it is just not possible to answer a simple 'yes' or 'no' to some questions.

Unless, of course, a given person may have a given belief in the first place and expects some simple answer that might not in any way oppose their particular line of thinking (then a 'yes' or 'no' might prove highly convenient).

I was not 'trying to do betterthan that'; just reversing the sequence to get the point across. Some things cannot be questioned without being properly explained.

That's all I was trying to convey.

David Farrant

David, I will once again point out that there is no point trying to make dishonest points like this when everyone can go back and look at the thread to see what really happened. I never said, as you claim, that all questions can be answered either yes or no. However, there are many questions that can be, and most of the ones you have been asked are of that type.

"Do you believe in x?" is a very simple yes or no question. If you later wish to clarify exactly what and why that is fine. However, you have not done so. When asked about vampires you constanly just say that you don't believe in one particular definition of vampire without ever saying anything about anything eles. Obviously this implies that you do believe in some kind of vampire, which is why we kept asking.

This is very different from a leading question which implies that something is true before the question is answered. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a common example. This cannot be ansewed simply yes or no because either answer implies that you have beaten your wife in the past. In a similar vein, "Have you stopped misinterpreting my posts?" is exactly the same, because yes and no would both imply that I misinterpreted them in the past, which is not true.

Of course, this new nonsense from you just supports the post you were replying to. You did not reach a stage where you were getting nowhere, you started there and have refused to move ever since, despite constant coaxing and prodding from a variety of different people. If you actually want any discussino of you and your work to get anywhere it is entirely down to you.

[DavidFarrant]

The problem is, Cuddles, is that I just get tired of answering the same questions over and over again here. Take the ‘vampire’ issue, for example, I have stated time and time again here that I DO NOT accept the existence of ‘blood-sucking vampires’. Some people here are either incapable of listening (with respect to yourself) or who simply seem to WANT me to state I believe in vampires (note: with no respect to the Overseer).

Why bring the subject up, you may ask?

The whole point is I didn’t. It was other people here who did; namely the Vampire when she dedicated a thread to the Highgate Vampire elsewhere here. This thread about myself (but NOT started by myself) is really an off-shoot from that, and the whole silly ‘vampire thing’ sometimes spills over into it.

I do NOT believe vampires. I cannot say it more clearly than that.

That does not mean I do not accept that various psychic entities might or can exist. There was almost certainly some ‘earth bound’ phenomenon that was seen in and around Highgate Cemetery. Recent reports suggest that it has become active again. This one was sent to my former secretary late last year. I will publish the account here as you might like to see what an independent person says about that case for a change.

The person’s name is Martin Trent, a married man who lives in the Holly Lodge estate which virtually backs onto Highgate Cemetery and happened in the summer of 2005.

I have since been in touch with him and, yes, I have his full permission to publish his experience and to use his real name. He says . . .

I have lived on the Holly Lodge Estate, adjacent to Swains Lane and
Highgate for the last 11 years.

In all that time of walking up and down the lane at various times of the
day and dead of night, in all conditions and through every season, I've never
felt or seen anything amiss, as it were.

Sure, sometimes on a particularly misty late night in November, it can be a
little spooky, wending my way down from the village. past the cemetery
gates. But, I've never sensed anything even remotely approaching a
ghost/apparition sighting, until...

During the summer of 2005, I had been out with friends, in the village for
a drink. It wasn't a particularly heavy session, so I can't blame what I'm
about to retell on the booze.

It was late summer and warm. The time was probably after midnight, though
I'm not certain.

As I walked down Swains Lane, with Waterlow Park to my Left and Highgate
Cemetery West, to my right, I thought I saw a figure standing near the
Gates of Highgate Cemetery East, just past the park entrance. It was a clear
night, although I can't remember whether there was a moon, full or
otherwise, visible.

As I got nearer, I began to think this figure looked a bit "odd". He
appeared quite tall and dressed in dark, drab, non-descript clothing. What
seemed odd was the fact he seemed to be wearing a long overcoat and a
hat...

I know this sounds like your archetypal sinister figure - but that's what I
saw. This was late August and it had been a hot month to say the least. so
the way he was dressed did seem out of place, more so than the fact he was
standing outside the cemetery at midnight.

To qualify this: There are often groups of disaffected teenagers and Goths
hanging around the cemetery gates, all hours of the day and night. So the
fact someone was there on this occasion was no surprise.

The really strange part, though, was still to happen...

As I drew level with him and was about to walk pass, I could swear I heard
him say to me "Good evening, sir." In what sounded at first like a strange
accent, but which I later thought, just sounded "old fashioned". The other
peculiarity about his greeting was It didn't seem to come from his
direction as such, but rather seemed to be whispered right next to my ear. Which,
given the ordinariness of the words, still gave me a jolt.

I continued past him for about a further 50 yards down the lane and just as
I was about to turn right into my road - Oakeshott Avenue, something made
me turn round.

Looking up the rise from where I was standing, he was now on the other side
of the road, nearer to Highgate Cemetery West. From my position, I couldn't
see his feet, but the next moment he seemed to glide straight back across
the road at right angles to me a go clean through the cemetery gates on the
opposite side of the lane (East Cemetery) and disappear.

That's it.

I went home and immediately told my wife. She seemed more excited by it
than me at the time. But the whole incident had a delayed effect on me. It was
only a few days later when I was mulling it over in my mind, that it all
seemed to come into focus and I realised what an extraordinary "encounter",
I'd had.



The bit that kept gnawing away at me and left me feeling decidedly
uncomfortable, was the whispered greeting that seemed to come from right
next to me, rather than from the direction where "he" was standing. That
definitely put the frightners up me.

The more I play it back over in my mind, the more I wonder what I actually
saw and experienced and what I may have recalled wrongly. I can't remember
seeing a face at any time. I'm not even sure if the voice was male or
female, now. It seemed to be oddly neutral as far as I can remember.

Anyway, that's it. If I can help you with any further details etc. Please do
not hesitate to drop me a line.

Yours

Martin Trent

PS Strangely enough, I feel more unsettled recalling the events now, even
with distance and perspective, than I did at the time they actually
occurred, and I can't deny I don't have quite the same assuredness walking
home down Swains Lane at night, any more.

That is his account. Make of it what you will.

The only point I am really trying to make (especially for the benefit of those with no more ‘over-sight’ into the Highgate case than the fabricated propaganda they have gleaned from the message boards of a person who is clearly ‘bonkers’), is that the entity witnessed at Highgate is not just reliant on my experience all those years ago; it has been witnessed by many other people.

David Farrant

[Big Les]

Whilst I enjoy reading such accounts in the context of modern folklore, you know what the standard of evidence is for these forums and for sceptics in general. Anecdotal evidence is weak, and the fact that several people have made similar reports about the same location means precisely nothing.

You take such stories on faith and via your confirmation bias attribute them to the same "entity" that you were previously aware of. Because the stories are unverifiable, it is rather more likely that they are innaccurate, misinterpreted, hallucinated, drug-addled, or outright made up, than it is that they represent any such "entity".

You approach these matters on trust and belief. The former is admirable (though still benefits from a critical approach), the latter less so; at least as far as sceptics are concerned. You and anyone else are more than welcome to believe in such entities and to take these stories as evidence, but if you wish to take discussion here any further, you will need something more (photos, video, temperature readings, EM readings, ectoplasm, whatever else). Without that something else, the discussion is going to continue to run in circles and frustrate all parties.

[Miss Whiplash]

I think this thread should be moved to "Abandon All Hope." The thread serves no purpose other than free promotion for David Farrant and a lightning rod for the equally kooky followers of camps Farrant and Manchester. It's an 8 month long circular argument that never improves.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Big Les

Whilst You and anyone else are more than welcome to believe in such entities and to take these stories as evidence, but if you wish to take discussion here any further, you will need something more (photos, video, temperature readings, EM readings, ectoplasm, whatever else). Without that something else, the discussion is going to continue to run in circles and frustrate all parties.

Unfortunately, David has made it clear(after a little prodding) that he has made little effort to collect data(although he has made some) and that the data that was collected was not subject to any sort of controls or blinding. Hence the dashing of the hopes of some of us who saw the title "psychic investigator" and though perhaps here was someone who took a systematic approach to the subject.

[Big Les]

I know Marcus, I just thought a final forlorn hope effort was worth a try.

[DavidFarrant]

Although it seems to have been a 'last ditch' appearance, Big Les, I am glad to see you here again. Ironically, perhaps, you posted when I was 'fading out' my posts; but I nevertheless respect much of what you have said. (Shame, we never got around to discussing 'mediums'!).

For Marcus: Don't be too disappointed! I AM a psychic invstigator; but please remember that somebody else started this thread on my behalf using that title.

For Paul ; "Have I stopped beating my wife yet"? . . . Sorry, that is an irrrevelent question when I am not even married at the moment. ( But who knows. In view of recent events, I might just be able to answer 'yes' or 'no' in the future!).

For now,

David

[Kilgore Trout]

Does your future wife know you have plans to beat her? And a follow-up question, if I may, if she does know, do you think this adversely affects the chances of her accepting?

(Just having a bit of fun with that. My self-control can be lacking at times.)

[Marcus]

Well, it's never too late. Perhaps the next time you are considering an investigation , you could post the details here, and take suggestions with regards to protocol.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

Take the ‘vampire’ issue, for example, I have stated time and time again here that I DO NOT accept the existence of ‘blood-sucking vampires’.

Exactly, you repeat the same dodges over and over again without ever actually answering the question. We never asked about "blood-sucking vampires", we just asked about vampires. We know perfectly well that you don't believe in Dracula, but your insistence on attatching "blood-sucking" rather implies that you believe in some other kind of vampire, and your nonsense about psychic entities attacking you backs this up. However, we can't know what you actually believe unless you tell us, which you have so far refused to do.

Quote:

I do NOT believe vampires. I cannot say it more clearly than that.

Stop the press!!! David actually answers a question!!!

See how easy that was David? Was it really worth all the dodging and dishonesty over 24 pages and over 300 posts? If you'd just said that at the begining without all the cow poo you've throwing out at us then we could have had a reasonable debate about your beliefs. As it is, you've completely destroyed any credibility you might have had, and I rather doubt anyone has the patience to spend another 24 pages trying to coax a second answer out of you.

[DavidFarrant]

Well, you could certainly saved yourself one hell of amount of time (forgive the pun but actually it was deliberate!) if you had listened to what I said in the first place, Cuddles.

Here is what I answered about the ‘Highgate vampire issue’ way back on page 1 (and it was not even near the bottom):


For Brodski, Skeptic Guy and The Vampire,

I have noted all your questions which I will answer. Your questions are really quite complex, Brodski, as is Skeptic Guy's further one - not difficult at all, but need a little more time than I have at this exact moment. The Vampire's question is really quite simple in comparison so I will deal with this first - after all, she is a lady!

To answer your first point first: I never became involved with the 'Highgate Vampire', simply because there never was a 'Highgate Vampire'!

There WAS an unexplained phenomenon - or 'ghost' - that had been witnessed at Highgate Cemetery (including by myself) in late 1969 and in the early 1970's. But this phenomenon (although genuine as far as such things are said to go) was NOT a 'vampire'.

[Page 1, post 12 abridged for relevance]

People here (including yourself Cuddles) were asking me about the Highgate entity. I made it quite clear at the onset that this reported ‘ghost’ or entity was not a vampire.

Subsequently – over and over again, over numerous pages – I made it abundantly clear that I did not accept the existence of vampires. I also made it clear that ‘vampires’ should not be confused with ‘ghosts’ or the psychic entities or manifestations that we were meant to be discussing here.

My God! Is it just me? I would have though even a young child would have been capable of understanding what I was saying!

(Though having said that, I appreciate that even some young children have a tendency to fly into tantrums, ‘stamp their feet’ and refuse to listen to what is being said!).

So, as I said in the very first place . . . NO VAMPIRES OR VAMPIRE!

David Farrant

[CLD]

[Big Les]

In other words, you find the idea of a vampire ludicrous, yet the presence of a ghost perfectly plausible.

Because there is no more than anecdotal evidence for either of these, we as sceptics see no reason to believe that either of these exist. The existence of ghosts happens to fit your personal belief system. That's fine - no-one's asking you not to. But if you can't present better evidence, you'll have to let things lie on the subject, or we're all doomed to this circular argument.

Why not take a look around the forum and see if there are any topics you feel you can contribute to (whilst being prepared to back up any claims you make)? I've appreciated having you here, as a bit of a vampire folklore buff, but this really is going nowhere.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

So, as I said in the very first place . . . NO VAMPIRES OR VAMPIRE!

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

But there are different types of ‘vampires, of course...

Thank you for playing. Please try again.

As you keep saying, even a young child could understand this. Perhaps you should get one to help you.

[DavidFarrant]

No Cuddles That only arose because Paul (and yourself) were making a big issue of the different definitions of the word 'vampire' in the dictionary. I made it quite clear that it was the commonly accepted definition (i.e. the traditional 'blood-sucking vampire') of the term that I neither accepted or believed in; although I believe I pointed out that there were some human beings that took on 'vampire-like characteristics' by mentally draining others of energy (and there are).

This is just yet another example of your not reading what I actually said, Cuddles.

Copy what I originally said and post it here again by all means, if you are still confused about it; although I think it is more a case that you may be confusing others about it.

I have said all along that supernatural vampires do not exist.

There may exist other forms of psychic or paranormal energy that is as yet not properly understood. But that is an entirely different matter.

David Farrant

[Big Les]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

There may exist other forms of psychic or paranormal energy that is as yet not properly understood.
David Farrant

Yes, there may, although we have only anecdotal evidence for it. Of course, we have just as much, if not more, for the traditional vampire you scoff at.

It's a bit like the famous quote about atheism - a Christian is an atheist as regards all religions but his own. You are a sceptic (arguably cynic) as regards bloodsucking vampires, but not ghosts and "psychic energy".

Think of us here as you will, but we are at least consistent.

[DavidFarrant]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant
There may exist other forms of psychic or paranormal energy that is as yet not properly understood.
David Farrant
Yes, there may, although we have only anecdotal evidence for it. Of course, we have just as much, if not more, for the traditional vampire you scoff at.

It's a bit like the famous quote about atheism - a Christian is an atheist as regards all religions but his own. You are a sceptic (arguably cynic) as regards bloodsucking vampires, but not ghosts and "psychic energy".

Think of us here as you will, but we are at least consistent.


Thanks for that, Big Les.

I think you have summed the whole thing up very nicely. Well, not ‘nicely’, but at least not inaccurately as Cuddles had a habit of persistently doing! So, we can agree to differ on that, but at least with the understanding of where we stand.

I can also accept that you (you all) are consistent – I would say, ‘over consistent’!

As to your comments on Christianity, I sincerely hope I have made my position clear here (well, I certainly tried hard enough).

I am not an atheist, but accept the existence of a universal Divine Intelligence, Divine consciousness, or God. (Describe It how you will, words do not really matter).

I am not a member of any given religion (although I have been), but I would have to agree with your remark about Christianity in the respect many Christians believe that they have been chosen, or have been ‘saved’, to the exclusion of the rest of the world.

This is a nonsense and goes against the very principle of a Divine Love and Intelligence that created ALL life. It also defies the very teaching of the Founder of that Church itself who mixed with sinners and the poor and sent His disciples forth to spread God’s love ‘to the Gentiles’.

This Intelligence is not confined to any selective Church or Churches. It is available to all (yes, even people here!) if they would all but open their hearts to It.

I am glad you summed things up thus, Big Les.

I would hate to leave, leaving some people with more wrong conceptions of myself.

And one day – if not here, we really must get around to our discussion on mediums!

For now,

David (Farrant)

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

[color="Navy"]No Cuddles That only arose because Paul (and yourself) were making a big issue of the different definitions of the word 'vampire' in the dictionary. I made it quite clear that it was the commonly accepted definition (i.e. the traditional 'blood-sucking vampire') of the term that I neither accepted or believed in; although I believe I pointed out that there were some human beings that took on 'vampire-like characteristics' by mentally draining others of energy (and there are).

This is just yet another example of your not reading what I actually said, Cuddles.

Actually it's a perfect example of me reading what you actually said and not what you wish you had said. Just look at the first paragraph of this post again. Really, just read it. You very clearly say, once again, that although you don't believe in the classic Hammer horror type of vampire, you do believe in other types.

We've been over the semantics here before. A "psychic vampire" is just as much a vampire as Dracular. We know that you don't want to call these vampires despite your constant claims of "vampire-like characterisitcs", but frankly, we're not interested in your personal definitions. The word "vampire" as it is popularly used includes the claims you make as well as the one you deny. A "non-human being who drains people of psychic energy" can be called a vampire whether you like it or not. Hence our repeated attempts to get you to clarify what you actually believe, rather than just having you repeat over and over again that you don't believe in one specific type of vampire that has nothing to do with our discussion.

Quote:

Copy what I originally said and post it here again by all means, if you are still confused about it; although I think it is more a case that you may be confusing others about it.

Well, I did exactly that in my last post, but here's another one:

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

There are ‘human vampires’ of course. That is human beings who are quite capable of draining the mental energy of another.

Quote:

I have said all along that supernatural vampires do not exist.

No you haven't. You have said all along that blood-sucking vampires do not exist while insisting that various other supernatural things really do, including vampires. I had hoped you had got over this with your recent comment that you absolutely, definately do not believe in vampires, but here you go again claiming that supernatural beings with "vampire-like characteristics" exist.

[Big Les]

It's worth pointing out that in the folklore, there are just as many types of "psychic vampire" as there are the sort that developed into the cliche we know and love today.

So aside from ghosts and energy-draining-psychic-people being indistinguishable for sceptical purposes due to a total lack of anything other than anecdotal evidence (as I clarify above), any human or supernatural entity capable of draining "energy" from a person is, to all intents and purposes, just as much a "vampire" as Count Orlock. Which is what Cuddles has been trying to point out.

[DavidFarrant]

Thanks Big Les,

At last! NOW I understand what Cuddles meant, so I can answer directly.

To save anymore confusion, can I substitute the word ‘draining energy’ for that of ‘vampire’? (I mean, take them to mean the same).

I think we all agree that ‘entities’ that sleep in coffins, drink blood and can be ‘staked’ simply do not exist.

You have said that psychic entities that can drain human energy do not exist either. Fair enough.

I have said I leave an open mind to this, which is fair enough as well.

But what I was also referring to, was living human beings that are capable of draining the mental energy of others whilst they are both alive. (Not ‘dead spirits’ affecting the living, but the living affecting the living in such a manner if you like).

I am guessing, but I expect you would not accept this.

But I was also referring to this as well; that is, I think it is possible that some people are capable of doing this. Such people are not ‘vampires’ (in fact, there is no supernatural influence involved at all) but can exert some sort of influence over others in a mental way.

The dictionary defines this type of vampire as ‘people’ (living people, that is) ‘who prey on others’. When I used the term ‘vampire-like characteristics’, it was in this sense. I was using the word to describe such symptoms, that’s all. That is the ability to drain others of energy.

That is all I meant when I was referring to ‘other types of vampires’.

As a matter of fact, there are actually people who dress up as vampires, so this term could equally be applied to them. But that does not mean that such people are actually ‘vampires’; merely that they are emulating something that has no real existence!

David Farrant

[Senex]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

...
But what I was also referring to, was living human beings that are capable of draining the mental energy of others whilst they are both alive. (Not ‘dead spirits’ affecting the living, but the living affecting the living in such a manner if you like).

I am guessing, but I expect you would not accept this.

But I was also referring to this as well; that is, I think it is possible that some people are capable of doing this. Such people are not ‘vampires’ (in fact, there is no supernatural influence involved at all) but can exert some sort of influence over others in a mental way.

The dictionary defines this type of vampire as ‘people’ (living people, that is) ‘who prey on others’. When I used the term ‘vampire-like characteristics’, it was in this sense. I was using the word to describe such symptoms, that’s all. That is the ability to drain others of energy.

That is all I meant when I was referring to ‘other types of vampires’.

As a matter of fact, there are actually people who dress up as vampires, so this term could equally be applied to them. But that does not mean that such people are actually ‘vampires’; merely that they are emulating something that has no real existence!

David Farrant

David, you have to rent the cult classic Life Force. Alien vampires come to earth and suck the energy out of the good citizens of London and I'll bet you will be familiar with a few of the locations the movie is shot in. I never realized that the plot was metaphorical before. Patrick Stewart who can say the silliest dialogue and make it sound like Shakespeare has a challenging part in this movie. I'll rewatch it myself (more for the beautiful French actress Mathilda May's nude scenes than the plot, but watch I will nonetheless).

[Professor Yaffle]

David, whenever I read your posts, I find myself strangely drained of mental energy for some time afterwards. I suspect you may be a vampire...

[six7s]

A brief stroll down David's memory lane lead me less to Swains, more to Hangar

[The Overseer]

Hi David,

I'm interested to know why you refused my attempts to clear up your name in association with vampires and instead, pulled out this old trick:

Quote:

The problem is, Cuddles, is that I just get tired of answering the same questions over and over again here. Take the ‘vampire’ issue, for example, I have stated time and time again here that I DO NOT accept the existence of ‘blood-sucking vampires’. Some people here are either incapable of listening (with respect to yourself) or who simply seem to WANT me to state I believe in vampires (note: with no respect to the Overseer).

I also note the present tense of that "I DO NOT accept" statement. You will note (if you actually bothered to give more than a cursory glance to my post), that I also asked if you had ever believed or even considered the possibility of the existence of vampires.

I'll quote from you (seeing as you again did not deny the accuracy of the article) again:

Quote:

Mr David Farrant, 24, who reported seeing a ghost last month, returned to the spot last weekend and discovered a dead fox. ‘Several other foxes have also been found dead in the cemetery,’ he said at his home in Priestwood Mansions, Archway Road, Highgate. ‘The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died. Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory as being the most likely answer. Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest'.

~ "Why Do the Foxes Die?", The Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970.

Indeed, you (again, you didn't deny the accuracy of the following quote) invoked the same term in 2005:

Quote:

Mr Farrant said: "The sighting of a tall, black figure in April on Swains Lane makes me think the vampire is active again.

~ Marc Mullen, "Highgate Vampire at it again!", Pentacle Magazine, Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:58 AM.

David, I don't want you to believe in vampires. I want you to admit the truth of what you've said. If you think your position will somehow be destablised because you - at some point - considered (or believed in) the existence of vampires, then as noted here, it doesn't matter a tuppence in the eyes of skeptics, if you also thump on about psychic entities.

Both are supernatural, you see?

Then, you tried this:

Quote:

The only point I am really trying to make (especially for the benefit of those with no more ‘over-sight’ into the Highgate case than the fabricated propaganda they have gleaned from the message boards of a person who is clearly ‘bonkers’), is that the entity witnessed at Highgate is not just reliant on my experience all those years ago; it has been witnessed by many other people.

If I have any "over-sight" in regards to the case...then feel free to correct me. I've invited you to do so, all along.

But, don't be surprised - or fully expect - me to not question your response.

If what I have supplied is "propaganda", then it has to be coming from yourself. Why? Look at who I'm quoting! Indeed, you could not even deny the accuracy of the quotes in question...which can only mean (get ready for this...) that you actually said them!

If this so-called "propaganda" is all from the "message boards" of someone "who is clearly 'bonkers'", then you need to check again: the information here is not from a private file. The sources are readily accessible to anyone who wants to view them. They're from public mediums (i.e., newspapers, TV, the internet). The citations are there. Check 'em out. If I'm quoting them wrong, then correct me.

However, it is interesting that you say "witnessed by many other people"...but then go on to quote one person...in the form of anecdotal evidence, no less. Does it prove your "psychic entity" theory anymore than the vampire one?

Let's move onto semantics.

Quote:

People here (including yourself Cuddles) were asking me about the Highgate entity. I made it quite clear at the onset that this reported ‘ghost’ or entity was not a vampire.

Sure, you initially thought it to be a ghost. The quote I featured here from 1970 backs that up. However, that's not all it says:

Quote:

'The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died. Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory as being the most likely answer. Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest'.

Then, there is also your collaboration with the media, in regards to Barrie Simmons article, and the 24 Hours program, among others, that further enhance your connection to a "vampire" at Highgate. Let's also not forget the Marc Mullen article (which, funnily enough, isn't linked from your site. How come?) or the full name of your Highgate Society, either.

And Cuddles...

Quote:

Actually it's a perfect example of me reading what you actually said and not what you wish you had said. Just look at the first paragraph of this post again. Really, just read it. You very clearly say, once again, that although you don't believe in the classic Hammer horror type of vampire, you do believe in other types.

...in regards to the tomato, tomatoe discussion on vampires, I'll point to something that will probably be labeled propaganda, even though it's from David's own website, but here goes (note the ironic title of the article in question):

Quote:

I have frequently said in the past that this sort of vampire is pure fiction. But this does not mean, however, there there do not exist psychic entities that take on vampire-like characteristics in that they remain 'earthbound' and posses the capability to attack unsuspecting victims, psychically leading some people to believe they have become 'possessed'. But this is an entirely different matter.

~ "Interview With the Real Vampire Hunter". Bite Me.

Vampire. Vampire-like. Vampire. Vampire-like.

Starts to look similar when repeated enough, doesn't it?

However, let's be fair and examine the gulf of differences between the two...as reproduced from the same article. I'll have to provide David's distinctive interpretation, seeing as he seems a tad reluctant to discuss it here in much detail:

Quote:

As for my concept of a vampire, it is necessary to mention the existence of the incubus and succubus, male and female demons respectively (I prefer to call them psychic entities) that visit sleeping people by night and supposedly have sex with them. Reports about the existence of these phenomena date back for centuries and the symptoms of the visitations are invariably the same. People are suddenly awakened in the night to find themselves completely paralysed, often with a tremendous pressure on their chest that 'pins' them to the bed. They are unable to move, even scream, and can only lie helpless completely subject to the entity's will. These visitations often occur with persistent frequency and victims often find themselves growing physcially weaker, becoming anaemic and developing an aversion to bright sunlight. They also become prone to bouts of sleep-walking either soon before, or not long after, the 'attacks'. I am quite convinced that stories of vampirism actually derived, or were based upon reports about the well known existence of these malevolent phenomena; in fact, it is highly likely that Stoker himself could have been aware of such accounts when he wrote his fictional novel, Dracula

Over to you, David.

[DavidFarrant]

In case you hadn't noticed 'Overseer' (although I am sure you had) I have 'retired' from here. Its still my thread, I suppose, but I'm too busy at the moment with things elsewhere. That does not mean that I would not be prepared to answer the odd genuine question; but it does mean that I am not prepared to answer the imbecilic ravings about 'vampires' from people such as yourself.

Keep you 'vampires', Overseer. You are more than welcome to them. If you are happy to live in some illusionary world you have created around yourself, then go ahead and live there. But just please leave me out of it.

David Farrant

PS If you want to 'pick a fight' with somebody, why not try Big Les. I've just noticed his new avatar and that should just do you nicely!

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

Keep you 'vampires', Overseer. You are more than welcome to them. If you are happy to live in some illusionary world you have created around yourself, then go ahead and live there. But just please leave me out of it.

The trouble here is that they are not Overseer's vampires, they are your vampires. He is merely quoting your words. Whether discussions about what you believed in the past are relevant is a different matter, but unless you deny ever having said any of this then it is rather silly to pretend it is nothing to do with you.

[Georg]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

But in a matter of seconds, this impression changed. The area around me suddenly turned icy cold (like a fridge) and the 'thing' seemed to trying to 'hypnotise' me. Put another way, I felt I was quickly being 'drained of energy' and was being forced into some 'enticed sleep'. I realised then that it ws no human being and that I was under psychic attack. I mentally recited a cabalistic incantation (which I'd previously been taught through my involvement in Wicca and spiritualism) and the entity promptly vanished and the temperature returned to normal. Thus I was convinced that the figure wasn't human but that I was only witnessing what other people had already seen. No. I can't offer you material proof.

[

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

Yes. I have come to accept that there are indeed some ‘outside presence’s’ or ‘non-worldly’ (i.e. non-physical) forces that can ‘drain people’ mentally. Such visitations usually take place at night and occur when a person is in asleep, or just falling asleep. These ‘entities’ have been reported since the dawn of history and are commonly known as the incubus and the Succubus. These are not ‘vampires’ as such, but the symptoms of their attacks could often be confused with those of alleged ‘vampires’, and vice versa. I have spoken to literally dozens of people over the years who claim to have experienced such nightly visitations. Yes. I would say that these are undoubtedly genuine. I do not claim to know the Cause, but I can certainly testify to the effects.

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

If you are happy to live in some illusionary world you have created around yourself, then go ahead and live there. But just please leave me out of it.

David Farrant

Spot the irony.

Thanks, David. Gave me a great laugh that was nearly worth the time I was wasting on this thread (when I was still naively hoping you would provide something like "evidence" for your funny stories).

[Senex]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

David, whenever I read your posts, I find myself strangely drained of mental energy for some time afterwards. I suspect you may be a vampire...

I like to think I'm bulletproof and can't be antagononized. Is Professor Yaffle funnier than Senex? Nora Jones says no way. Come away with me in the night...hehehehe