Sean Manchester - Vampire Hunter

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Dear Fowlsound,
Thank you for your information. I'm not too sure about copyright regarding photographs either here in the UK. It is something that I'll have to look into over the weekend. I know about text and everything but as you say photographs are something else. I'll link up if I find anything of note.

Best wishes

Catherine

What relevance does this tangent have in regard to the claims surrounding the Highgate Cemetery?

 

[DavidFarrant]

Do You Mean, 'what Relevance' Or 'your Relevance'?

FOR ARCHAN WOLFESHADE,

Has it not occurred to you, that some of us - unlike yourself it seems - are really not all that interested in events relating solely to Highgate Cemetery?
Indeed, it would appear that your comments are coming 'straight from the Arc'; in biblical terms, meaning a load of 'historical nonsense'!

You seem to give Highgate Cemetery so much importance, whilst we have not 'singularised this out', ourselves.

Maybe you could explain why this trivial event in history should be deemed so worthy of so much importance to yourself?

For now,

David (Farrant)

 

[Foolmewunz]

FOR ARCHAN WOLFESHADE,

Has it not occurred to you, that some of us - unlike yourself it seems - are really not all that interested in events relating solely to Highgate Cemetery?
Indeed, it would appear that your comments are coming 'straight from the Arc'; in biblical terms, meaning a load of 'historical nonsense'!

You seem to give Highgate Cemetery so much importance, whilst we have not 'singularised this out', ourselves.

Maybe you could explain why this trivial event in history should be deemed so worthy of so much importance to yourself?

For now,

David (Farrant)

David,
Maybe he should have rephrased his point, which is still valid even applying the Wolf's brevity....
What relevance do Highgate or the false Bishopric or any of the other claims and counter-claims made here have to whether or not Manchester owns the rights to a photo of himself in a puffy shirt (that, btw, is an allusion to a famous Seinfed episode)?
Arkan's point is correct. We often post here comments like "back on topic, please" for that reason. Derails and digressions are anathema to skeptical discussion. Arkan's been making the same request in both threads(I've been lurking and reading both).

You have an obvious mindset on all of this, and thus far, while rather civil, you've brought no evidence to the table, frankly. Links to interviews are, well... interviews. In none of the interviews does anyone link to actual documentation. Your anecdotes are interesting, but they're, well... anecdotes. Manchester dressed in a nazi uniform or puffy shirt? Less than interesting, actually.

I think you can gather that we're not joining sides in the TYOF (thirty year old feud). We're just curious. Right now you seem less of a loon than Manchester, but methinks a loon nevertheless.

If you have firm evidence, either from Manchester's own words or the words or documents of others, you can link them. We don't need to see the images or documents here if they are copyrighted.

What we have thus far is a guy who claims to have staked vampires and a guy who claims that vampire belief is silly when it's so obviously an evil spirit of another sort that was the culprit. Neither side has presented any evidence in the JREF tradition (documents, credible outside/academic sources, scientific tests, etc....)

You've also never rationalized why you call yourself a vampire hunter in your own tract. Is this tongue-in-cheek? Or are you playing a bully theatre game?

 

[DavidFarrant]

Sorry, Not A 'vampire Hunter'

For Foolmewunz,

Thank you for your observations. Firstly, let me say that I don’t mind if you consider me to be a ‘loon’!, you are entitled to your opinion. But more importantly, perhaps, I have not given links to my articles here neither have I seen any. All I saw a while back was a link to my main website but this was posted by one of your own members - not myself.
.
But to deal with your last point first, I am NOT a ‘vampire hunter’ neither have I ever described myself as one. I do not even accept the existence of ‘blood-sucking vampires’. Quite apart from this, how can you possibly ‘hunt’ something that you don’t even believe exists in the first place?!

I have already explained how this might have come about, when I appeared on Television in 1970 with a cross and a stake for the purposes of a film. I really don’t want to go through all this again so as you apparently missed this, could I suggest that you first read back?

If I have not answered Ark’s ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions, it is simply because I am not sure what he is asking me to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to.

It seems to be ‘do you (myself) have evidence?’. But evidence to which specific point or issue? He does not say.

In ant event, there are just some questions that cannot be answered by a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

You know, this reminds me of that famous story of a Trial in the UK. (I really don’t know whether its true or not, but it serves the point).

An accused was told by a judge that he must just answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a Council’s question with further unnecessary explanation.

The man said he couldn’t – the Judge said he must.

The man then said he would if the judge could just answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to one of his own questions.

The Judge agreed.

The man asked . . . “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”.

Do you see the point?

For the moment,

David (Farrant)

 

[CatherineFearnley]

What relevance does this tangent have in regard to the claims surrounding the Highgate Cemetery?

It doesn't but then again neither does the Sunday People article and yet again we are all quite happily discussing that. What claims does the article have surrounding the Highgate Cemetery? Please answer.

Catherine Fearnley

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

For Foolmewunz,

Thank you for your observations. Firstly, let me say that I don’t mind if you consider me to be a ‘loon’!, you are entitled to your opinion. But more importantly, perhaps, I have not given links to my articles here neither have I seen any. All I saw a while back was a link to my main website but this was posted by one of your own members - not myself.
.
But to deal with your last point first, I am NOT a ‘vampire hunter’ neither have I ever described myself as one. I do not even accept the existence of ‘blood-sucking vampires’. Quite apart from this, how can you possibly ‘hunt’ something that you don’t even believe exists in the first place?!

I have already explained how this might have come about, when I appeared on Television in 1970 with a cross and a stake for the purposes of a film. I really don’t want to go through all this again so as you apparently missed this, could I suggest that you first read back?

If I have not answered Ark’s ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions, it is simply because I am not sure what he is asking me to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to.

It seems to be ‘do you (myself) have evidence?’. But evidence to which specific point or issue? He does not say.

In ant event, there are just some questions that cannot be answered by a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

You know, this reminds me of that famous story of a Trial in the UK. (I really don’t know whether its true or not, but it serves the point).

An accused was told by a judge that he must just answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a Council’s question with further unnecessary explanation.

The man said he couldn’t – the Judge said he must.

The man then said he would if the judge could just answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to one of his own questions.

The Judge agreed.

The man asked . . . “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”.

Do you see the point?

For the moment,

David (Farrant)

Foolmewunz hit the nail on the head. To your alluding to the idea that my question was a false choice fallacy, I saw bollocks. It was a very simple yes/no question. Do you, or do you not, have empirical, objective evidence you can bring to the table for discussion of your investigations. If you have empirical, objective evidence, please present it. If you have nothing but subjective evidence then there is nothing to discuss.

Whether or not Manchester was ever:
a) in a Nazi group
b) in a Nazi uniform
c) photographed in a Nazi uniform
etc
is moot to any of these discussions. At best they are useless tangents, and at worst, ad hom attacks against Manchester.

Frankly, it appears to me you are being intentionally obtuse and evasion with regards to your own works, and your vendetta against Manchester seems to continually cloud the discussion with which you take part.

 

[DavidFarrant]

Paranormal Misunderstanding

For Archan Wolfshade,

I think what you seem to be overlooking, is that we are talking about the paranormal here, or things that are ‘beyond natural’ or physical (as most people understand these) preternatural, or ‘supernatural’ (although I really do hate that latter word).

In other words, we are not potentially discussing a ‘material subject’ or subjects here (at least, I am not).

If we were, fine. Whether such a subject was mathematical, scientific, medical, geographical, astronomical, or any form of material subject, and so on; you would be absolutely correct in saying – or asking – ‘produce proof to prove your point’.

That is fine in so far as it goes. But you have not even qualified a point that you want ‘material proof’ about. I am not saying that I have it. But unless you give me some subject to a question, I would obviously be unable to answer it. Nobody would be able to do so. So, please qualify a specific question (not a general one) that relates to a specific point, and I will at least know what it is that you want me to answer.

This is NOT being evasive. I am merely asking you to .qualify what it is exactly that you are trying to ask.

Regarding Mr. Manchester, I am really not that interested in him or why he dressed up in Nazi uniform.

It is not really relevant, and, if you check back, you will see that it was not myself who even pursued this matter (as a matter of fact, one person pursuing this was one of your own members). Please understand that I am really not concerned about Mr. Manchester. Any obsession is really the other way around as you can see if you take the trouble to look back on here.

For the moment,

David (Farrant)

 

[Rrose Selavy]

David , not for the first time you are missing the point. The point is we can all say all sorts of things appeared to happen to us or other people. I can say I encountered fairies at the bottom of the garden and describe it in great detail but anecdotes ( ie stories) are not enough.

Most of us here are unlikely to want to partipate in a rather patronising debate about how discussion of the so called "supernatural" or "paranormal" cannot be subject to the normal discourse and standards also applied to any other studied subject.

If so then it's unlikely to be worth questioning you further.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The Dragon In My Garage
by
Carl Sagan


"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.
Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all. Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html

 

[DavidFarrant]

Delusions?

For Rose Selavy and Archan Wolf.

Please forgive a fairly quick reply. Although its Sunday, I have had a fairly demanding day, believe it or not.

Rose, to come back quickly to your reply: I do understand what you say. But I was NOT being ‘patronising’; I was just at a loss to understand the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions being put to me (not by yourself I should add).

If I could have understood the original question, I could have maybe replied; but I just could not. As I said (much as I might have wanted to) I could not answer a question unless this was specific. In other words, specifying the question an answer was required to.

For Archan Wolfshade:

You still have not asked any specific question; you have just given a link to something which seems to be as equally nebulous as your original question!

I am sorry, but your ‘questions and answer session’ doesn’t seem to be going very further than your own somewhat nebulous question!

For now,

David (Farrant)

 

[Foolmewunz]

David,
First, you might do a little digging on this forum. You can click any member name (at the left of the message) and see a profile or see all posts.
I'm 57, for instance, and the thought that I hadn't heard the "When did you stop beating your wife?" tired old saw would be rather remote. Heck, we use that in arguments here all the time.(And it's funnier in the American version, using "when" i/o "have you stopped", btw.) Thus, Rrose's comment on being patronizing. I think you're accustomed to a much denser audience.

Second, you might also look into the other subjects on the board on which these two threads are running to get a fix on the standards of evidence we look for. This is not a comfortable home for borderline woo woo's looking for something to believe in, and anecdotal evidence is going to be dismissed. After 40 years of doing what you do, the best you have is numerous interviews?

I accept at face value that you've said you can't offer empirical evidence. I was merely explaining that that statement from you is going to gain you no credibility at all. We can go to Stephen King or H.P. Lovecraft for eerie stories.

Finally, if you say you've never referred to yourself as a Vampire Hunter, then perhaps I misunderstood the title or authenticity of the posting by Friends of David Farrant/Davidfarrant06. Either that was not you posting, or the "Friends" were some of Manchester's disinfo yet again (if so a feeble attempt), or your title was tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

The man asked . . . “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”.

Do you see the point?


...snip...[/COLOR][/B]

Not at all, and that is just known as a complex question something most people on this Forum are more then used to dealing with.

The simple point that has been made to you is that you claim that there is something that does have a physical effect, therefore evidence of a "material" (i.e. physical) nature for that effect is possible. It matters not at all if what causes that physical effect is immaterial and a discussion of causes can follow once we have the evidence.

 

[DavidFarrant]

Questions - Or Ultimatiums!??

For Darat,

I am not trying to avoid any questions put to me. I guess, I am really only trying to point out that some questions have not been clarified properly, but rather, only represent the conceptions of the people putting them. While I can try to answer clear questions; I cannot answer conceptions that I simply cannot understand. If people ask me simple and direct questions - however seemingly 'difficult' from their point of view - I can attempt to answer them.

But can we forget any 'different points of view'. I am only asking that any questions are clear and direct and not clouded by [psychic] generalities that are impossible to answer 'yes' or 'no' to.

If someone wants to ask a direct and unambiguous question, I will certainly try and answer it.

But I cannot answer points unless these are first made clear in a given question!

To be honest, so far, this has just not happened. Most questions here have not been objective but geared to hearing 'answers' only from the point of view of the particular person asking the question!

Well, I am still prepared to answer anything I can. That is, once I am aware of an objective query or question!

David (Farrant)

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Okay, here are some very clear, and direct questions.

Do you understand and agree with the following definition of empirical

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/empirical

Do you understand and agree with the following definition of objective

3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/objective

Please state the case you have investigated that your feel has the most empirical, objective evidence contained therein. Please present the empirical and objective evidence related to that case and the conclusions you have drawn from that data.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

For Archan Wolfshade,

I think what you seem to be overlooking, is that we are talking about the paranormal here, or things that are ‘beyond natural’ or physical (as most people understand these) preternatural, or ‘supernatural’ (although I really do hate that latter word).

In other words, we are not potentially discussing a ‘material subject’ or subjects here (at least, I am not).

If we were, fine. Whether such a subject was mathematical, scientific, medical, geographical, astronomical, or any form of material subject, and so on; you would be absolutely correct in saying – or asking – ‘produce proof to prove your point’.

That is fine in so far as it goes. But you have not even qualified a point that you want ‘material proof’ about. I am not saying that I have it. But unless you give me some subject to a question, I would obviously be unable to answer it. Nobody would be able to do so. So, please qualify a specific question (not a general one) that relates to a specific point, and I will at least know what it is that you want me to answer.

This is NOT being evasive. I am merely asking you to .qualify what it is exactly that you are trying to ask.

Regarding Mr. Manchester, I am really not that interested in him or why he dressed up in Nazi uniform.

It is not really relevant, and, if you check back, you will see that it was not myself who even pursued this matter (as a matter of fact, one person pursuing this was one of your own members). Please understand that I am really not concerned about Mr. Manchester. Any obsession is really the other way around as you can see if you take the trouble to look back on here.

For the moment,

David (Farrant)

That member would be me.

But this thread was started by Vampire as a discussion of Mr. Manchester in general and not specifically about the Highgate matter. Given Manchester's extraordinary claims, I thought it important to point out that his credibility might be in question. Not only might he have dressed as a Nazi, he has been accussed of making up stories about Nazis in the past. If true, then it might be suspected that there are other "stories" out there.

But since MythBuster (whether or not he is/was Manchester) is gone, the thread has moved to David and his claims regarding the incident. I think we can put the Nazi thing to rest.

David, as Arkan_Wolfshade asked, what physical evidence do you have of of the Highgate incident? What I have seen to date could be anything other than a vampire, ghost, or other entity.

 

[DavidFarrant]

Newspaper 'nazi Photograph'

FOR SKEPTIC GUY

Thank you, at least I can understand this question as it has a subject matter (albeit a fairly complex one) and I am not being asked to ‘produce for something’ without even being told precisely what proof is required of.

Let me come back to this a little later today. (Yes, I will. I am not avoiding it!)

Can I first clarify the issue about Mr. Manchester (his dressing up in Nazi uniform included).

This all really began a couple of weeks ago when a person calling themselves “Myth Buster” invaded this thread ‘in pursuit’ of a lady called “The Vampire”.
She had apparently had her own Blog prior to this which this person had also ‘invaded’ – mostly with the same ‘cut and pasted’ nonsense about myself.

“The Vampire” then joined my own Board. I welcomed her as I do everybody and invited her to post. She just said thank you for the invitation, but so far, she has not posted anything (on my own Board).

In the meantime, I was told that the ‘individual’ calling himself ‘Myth Buster’ was ‘attacking’ The Vampire and myself here on a thread about Mr. Sean Manchester.

Catherine (and Barbara Green) joined this and she (Catherine) suggested that I join as masses of allegations were being made (by ‘Myth Buster’) about myself.

This proved to be the case, but I nevertheless requested people to answer only the ‘vampire claims’ being put forward and not to revert to personal accusations as ‘Myth Buster’ was doing.

This is really when things started to ‘get out of hand’. “Myth Buster” increased his ‘attacks’ but when we retracted the allegations warnings were given about using your Board to continue a feud which ‘Myth Buster’ had instigated himself in the first place!

Anyway, this is all ‘water under the bridge’, so to speak. I mention it only to make clear my own position, to continue it.

But you are right. Whilst not being directly linked to Highgate Cemetery, the ‘Nazi photograph’ IS relevant in that is serves to completely contradict a very large part of what ‘Myth Buster’ was attempting to claim.

For the record, the person shown dressed up in the Nazi uniform, as as portrayed in the newspaper, is definitely Mr. Manchester

Also for the record – although please don’t ask me further about it here – I have over 56 secret tape recordings of Mr. Manchester in conversations with myself (I secretly recorded him when he visited my flat between 1978 and 1984 although he obviously didn’t know he was being thus recorded) and on one of these tapes, the Nazi newspaper photograph was discussed. This was just after I had won a libel action that I had taken against the News of the World in 1981. I asked him why he didn’t take similar action against the newspaper who had published his photograph i.e. The Sunday People.

Mr. Manchester went into the dangers of costly libel actions saying that although he had a good case, things didn’t always work like that with ‘clever lawyers’ at work

He went on to reiterate that he nevertheless had a good case because . . . “Looking at that picture” [the one of him dressed as the Nazi Commander} “nobody could tell that its me”.

I do not really wish to prolong this conversation about Mr. Manchester’s various antics (although I will still deal with his ‘vampire’ claims if asked); I just thought I should set the record here as there has been so much unsubstantiated speculation about this matter.

Thanks again Skeptic Guy. I’ll get back to ‘what was the Highgate thing’ a little later.

For now,

David (Farrant).

 

[AngrySteve]

Sorry, i haven't had time to browse through this entire large thread.

A few years back, a Uk radio station called Talksport interviewed Bishop Manchester, the radio host was James Whale (well known for being bullish and outspoken)

James introduced him as Sean Manchester, and the Bishop wasn't happy about not being fully addressed.
He did complain, and Ofcom upheld the complaint, James Whale had to apologise.

I heard this interview live at the time, i have to say James Whale was fairly rude to the Bishop on that occasion

I have in my possession the book written by the Bishop, "The Highgate Vampire" - i did find it an interesting read

I heard the Bishop on Coast to Coast with George Noory some years ago. Bishop Manchester made some comments regarding retirement from public life at the time

 

[DavidFarrant]

Highgate Ghost - Does It Exist?

For Skeptic Guy,

You asked me if I could produce proof that the Highgate entity – or whatever it was or -still is – existed. When you say ‘proof’ I take that to mean (especially on here!) material or factual evidence, that can be ‘touched’, tried and tested as such can be in a laboratory. There is obviously nothing wrong with this approach when trying to determine the validity or constitution of some physical or material entity or object.


Of course, you may not accept that this (psychic energy) exists in the first place. That is peoples’ right and privilege and it would certainly not be my place to convince anyone otherwise. I am sure you would agree, however, that in trying to find out – and subsequently ‘prove’ - the possible existence of an unknown energy source, you can not really go about this by applying material methods to ‘establish the existence’ of something that may be ‘non-material’. in its own right.

I do not know if you would agree, but surely employing this approach to try and establish the validity of something that might itself not be physical or material in the first instance, would be rather like putting the Catholic Host inside a test tube and trying to produce ‘evidence’ that God exists. Or similarly, taking the Communal wine and analysing it to see if it had changed into blood. Of course, it would not have done, and the Host would almost certainly not have changed its material properties. I am certainly not trying to be disrespectful of anybody’s’ religion here, but I really cannot see that this is any less ludicrous that expecting psychic energy to conform to material patterns or beliefs.


No. I am not ‘trying to be clever. I really mean this.

Material methods have their uses (indeed, we employ these by measuring temperature, air pressure or using night-vision cameras, for example) but you can only go so far with them.

So it really comes back to the point, how do expect myself (or anyone else for that matter) to supply you with material proof? I can supply you with material findings in various areas and reputedly ‘haunted places’; but then you would only argue that such ‘material readings’ or findings do not necessarily prove the existence of psychic energy. So we are back to square one. Believe me, if it was possible to lure or entrap psychic energy in a test tube, somebody would have surely done this a long time ago!

So can you perhaps see the major difficulty?

Material methods are fine; in fact, they are invaluable when exposing hoaxing (which is a very human mentality). But I gather that is not what you are asking me to do here.

So, perhaps you could help me a little here by giving some indication of the sort of proof that you are asking for? At least then I could have some idea how far your acceptance goes on what I conveniently term psychic or ‘supernatural’.

For the moment,

David (Farrant)

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Angry Steve has mentioned Mr. Manchester on the James Whale show and said he (James Whale) was forced to appologise for not calling him (Mr. Manchester) a 'bishop'.
This in fact, this is not my understanding of the matter at all. I seem to recall that James Whale would only refer to him as 'bish', and he refused to appologise for doing so.
As a matter of interest Davd gave a 2hr interview on the Highgate Vampire and (Mr. Manchester) on World Of The Unexplained, this link is widely available on Google but convenience is:

http://wotu.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=136788

I shall try and find further information on the James Whale shennigans.

Catherine

 

[sat556]

O
Please state the case you have investigated that your feel has the most empirical, objective evidence contained therein. Please present the empirical and objective evidence related to that case and the conclusions you have drawn from that data.

Have I missed the answer to this?