Sean Manchester - Vampire Hunter

sat556 said:
Have I missed the answer to this?
Click to expand...
I believe the Cliff Notes answer was something to the effect of, "Some things are beyond the material, but if you tell me specifically what you are looking for, I'll tell you if I have it or not."
 
DavidFarrant said:
For Skeptic Guy,

You asked me if I could produce proof that the Highgate entity..............
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)
Click to expand...
Something more than your word, and a 'it is untestable by conventional methods' claim.

If you are to stick to that line then you are in long queue behind the reiki healers who manipulate chi that can't be found by conventional means, the ley line discoverers like your friend Catherine and the fung shui crowd. Then as you say belief becomes a matter of choice, but don't confuse two choices with a 50% probability.
 
DavidFarrant said:
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!
(snip)
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’.
Click to expand...

It sounds like what you are describing is "faith", i.e. belief without proof. If you are saying the existence of paranormal/supernatural stuff (psychic energy, etc.) is a matter of faith to you, then you should probably clarify this. It would be so much less confusing.
 
Last edited:
David, I have to say that I am very pleased that you are trying to work with us here. It is appreciated.

DavidFarrant said:
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.
Click to expand...


You nailed it here. By empirical evidence, we mean evidence that is "capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment". This doesn't mean that the experiment has to be conducted in a laboratory, but it does have to happen under controlled scientific conditions. And please note that the definition includes verification by observation. If you claim someone has "psychic ability", we don't have to know how it works, only that it does work and works better than chance. There has to be evidence of the psychic ability first. We can figure out by what mechanism it works later. To date, there has been no evidence of any "psychic ability", whether by energy, thought, or messenger pigeon.

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.
Click to expand...


You are right, I don't accept the existence of "psychic energy", but that really isn't necessary. As I hope I explained above, if you or anyone else makes a claim that someone has a "psychic ability", it needs to be demonstrated, shown to be statistically significant, and accomplished without trickery.

If it is an extraordinary "energy" then it needs to be explained how it can interact with matter and yet not be able to be measured. In order to affect our brain, it needs to fall into a limited bandwidth of the electromagnetic spectrum.

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.
Click to expand...


You are trying to answer the wrong question with the wrong evidence. If by the "Catholic Host" you mean the rite of holy communion and the Catholic Church's extraordinary claim that the bread and wine actually transforms into the body and blood of Christ, then that is certainly testable, but it would neither prove or disprove the existence of God. It would only serve to prove that the bread was still bread and the wine still wine. I will not comment on any potential delusions.

Some would argue that science does not address the question of the existence of God. Personally, I think it can, especially given that there are so many claims of God affecting the world in which we live. Claims that can be tested.

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!
Click to expand...


What is "psychic energy" in your opinion? What does it do? If it does something, we can test whether we can reproduce it. If we can't I question it's existence. I would amend your last statement, "If there was such thing as psychic energy, somebody would have surely have provided evidence of it a long time ago".

So can you perhaps see the major difficulty?
Click to expand...


I don't. If you understand the scientific method.
 
Relevant Points

For Skeptic Guy,

Thank you for that. I think you make some relevant - if not essential - points. (My remarks about 'wine into blood' was probably misplaced on reflection, but I only meant to imply that maybe belief also plays some part in it).

Problem is, I've had a little difficulty getting on here today, so rather just answer you quickly just for the sake of it, I'll leave it 'till a little later, maybe even tomorrow.

One thing struck me however, it seems a little weird discussing serious points on a "Manchester - Vampire Hunter" thread! Still, I realise that they are only words so I'm quite happy with it if you are!

So, until later,

David
 
Ghosts Or 'non-appearances'?

Hi Skeptic Guy,

What you say about a ‘scientific approach’ to these things (basically investigating psychic phenomena) is very important; at least (I don’t really like the word ‘science’!); keeping an objective and open mind to these things.

Without an ‘open mind’, it is so easy to go from one extreme to the other; to the extent of simply declaring ‘such things do not exist’ (in the psychic sense) to the extreme of believing in ghosts, demons or blood-sucking werewolves or vampires that are said by some to walk the earth unfettered!

Personally, I can not share either view, especially the latter, and in the sense of ‘total dismissal of such things (the former), I cannot really share that either.

Someone said a little earlier, that in my case, I may be just be being sustained by my faith in aspects of this (I take that to mean, whilst not accepting general beliefs, pursuing my own and ‘worrying about’ any potential ‘proof’ later), but it is really not this either.

I am really not trying to offer any ‘clever explanation’ here. I just don’t know. The truth is, I don’t think anybody really ‘knows’. As I said before, it is possible to prove – or disprove – certain aspects of the material (including the claims of certain human beings who make up the material world), but maybe the point is, can we explain those things that really do not (forget ‘blood-sucking vampires’ and so-called’ evil spirits, because I don’t mean that); which apparently lie beyond the sphere of normal everyday understanding.

You know, I have said on many occasions, that reports of so-called ‘ghosts’ or unexplained phenomena, may fall into several different categories. I have empathised, for example, that many so-called ‘apparitions’ (that have been reported world-wide for centuries and by many different cultures), may be no more than ‘unintelligent pictures’ that replay themselves under certain conditions, that can be witnessed by some unsuspecting people. In much the same way (although I am not talking about any ‘electrical cause’) that we all view a television picture (or a video one) without any apparent question.

If it is possible for the world populace (nowadays) to view such images seven days a week in their own homes, then why should it seem so strange for some isolated individual (or individuals, if you count them all up world-wide!) to witness such ‘pictures’ without the help of any apparent television reception?

This is only an extremely over-simplified point, but it is one that I have elucidated upon for years in various talks and articles I have written.

I suppose I am basically asking, why we all (seemingly) accept the ‘images’ of everyday life so easily and without question, whilst ‘scoffing’ when similar ‘images’ are reported; and reported as being ‘unexplained’ or even ‘supernatural’, mark you!

So, there might just be a little more to these things, before they can be safely ‘pigeon- holed’ into falling into the realms of the ridiculous.

Maybe, just maybe, some reported incidents regarding ‘ghosts’, or ‘ghostly pictures’, are completely ‘natural’ by origin; at least, may prove to be no more ‘supernatural’ than our normal everyday television or video picture?

For the moment,

David (Farrant)
 
DavidFarrant said:
.... it is possible to prove – or disprove – certain aspects of the material (including the claims of certain human beings who make up the material world), but maybe the point is, can we explain those things that really do not (forget ‘blood-sucking vampires’ and so-called’ evil spirits, because I don’t mean that); which apparently lie beyond the sphere of normal everyday understanding.
....
Maybe, just maybe, some reported incidents regarding ‘ghosts’, or ‘ghostly pictures’, are completely ‘natural’ by origin; at least, may prove to be no more ‘supernatural’ than our normal everyday television or video picture?
....
Click to expand...

Not maybe.
Certainly these events are of completely natural origin.

One does not need to invent a supernatural explanation for some event that one cannot explain.

Even if some events 'apparently lie beyond the sphere of everyday understanding' this is no reason to resort to ghosties.

The normal course of action is to study the facts to develop a hypothesis, then test the hypothesis, consider the results and if needed loop back to the start and develop another hypothesis.
Most problems will yeild to this approach, and even for the really tough ones, you will hardly ever hear the word ghost used anywhere in the hypothesis.

btw, off topic, does blue => true?
 
David

Should I have an open mind to the possibility that you are reptilian from Mars ? There are some thing we should have open minds about and some things that we shouldn’t. What moves subject in and out of the open mind category is credible evidence and realistic explanations.

Even where there is evidence and we can have open minds on positions it does not mean that we should rate possibilities as equal. If I throw a dice and hide the result then there is a possibility it is 6 up. 6 up and 6 not up are not equal possibilities.

Ghosts being spontaneous electrostatic images appearing when witness are alone I think comes into the non open mind category, there is no reasonable explanation and there is no decent evidence. Even if you do move it into the open mind category then the odds are so remote that it is not worthy of further consideration.
 
Hi all of you fellow sceptics out there... I think I might have received a visit from the good 'ol vamp hunter himself (or atleast someone connected to him),
as a result of a post on my blog.

Here's the comment he left....
 
DavidFarrant said:
What you say about a ‘scientific approach’ to these things (basically investigating psychic phenomena) is very important; at least (I don’t really like the word ‘science’!); keeping an objective and open mind to these things.

Without an ‘open mind’, it is so easy to go from one extreme to the other; to the extent of simply declaring ‘such things do not exist’ (in the psychic sense) to the extreme of believing in ghosts, demons or blood-sucking werewolves or vampires that are said by some to walk the earth unfettered!
Click to expand...

You make exactly the same mistakes as nearly every other believer in anything. Keeping an open mind does not mean keeping it so far open that your brains dribble out, it means looking at the evidence and accepting what it tells you. The simple fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of psychic powers, psi, vampires, ghosts or blue faries living on the Moon. Any skeptic will have an open mind towards all these things, but with such a complete lack of anything to suggest they exist we have no reason to assume they do. You are free to believe whatever you like, but you should be under no illusions that it is based on anything other than blind faith. If you admit this then there seems little point in continuing this discussion since you will continue refusing to provide proof of anything, although you may find some of the discussions on the philosophy boards interesting. If, on the other hand, you continue pretending to be an "investigator" who refuses to accept the scientific method and simply accepts things as "unproveable" then you will rapidly find the forum becoming less friendly as people become frustrated with your lack of contact with reality.
 
Clu said:
Hi all of you fellow sceptics out there... I think I might have received a visit from the good 'ol vamp hunter himself (or atleast someone connected to him),
as a result of a post on my blog.

Here's the comment he left....
Click to expand...


That's him. He left his calling card - a sales pitch for that CD of his.
 
Thats what I thought.... what he fails to recognize is the fact that my critique was of both of the loons not only him... he seems to think that I defended mr Farrant...
 
Judging from today's hysterical email, Sean of the Dead is upset because we have not drawn and quartered Mr. Farrant. In all fairness, as David has not offered empirical data of his sightings, as a skeptic I can't accept anecdotes as a substitute.

However, of the two, David Farrant is much nicer than Sean Manchester and has yet tried to sell me something. And he doesn't run around in a moth eaten bishop's costume. That gets snaps from me, personality wise. :D
 
Oh he does this sort of thing all the time. Be wary of your email accounts everyone. Sean of the Dead gets hysterical everytime someone doesn't agree with him about his 'vampire' theory. Everyone who I've spoken to about him, thinks he's crazy and seriously ill and/or derranged. I wasn't going to post up anymore as I'm extremely busy at the moment but just be aware of the man and be safe and I mean that.

Catherine
 
I'm liking "Sean of the Dead", very :D

I came across this piece of shameless self-publicity on a "Woo-kipedia" site earlier today.

He just doesn't stop, does he? The reference to his having appeared on "True Horror" presented by Anthony Head from "Buffy" is interesting. I saw one or two of those but not the vamp one. Didn't MythBuster claim Manchester had shied away from the limelight since the 1990s?

My arse.
 
YES, THAT's 'HIM'!

Hi again Vampire, Where have you been? This is your thread, fter all!

Yes Clu, that is definitely him - trying to re-write history as usual. What he conveniently neglets to mention is that it was HIMSELF who took the 'vampire hunting' pic. that was published in the Evening News in 1970. I have him on tape describing how that picture was submitted (or payment requested) by a friend of his without his knowledge.

On to more serious things: I was NOT advocating 'keeping an open mind' to the point of being ridiculous! If you asked me to believe that there were 'reptilian creatures' living on the other side of the moon, for example, or that a ghost is seen carrying its head around the grounds of the Tower of London, I simply would not believe you. That's not what I would define as having an open mind - just having common sense!

I feel 'Flange Desire', Lothian' and 'Cuddles', are all overlooking one essential point; that is all knowledge (at least, as we know it or can recognise it), is confined to the use of the six senses. The point may be, that is there perhaps another kind of Knowledge that lies beyond these six senses? (And I am not talking about 'God', 'spirits' or the so-called 'devil').

I would have thought that this is a far more essential point to pursue, as opposed to being limited to 'six sense judgements' all the time.

I do not want to answer any points off topic or what could be seen to be 'off topic' in relation to 'vampires'. So maybe if you want to ask me what I mean by this, it would be better on the thread Brodski started for myself. Or ask me here if you want; but then please do not accuse me of going off the subject!

For now,

David
 
What Manchester shy away from the limelight you are joking Big Les!!!! He's been on TV about two or three times this year alone. How can that be classed as shying away from the limelight? I wouldn't take anything what Manchester says as face value.

Have you read about the famous giant spider claim which turned into a beautiful young woman? Now where is Manchester's evidence for that.
Not only that but when we tried to research the unmarked grave where this woman was buried it will come as no surprise but the Great North London Cemetery did not have any records, nor of any deaths there.

Catherine
 
David- I'll try to clarify the rationale (which I wholeheartedly agree with) behind the responses you've been getting in the thread titled for you, to try to stem the derail on this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom