Sean Manchester - Vampire Hunter

DavidFarrant said:

On to more serious things: I was NOT advocating 'keeping an open mind' to the point of being ridiculous! ...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.
Click to expand...
How does a 7th sense (by the way what is the sixth I can only think of five) fit into the non-ridiculous bracket ?
 
I can't believe I read this whole thread!

Sheesh....by the time I wished I hadn't bothered I couldn't stop. Kinda like watching the OC.

...and they say woo is harmless! Just look, LOOK at the phenomenal waste of 30 years of these peoples lives! Vampires do clearly exist, only they don't suck blood, they suck life and time.

The silliness of vampire-hunting itself is only eclipsed by the fact that they are at each others throats.

Dr. Van Hatfield -vs- Dr. Van McCoy should meet each other on the field of honour at dawn. Sharpened stakes at 50 paces???

Let's make it a caged death match and I'm there with popcorn.

-z
 
Last edited:
Sense?

Thank you for that, Lothian. May I just make a brief comment about this then I want to make a point which might be more on topic here (in fact, it might even amuse some people here)

Firstly, re. the five (accepted) five senses. There might be a sixth sense. I would say that this is the sense of ‘thought’ (or the mental one) which obviously, encompasses all the others. To be aware of the other senses is a mental process, or obviously it would not be possible to be normally aware of them. If this is acceptable, then why should it not be conceivable that there is even a state (sense) that is beyond this? I did an hour long radio interview only a few years back the title of which was “Beyond the Mental Realm”. I will leave that here – just wanted to make the point of why I mentioned it.

It would seem to be a common topic or request here that I produce evidence for ‘my claims’. This would be rather difficult as I have not really made any. Speaking about things which I have discovered to be a common part of Life, is not really making claims, is it?

I have not claimed to have staked a ‘King Vampire’, for example, and then to have incinerated it using a can of petrol! I have not claimed to have taken photographs of this (just prior to its finally ‘disintegration’) then claimed that this was ‘evidence’ that vampires existed! And neither have I claimed to have ‘staked’ a beautiful young disciple of this ‘King vampire’ after it had changed into a ‘giant spider’!

I would have said that THAT is making ‘concrete claims.



So to get back on topic . . .

How right you were Catherine about Manchester changing his story about the Highgate ‘
Vampire’ and myself just when it suits him.

Lets look at what he said about myself in the first edition of his self-published book “The Highgate Vampire” . . .

. . .. “In all the years I have known David Farrant, I have found not a single shred of evidence to suggest that the least of these things are true. I do not believe that he has ever partaken in a real black magic ceremony, nor do I believe that he is capable of harming an animal, not even for publicity. Of the charges relating to graveyard damage I believe him to be innocent also. Apart from being something of a nuisance to people, the only damage that Farrant has been responsible for is that which was self-inflicted”.

The Highgate Vampire, 1985, Pgs. 80-81
Well, Well. How he has changed his story since all because I stated publicly that I did not believe all his fiction about the Highgate phenomenon or spectre being a blood-sucking vampire.

Lets remember also that these are his original words. So, regarding myself, he was either lying then or he is lying now.

I think we can leave it to readers to make up their own minds.

David Farrant.

NB And before Mr. Manchester or ‘Myth Buster’ starts moaning about ‘copyright theft’ here from his self-published book, let me assure him, it is not. As a professional author, I happen to be basically aware of the laws relating to copyright. It is legally allowable for a critic to quote up to 350 words (per given passage) from another author’s work providing the quote is referenced (which it is), it is for review purposes only and that any passage is quoted accurately (in the case of the latter is has been quoted correctly to each comma and full-stop).
 
Ha... he's at it again... is there a standard min/max of post that I can expect from this 'mr' M.
 
David Farrant wrote:
Speaking about things which I have discovered to be a common part of Life, is not really making claims, is it?
Click to expand...

I missed that part. What particular "things" have you discovered to be "a common part of Life"?
 
Surely, Life Just Is?

For CLD,

Take the whole question of life in general, CLD. Whether it involves religious beliefs, scientific beliefs, political beliefs, beliefs in materialism or the non-material, beliefs in God, Gods, or spirits or demons, beliefs in or about the paranormal, beliefs about death or life after death; all these things have been around since we have recorded history, and certainly before that (and these are just the tip of the iceberg).

Take the paranormal (as you will probably say this is relevant to myself); surely this is not dependent upon myself. As a matter of fact, it has nothing to do with myself personally, it is just 'there' - at least the beliefs or conceptions about it are. It is commonplace within every Culture and country in the world; but it not my personal creation, nor have I made specific claims about it.

But that does not mean that I have not looked into some of these claims, and asked questions about them. And in a few areas, it does not mean that I have not reached my own comclusions based upon empirical research, shall we say.

But the subject is immense in this field alone, so can you understand why I find such claims as 'show us your evidence' to be so non-specific and vague.

I have never claimed to have 'proof' of anything. You should really look to the likes of people like Mr. Manchester, if you want to question absurd claims. I don't think I really have any to question. (If I did, I certainly wouldn't have stayed here this long, of all places! No offence intended to sceptics as they too are part of a belief system; albeit one saying 'I don't believe' which is still a belief and part of the same thing!).

Hope this makes some sense.

David (Farrant).
 
DavidFarrant said:

I have never claimed to have 'proof' of anything. You should really look to the likes of people like Mr. Manchester, if you want to question absurd claims. I don't think I really have any to question. (If I did, I certainly wouldn't have stayed here this long, of all places! No offence intended to sceptics as they too are part of a belief system; albeit one saying 'I don't believe' which is still a belief and part of the same thing!).
Click to expand...

That's all fair enough IMO, until the bit about scepticism being a belief system. It's not. It's not even a philosophy as such, it's more a set of intellectual tools, as in the "baloney detection kit" set out by scientist Carl Sagan. He, by the way, didn't outright discount any of this stuff as many of us (for pragmatic and frustration reasons I think) tend to do.

Like scientists modifying their theories, or even throwing them out and starting again, sceptics simply have a default position for claims that go beyond the mundane. If any evidence is presented, they assess it and modify that position accordingly. You can say that paranormal things, by definition, can't be detected by empirical means if you like, but then, how are we to know that they aren't the result of things explanable by mundane means? If we can't, and they show no detectable effects, then even if they do on some level "exist", as far as our experience of the world goes, they might as well not. But even if it's strictly "internal", "psychic attacks" that you believe in, that phenomenon must exhibit some real-world effects that can be measured. If it doesn't, isn't it more likely to be down to one of the real-world possibilities already suggested?
 
Lothian said:
How does a 7th sense (by the way what is the sixth I can only think of five) fit into the non-ridiculous bracket ?
Click to expand...

Technically balance is a sense, and temperature perception is usually considered seperate from touch since it involves entirely seperate nerves. Pain is also sometimes considered seperate, although since it is mainly due to overstimulation or damage to nerves this is less common. So we actually have at least 7, maybe 8, normal senses. In fact, we are often considered to have millions since every nerve can be considered a seperate sense. Clearly, anyone claiming to have discovered a 6th or 7th sense has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
 
DavidFarrant said:
But that does not mean that I have not looked into some of these claims, and asked questions about them. And in a few areas, it does not mean that I have not reached my own comclusions based upon empirical research, shall we say.
Click to expand...

If you have done empirical research you must have results from it that led to your conclusion. This is what empirical research means. Why will you not share these results with us?
 
Cuddles said:
If you have done empirical research you must have results from it that led to your conclusion. This is what empirical research means. Why will you not share these results with us?
Click to expand...

I read that sentence as meaning that he hadn't done any empirical research. Or am I missing something?
 
DavidFarrant said:

Firstly, re. the five (accepted) five senses. There might be a sixth sense. I would say that this is the sense of ‘thought’ (or the mental one) which obviously, encompasses all the others. To be aware of the other senses is a mental process, or obviously it would not be possible to be normally aware of them. If this is acceptable, then why should it not be conceivable that there is even a state (sense) that is beyond this? I did an hour long radio interview only a few years back the title of which was “Beyond the Mental Realm”. I
Click to expand...
David,

I wouldn’t want all the detail you went into in your hour long interview on the sense beyond our metal awareness but…

Have you any evidence that such a sense exists ?
Does such ‘evidence’ include friends phoning just after you have thought about them ?

You imply that because all the other senses are processed by the brain, it is conceivable that there is a sense that isn’t. I don’t follow your logic. If anything it would suggest that the brain is a vital component in sense recognition. Can you give some more details about this extra sense.

Where is it processed ?
What does it detect ?

I then may be better placed to decide whether it is conceivable.
 
Big Les said:
I read that sentence as meaning that he hadn't done any empirical research. Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Well, "does not mean that I have not" would normally mean more or less the same as "I have", although I suppose it could be used as a way out to since he doesn't actually say he has, just that he has not said that he has not. It is a bit mealy-mouthed and less affirmative, but I'm fairly sure he means that he has done research. Since he is supposed to be a paranormal investigator I would hope that he at least thinks he has done some research, even if others might dispute it's validity.
 
He emailed me the same thing he posted on your site this morning. He reminds me of a yappy little dog stuck to my leg.

I'm reading "The Highgate Vampire" now. I must say it's amusing. I break out in hysterical laughter every 3rd page.

After hearing from one more author, I should be ready to start writing my article. I wonder if Sean will be nice and send me a more flattering picture to use than the frazzled National Geographic shot.

Sean? Sean!? Are you there Sean? Send me a picture to use on my blog.
 
:wackylaugh:

I wonder if I'll make one of his books? Or maybe a future sermon, like he did about that family in Virginia.

Sean, remember to refer to me as that "vicious tongued harpy, The Vampire." You must say "vicious tongued harpy" when referring to me or you will offend the dignity of my robes.

Sean?

Sean!?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom