Arcadia Discussion Zone

"Demonic entities, vampiric or otherwise, cannot be photographed."

Said Mr. Sean Manchester.
Not to sure I get this actually! Mr. Manchester claimed to have photographed the "Highgate Vampire" after he had allegedly 'staked it' in a disused neo-Gothic manor house in Crouch End, North London, in 1973. And he even put these pictures up on the Internet in an attempt to 'prove' it.

Please explain,

David Farrant

Well Alcyone is mentioned by both Ovid and Virgil In Greek mythology she was the daughter of Aeolus, either by Enarete or Aegiale. She married Ceyx, son of Eosphorus, the Morning Star. They were very happy together in Trachis, and according to Pseudo-Apollodorus's account, often sacrilegiously called each other "Zeus" and "Hera". This angered Zeus, so while Ceyx was at sea (going to consult an oracle according to Ovid's account), the god threw a thunderbolt at his ship. Ceyx appeared to Alcyone as an apparition to tell her of his fate, and she threw herself into the sea in her grief. Out of compassion, the gods changed them both into halcyon birds, named after her.

Ovid and Hyginus both also recount the metamorphosis of the pair in and after Ceyx's loss in a terrible storm, though they both omit Ceyx and Alcyone calling each other Zeus and Hera (and Zeus's resulting anger) as a reason for it. Ovid also adds the detail of her seeing his body washed up onshore before her attempted suicide.

Ovid and Hyginus both also make the metamorphosis the origin of the etymology for "halcyon days", the seven days in winter when storms never occur. They state that these were originally the seven days each year (either side of the shortest day of the year) during which Alcyone (as a kingfisher) laid her eggs and made her nest on the beach and during which her father Aeolus, god of the winds, restrained the winds and calmed the waves so she could do so in safety. The phrase has since become a term used to describe a peaceful time generally.

The myth is also briefly referred to by Virgil, again without reference to Zeus's anger.

You will remember that Alcyone is the central star of the Pleiades and is the place where Mr Rutherford of the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) in 1922 said that God lives.



Saint Michael is the follower who throws down Satan and his followers around Halloween.

The Pleiades appearence for 40 days were seen an early indication to sailors in the Mediterranean as a bringer of good weather, hence calm days or Halcyon days.

The astrological circle equals 360 degrees, that is 12 zodiacal houses of 30 degrees each. In a Vedic (Hindu) astrology book the Moon was exalted at 3 degrees of Taurus and debilitated in 3 degrees Scorpio. Exaltation was considered to be the optimum position, where the planet is strong and potent and debilitation was the opposite.

Why 3 degrees of Taurus?

In Vedic astrology, the Lunar Zodiac is based on the Moon's movement against the brightest stars divided into 27 Nakshatras of 13 degrees and 20 minutes each. 3 degrees of Taurus corresponds with the Nakshatra called Krittika - which we now know as The Pleiades. If you plot 3 degrees of Taurus on the great wheel of 360 degrees starting with zero degrees Aries, 3 Taurus equals 33 degrees. Alcyone is the brightest star in the Pleiadian cluster and thus Alcyone is 33 degrees - the number of Mastery.


The star Alcyone was EXACTLY due west from Washington DC at the precise moment the transponder of American airlines Flight 11 was turned off (ie the instance the hijackings commenced). The star Sirius was EXACTLY due south of New York City at an angle of 33° at this precise moment. This mutual event was repeated at the commencement of the Light Ceremony at ground zero of 11th March 2002.

I agree with what you say about Peck, though I am rather more familiar with the work of the Roman Catholic Church's official exorcist from June 1986, Fr Gabriele Amorth, and, of course, the late Fr Malachi Brendan Martin after whose death Art Bell saw me as some sort of replacement on America's Coast to Coast. Bell's illness soon afterwards led to his retirement and replacement by George Noory with whom I worked amicably. I did not, however, seek to take the place of Fr Martin who silently passed away in Manhattan only a few days after reaching his seventy-eighth birthday. This Irish American priest was a controversial author, not unlike myself, and a modern day Apostle of the Tridentine Mass. We had much in common. I should point out that Fr Amorth's two books on exorcism, An Exorcist Tells His Story and An Exorcist: More Stories, are not official Roman Catholic documents, rather personal accounts of his office as exorcist. The books use witness accounts and personal experience as evidence; again, not unlike my own works that deal with demonolatry and exorcism.

I've read about psychic vampires
which absorb the power of a victim's aura

I've seen some handy techniques on how to diminish their power and weaken them



Important information

We are not talking about "a corpse walking around," are we? We are discussing a shell invested with supernatural qualities which include materialisation and dematerialisation. Vampires do not exist in time; they dwell in what I describe as "anti-time" (see The Vampire Hunter's Handbook, page 28; and The Highgate Vampire, page 101). They will cast no shadow, nor will their reflection be seen in a mirror or water’s surface. Ghosts, on the other hand, may be any number of phenomena. At the undead level the spectre is incarnate. It can sometimes be felt and touched. Apparitions are usually regarded as being discarnate where physical contact is not possible. I am disinclined to accept they are deceased persons' spirits hovering in our dimension. I do, however, subscribe to the notion that some of the phenomena attributed to apparitions, particularly where the ghost seems to re-enact a scene over and over again, is a hologram from the past, or even from the future by virtue of a time warp allowing the original scene to be glimpsed, albeit imperfectly, at the requisite moment in our time and subject to certain prevailing conditions. The exorcism of a vampire returns the corporeal shell to earthly time as the demonic presence is expelled. Only then will the earthly remains or shell be able to be seen in a mirrror, cast a reflection or be caught on film.

I am in the business of researching, investigating and exorcising - not proving and convincing. Two thousand years after Jesus Christ most folk remain unconvinced of His bodily resurrection. Even some clergy are not convinced. How, then, will I be able to convince anyone of an unholy parody of that resurrection, ie the vampire? Those who have encountered this phenomenon require no convincing. Be thankful if you have avoided such an experience.

Seems like an attempt to take a lot of legendary notions about these beings and attempt to justify them.

It also seems that the photos you produced for the HV case (to which your unspoken-of-presence just referred) were of the corpse after you "staked" and exorcised it. I guess once you nail these things down, so to speak, then they become photographable. Too much "dematerialization" otherwise.

Another question, Bishop: is the crucifix the only religious symbol that will hold them at bay? What about the religious symbols of other faiths? Very curious about your answer to this one.



Fair enough - just don't expect everyone to believe you if you feel that's somehow unnecessary.

I've some familiarity with the complexities of the requirements for selecting an exorcist, and the little I've read about your background doesn't seem to "fit the bill", as it were. Any additional information would be welcome.

I knew it! The superheroes from The Rise are after you for "messing with the dead" - The Crista vs the biretta - this should be a great show.

I think One would have to be brave to do it
and it would be a calling

the danger to the exorcist
is that they maybe attacked
I give the Bishop a pat on the back

But Bishop on your idea of "anti-time"
I find that fascinating
is that what some people call aether



I know in Kabbalah there is the warning that one does not travel there for too long or get lost

Hi everyone.

I just wanted to let you know that this thread, from now on, is reserved for Sean Manchester and yourselves. That is, David Farrant has kindly agreed to let Sean own this thread, as it is in fact his interview. David would be delighted to respond to any questions you have on the other threads.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank both Sean and David for being so diplomatic in their approach to conversing on their experiences, here on the Arcadia Forum. Thanks guys.

Best,

Andrew

Ah...you got a politely worded PM as well.....fair enough.

i agree.
thank you both

In the Catholic Church a priest would be addressed formally as "Father Smith" and informally as "Father John".
In the Anglican Church in Britain a priest would be referred to or introduced as "the Reverend John Smith" but would correctly be addressed in speech as "Mr Smith". The term "Reverend Smith" is an Americanism and not acceptable in Britain, as I would have thought you would be aware.

As a member of the episcopate my title is Bishop. I am addressed on such things as envelopes and captions as The Right Reverend Seán Manchester. Correspondence, for example, should open with either My Lord Bishop or Dear Bishop Manchester.

Some Roman Catholics write to me as Right Reverend Father or just Father because that is their preference. Some address me as Your Excellency and Your Grace. I am content to be addressed as Bishop while being aware of the traditions and conventions of others. So I would not seek to change how others might address me provided it is with due reverence for the office I hold. Roman Catholics in Ireland, for example, might address me as The Right Reverend Bishop, which is entirely correct in Eire, but if that style was employed in England, for example, it would signify that I am retired.

Priests and deacons hold the style Reverend. Protestant priests such as one might find in the Church of Scotland prefer to be addressed as Minister but are always styled Reverend. There are always anomalies and exceptions. Fr Lionel Fanthorpe, for example, with whom I worked on a Fortean TV programme about the Nanteos Cup shown on BBC2, is ordained in the Church of Wales (Anglican), but likes to be called Father and refers to himself as a Priest not a Minister. Evangelical Protestants within the Anglican Communion tend to use Reverend while some opt for Pastor. Anglo-Catholics in the High Church of England, while styled Reverend invariably adopt Father as their form of address. This also applies to Anglo-Catholics in other parts of the Anglican Communion throughout the world. The prefix Mr is only correct for Anglican ministers within the Church of England where a doctorate is absent. A significant number are, therefore, addressed as Dr.

I work only with Christian symbols and, therefore, can neither vouch nor gainsay the efficacy of other religious symbolism which I really would not want to put to the test for that purpose because the most essential ingredient is one's Faith.

The point I was making is that you were mistaken to say that it would have been correct to address you as Reverend when you were a priest. To quote Titles and Forms of Address: A Guide to Correct Use (16th edn 1978, p129):

It goes without saying that Dr would replace Mr for a priest with a doctorate.

As for Fr Lionel Fanthorpe, anyone who knows him calls him Lionel. He displays fewer airs and graces than almost anyone I know, just a completely natural and apparently effortless grace. He is, as I'm sure you'll agree, a delight to work with.

To start with: a personified evil/devil/satan DOES NOT EXIST. As stated by Socrates. I believe he was more intelligent than most people who go to church and feel anxiety about a "Shaitan".

I read them too, one in the 70's, one in the 80's and the last one in the 90's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Monroe

... but he grew up in a copper pyramid! Maybe that's why.

A.D. and P.S. You might get greened again and/or jumping at shadows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTp10hzfswk

The member of the forum I was responding to had already addressed me on here as Reverend Manchester which, as I was also asked by the same person if the term was correct, I pointed out would indicate I am a priest and not a bishop.

Such pedantry is all very well, but hardly excuses the gross error in DVB's review on page 63 of Fortean Times #250 (May 2009) under the heading "Blood Feud" where animosity eclipsed any hope of accuracy where I was mentioned and referred to by him.

Apart from stating in his review that I believe in the existence of supernatural entities commonly known since the early eighteenth century as vampires, DVB did not make a single reference to me or the British Occult Society that is remotely accurate. The curious thing is that until now, as far as I can recall, I had never had any contact with this man. Yet he felt somehow qualified to publish all manner of nonsense about me and the society I once presided over using a source known to be extremely antipathetic. Talking to me prior to publishing defamation, irrespective of how he addressed me, obviously did not cross his mind.

Choosing the correct ecclesiastical nomenclature seems like a tricky area. Thinking of some of the oddities and idiosyncracies, I recall a history tutor of mine who had the title of Reverend, by virtue of having graduated from a particular Oxford college (I don't remember which one) where the title was awarded along with his degree. Apparently, his was the last graduating year in which this was applied. Just another Oxbridge quirk, I suppose, like some BSCs at Cambridge getting an automatic MA with their bachelor of science degree.

As for Lionel Fanthorpe, I've never had the pleasure of meeting him, but he comes across as an immensely nice fellow. I like his friendly and avuncular manner, and his enthusiasm. My kind of clergyman.

Having an avuncular manner and showing enthusiasm for all manner of things, many of which are certainly frowned upon by the Church, does not necessarily make someone an ideal clergyman. This particular cleric is very liberal and liberalism in the Anglican Communion is principally responsible for the apostasy now causing the desertion of many orthodox Christians to the Roman Catholic Church and indeed elsewhere. It might even lead to the Communion splitting into two separate Churches. None of which, I would have thought, is especially desirable for the Church of England.

As you know, sir, I was reviewing an autobiographical book by someone else, which was telling, in part, his involvement in the story of the Highgate Vampire as he saw it, not as you saw it. There was no defamation; everything that I wrote came under the legal classification of fair comment.

I found it interesting that a review slightly over 1-1/2 columns in length should elicit a response from yourself three columns in length (FT252:70). In the review I was also quite critical of the author, David Farrant, yet he didn't make any fuss about it.

One day I would love to see uncontestable documentary evidence on the history of the British Occult Society, which both you and he say you headed. (As I said above, memory's a funny old thing.) I'm reminded of rival popes excommunicating each other...

As for "The curious thing is that until now, as far as I can recall, I had never had any contact with this man", a few years ago, again in the Letters column of Fortean Times, I was reviled at great length by someone speaking on your behalf because I made a passing reference to you in a review.

A serious question, which I think many of us on the forum (and many others over the years) would love to know the answer to: why are you so sensitive to perceived criticism? Didn't someone once say something about turning the other cheek?

Not "ideal". To my personal taste.

Fanthorpe I would judge to be the sort of clergyman who is liberal - as you say - moderate, tolerant, ecumenically minded, approachable, recognisably a human being. The sort of clergyman who would make me, a non-believer, more rather than less receptive to his message.

Certain other kinds of clergymen might have quite the opposite effect on me.

I would agree with all of that, and would add humble to the list. Lionel has achieved a great number of things in his life (including being Britain's most prolific science fiction writer!), and is also a great showman, but when you talk to him he is remarkably self-effacing. A lovely guy -- and his wife Patricia is equally smashing.