Arcadia Discussion Zone

What I see here are two sides of the same coin. Right Rev Sean Manchester on one side and Mr Farrant on the other both expounding the same myth and yet seemingly in opposition.

Let me remind people that it is in the church's interest to propagate myths and superstitions especially since there is a popular movie out about a vampire which appears to be having great box office success. The words wagon and band seem to come to mind here.

Never forget that The Exorcist was the Pope's favourite movie, recruiting to the Catholic church went up dramatically after the release of that movie. Only the Roman Catholic church has the mechanism to deal with these things. So make an enemy and people will beg you to deal with it. Bit like the so-called War on Terrorism, it's all about control.

Free your mind

I don't think the Catholic church has the monopoly on exorcists
but I do know that some people need the spiritual help
when all other things fail

They need people around them. As the man said:

"All you need is Love"

With regard to Exorcism. Well yes the witch doctors did used to do this. The auto suggestion that something has left you is likely to make you feel better.

I disagree.

It appears Bishop Manchester wants these things to remain the province of organized religion, and to treat them as supernatural phenomena, i.e. somehow outside the order of nature, and not subject to scientific proof/investigation. He's the one who claimed the Highgate entity was a vampire. He also seems to be the one claiming a properly trained ecclesiastic (whether outside or inside the Catholic Church proper) is required to "exorcise" one.

On the other hand, David, despite some "on again off again" involvement in Wicca, prefers to describe what he does as "psychic investigation," and to treat the spirit (not vampire) he saw as a entity that can be understood by parapsychological science. Now one can agree or disagree that psychic phenomena exist, or that there are ghosts, but at least it seems to me this is a more scientific (and Fortean) approach.

As to why they're both here, and why Andy decided to focus the Forum on the topic, well, let's face it, there are not one, but two, Highgate Vampire movies coming out next year; there's surely a bit of lucre to go around. Despite what some think, I fell off the turnip truck 2 days ago, not yesterday.

And nothing quite makes a topic more entertaining & exciting than when its two principal investigators are having a rather public feud.... great for ratings.

What actually went on 30+ years go, who knows? Memory's a funny old thing, and the two protagonists have had several decades for their own remembered versions of events to become set in stone.

I've met David Farrant several times, and he seems a sensible enough guy. I haven't met Sean Manchester, so I really can't comment. Except to say that Farrant has said publicly that he doesn't believe that vampires exist, and Sean Manchester has said publicly that he does...

Did it hurt?



I agree, lov.

Both are making the suggestion that there's something that might require the church to deal with it or at the very least other worldly spiritual forces present. The Church (not any particular persuation) therefore gets credibility working on people's fear with their own myths. This is entirely the result of ignorance and it doesn't take more than an arbitrary study of the Church's history to see that the maintenance of ignorance and fear within the population at large is one of the church's primary functions.

The church is and always has been a vehicle for population control.



Exactly

Trailer - EXORCIST II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY0bsaDpYpY

I'm from the city who had a documented exorcism that the Exorcist was based on
I met the priest that helped perform it

he was Jesuit
He was an academic taught at the university Saint Louis University

brilliant man and I loved his sermons

Well, I don't believe vampires, werewolves, or centaurs exist. Nor in the efficacy of ecclesiastic exorcism. Since I don't tend to believe in possessing spirits either (I think spirit possession is an ASC).

I also believe there may have been a paranormal manifestation at Highgate. I say may because it seems there were some independent witnesses to phenomena. I do think it is possible psychic phenomena might exist, and that ghosts might be what T.C. Lethbridge called "tape recordings" that particularly appear to the "sensitive".

I tend to prefer such things be explored and dealt with by science, then abjured & ritualized through religion. I also suspect that whatever occurred at Highgate was simply a psychic apparition and that one man decided it would be much more melodramatic to declare that the cemetary was being terrorized by a vampire (requiring his powers to neutralize, of course.)

So I think I am more inclined to Mr. Farrant's account. And incidentally he doesn't seem to be recruiting for Wicca, or anything else.

I would be interested to know why think your psychic apparition appears more rational, believable or indeed probable than a vampire? I can far easier understand the rejection of all things paranormal than have someone pick and choose what he finds more appealing.

The Society for Psychical Research was founded in London in 1882 as a group of prominent scholars for the purpose of investigating “that large body of debatable phenomena designated by such terms as mesmeric, psychical and spiritualistic”, and to do so “in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned enquiry which has enabled science to solve so many problems” (quoted after Gauld in The Founders of Psychical Research, 1968, page 137). No evidence for the existence of ghosts has been found after more than a century and a quarter of painstaking research and investigation.

Yet you subscribe to a ghost having haunted Highgate Cemetery (there is no "a" in the word cemetery, incidentally) and not a vampire without having done a shred of investigating into the phenomenon when it was active and there was still some chance of determining its likely category.

"The fact is so improbable that extremely good evidence is needed to make us believe it; and this evidence is not good, for how can you trust people who believe in such absurdities?"

- Edmund Gurney (19th century SPR committee member, writing about ghosts)

"Ghosts are the mind's way of interpreting how the body reacts to certain surroundings, say UK psychologists. A chill in the air, low-light conditions and even magnetic fields may trigger feelings that 'a presence' is in a room - but that is all they are, feelings. This explanation of ghosts is the result of a large study in which researchers led hundreds of volunteers around two of the UK's supposedly most haunted locations - Hampton Court Palace, England, and the South Bridge Vaults in Edinburgh, Scotland. Dr Richard Wiseman, of the University of Hertfordshire, and his colleagues say their work has thrown up some interesting data to suggest why so many people can be spooked in the same building but provides no evidence that ghosts are real."

- Aaron Frood (BBC News)

Exorcist II: The Heretic. voted runner-up in the Worst Film of All Time category in the Golden Turkey Awards

It depends on what you mean by "ghost". We've already had a long discussion of afterlife beliefs here (thanks to a different book) and suffice to say my only current belief on the question is that it's unknowable. That said, I don't think people hang around in ghostly form. I could be wrong, of course. This seems to be one of those areas where science doesn't yet have any answers.

I suspect most "ghosts" are just "imprints" on the surrounding environment of psychic energy - what Lethbridge called "tape recordings". I know people who investigate just such apparitions here in Florida. They've talked to hundreds of people who have seen one. They've never met any who've ever met a vampire. Let me put it this way: although ESP, remote viewing, and psychic phenomena are debatable, I think there is more evidence for them than for vampires, that's for sure.



Bishop, with all due respect, I've read several accounts on the subject, now (although I do admit never hearing of this incident until it was mentioned on this board), and I still maintain that whatever people saw or described prior to your arrival would be better called a "ghost" - even if it was just the sort of subjective impression you just described, which it may well have been - until you arrived and then declared the cemetery (spelling corrected) was afflicted by a vampire.

I have to admit you are a rather odd fellow to declare vampires real based on legends, and ghosts mythical (given that at least there are far more legends of same), ... I guarantee there are thousands of ghost sightings a year, and I know of very few vampire ones.

I fail to grasp your logic.

Because lots of people say ghosts exist and fewer today (though it was not always so) say vampires exist, ghosts win over vampires. Buts lots of people used to say the Earth was flat when fewer said it was spherical. So how does that prove anything? Has a ghost actually been proven to exist? No, it has not.

What accounts have you read? I was at the centre of the investigation. Few accounts talked of a ghost and some letters sent to local newspapers as witnesses of a ghost at the time were later found to be fraudulent. Tales of a vampire reach way back to the early 1960s. A ghost was mentioned by one or two people in 1970 who were acquainted with a hoaxer. Then it was mentioned no more.

Yes, Bishop, but when I asked you if there is - or could be - any scientific documentation on the existence of vampires, you said no, there, also.

So it looks like no vampire has been proven to exist either - or according to you, could be.

I'd settle for some photos of one - oh that's right we can't take any. At least until after it's been staked and rendered dead-for-sure.

On the other hand there are ghost photos. We can debate their validity or reality (and some are undoubtably fakes), but they at least exist.

http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostpho ... st-Photos/

Neither is there any scientific documentation on the existence of ghosts, psychic apparitions or anything else paranormal.

So why opt for psychic apparitions over vampires?

More multiply eyewitnessed reports, more photos, more investigation by scientific bodies (such as the SPR), and more models that can situate the phenomena within known scientific understanding.

Not even John Boorman at the helm, and Richard Burton in the cast, could save that one. One of my favourite actors of all time, but famously undiscriminating about what he appeared in.

Good plague of locusts, though.

Golden Turkey voted Burton the Worst Actor of All Time. Yep, I know, perverse judgement but they were going by all the Exorcist II type films the great man appeared in and the reasoning "When he was good he was great, when he wasn't good he was stinkeroo".

What, worse than Tom Hanks in the Dan Beige films?

The Society for Psychical Research (SPR), founded in London in 1882 as a group of prominent scholars for the purpose of investigating “that large body of debatable phenomena designated by such terms as mesmeric, psychical and spiritualistic” and to do so “in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned enquiry which has enabled science to solve so many problems” found no evidence whatsoever for the existence of ghosts after more than a century and a quarter of painstaking research and investigation.

"If ever there was in the world a warranted and proven history, it is that of vampires: nothing is lacking, official reports, testimonials of persons of standing, of surgeons, of clergymen, of judges; the judicial evidence is all-embracing."

- Jean Jacques Rousseau, “Lettre à Mgr. de Beaumont, Archevêque de Paris,” (Annex to the Contrat social) Librairie Garnier Frères, Paris, p489.

Bishop Manchester --

http://psican.org/alpha/index.php?/2009 ... earch.html

Born in Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire in May of 1923, Underwood's credits include Life President of The Ghost Club (founded in 1851), President of The Unitarian Society for Psychical Studies, Patron of both The Paranormal Site Investigators and The Ghost Club Foundation, Fellow of The Royal Society of Arts, Member of The Society for Psychical Research and a host of other titles and deserved accolades. Author of a multitude of books and a veteran researcher, few can match Mr. Underwood's experience, zeal, and genuine affection for the topic of ghosts and hauntings.

[snip]

I notice he's also one of the members of your Vampire Research Society, I guess he never got your memo that the SPR has no evidence for ghost phenomena.

Druidic Blood Rites done by very much alive humans.

If you see any incorporeal entities then you've probably got schizophenia. Ever see the movie A Beautiful Mind?

It can temporarily manifest itself in a condition called Anemic Hypoxia. Usually experienced by fasting monks on hilltops and patriarchs and their "visions".


Here's Druid who goes by the name of Rowan Williams

Bishop - when you'll reach 1000 postings, we'll see your face and hat 1000 times. Is that on purpose? Do you want us dreaming of your face and hat?

Peter Underwood is a friend and colleague of many years and holds Life Membership in the Vampire Research Society (VRS) I founded forty years ago. He was also a member of the British Occult Society (BOS) until its dissolution in 1988. He might believe in ghosts, but also does not question the existence of vampires. He was acquainted with +Montague Summers.

Peter Underwood's membership in the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) does not alter the fact that the SPR itself has declared that in all its long history it has never once found any conclusive evidence to support the existence of ghosts, ie discarnate spirits of the dead.