Arcadia Discussion Zone

Sheila:

Seeker1:

I think you need to read the book in order to understand the movie. For some reason whenever I think of the Mothman I think of Jean Cocteau and his experience.

Jean Cocteau:

There's description and I'm paraphrasing in the Mothman Prophecies where imagine there is a building and if you are on the ground you can't see much but if go up to other levels you can see further. So for instance if you come from another higher dimension you can see further based on where you positioned.
It was something like that, anyway.

I always like the explanation because it wasn't arrogant. Mothman didn't present itself in an omniscient way and helped explain the nature of levels.
Considering I don't like scary movies because I get plagued by nightmares this was one of the better movies.
Mothman was here to help but man's disbelief and fear negated the help that was offered.
Actually now you've got me thinking about it again.

Oh I did. It's one of my favorite books. I found it in a used bookstore, many many years ago, I had read it long before seeing the movie.

Keel is one of my favorite theorists of the paranormal. I also have Disneyland of the Gods, which continues some themes.



But ... you're skipping over Keel's main point, which is made much more explicit in the book. Was Mothman there to "help"? What's really great about the book is things became far more absurd in Point Pleasant than the movie makes clear during the time period right before the Silver Bridge collapse in December 1967. (Those who see the movie without reading the book may not get that it talks about events from 40 years ago ... John Keel just recently died at the age of 79.)

There wasn't just Mothman & Indrid Cold. The town also had an invasion of "MIBs" and other strange-looking beings. There also were series of UFO sightings. And "Cold" wasn't the only entity contacting Keel during this time ... there also was "Apol" and "Princess Moon Owl". (You can also read Loren Coleman's books, his opinion seems to be BTW that mothman was a garden-variety cryptid and much of the rest was Keel's active imagination.)

That's just it. He believes that Indrid Cold and the other entities he encountered could see the future. Simply by existing outside or slightly 'higher' on our space-time continuum, they can see further "into" time than we can.

However, he said they frequently lied about what would happen - although they gave him some accurate predictions, others never came true. His key point is just because their perspective is a little bit better than ours doesn't mean they are necessarily good or benevolent or have our interests at heart. Remember, as he points out, although they warned him something terrible was going to happen ... they told him it would be an explosion of a chemical plant, not the collapse of the bridge ...

Keel repeats what Swedenborg once said about the spirits: the one thing he was sure of is that they lie & manipulate. "Belief is the enemy".

Or; "Trust but verify".

"Apparently I should have posted this query here...Hi dave, here's a rather easy straight forward query re: existence of a spooky world. Does it all boil down to a matter of.. if ya believe in ghosts, ghouls,hobgoblins, witches, etc, the likelihood of encountering such a phenomenon is greater than a person like myself who knows from his religious convictions that evil demons exist on the purely spiritual plane but effects of them can manifest in folks who allow themselves to be possessed."

FOR JABBERWOCK

I would agree with you here: belief in ‘ghosts’ or ‘spirits’ (if it is strong enough) can often help to aid their actual manifestation. My mother was involved in spiritualism and this more direct ‘spiritual belief’ is perhaps a very good example when applied to ‘outside spirits’: that is, the belief that direct communication with spirits of the departed is possible, and that it is possible to receive ‘messages’ from them.

I am not so sure about this, but the point is ‘belief’ plays a very important part in this practice. People believe that such contact is possible and it can manifest accordingly. Such ‘manifestations’ usually occur via means of a medium who, through his or her belief, claims to receive such ‘spiritual messages’ in the form of ‘table rapping’ or even ‘audible voices’. I won’t go into all that as it is fairly complex, but the point is (and in relation to your question), belief plays an essential part in this. A mediums belief in his or her ability to make such contact, is surely essential in the results obtained (or said to be obtained) through using such a form of ‘communication’.

The same applies to many instances where people claim to have seen or encountered what are termed ‘ghosts’ or ‘spiritual presences’. A person with a ‘pre-set’ belief in such things is more vulnerable to encounter them than perhaps a person who is giving the matter little or no thought. So the answer to that is yes – although I say ‘yes’ only in relation to that aspect alone. There is much more to it than that, and this does not explain how many people encounter things paranormal when not even believing that such things even exist.

You mention being a Catholic (I was married to one!) and how the Catholic Church ‘frowns’ upon and even forbids direct communication with spirits, or ‘spirits of the dead’. I have always find this strange because the Catholic Church, like all other Churches, have their Saints and Angels and readily invite people to pray for the souls of those who may have ‘passed on’.

I do not really want to get onto the ‘in’s and out’s of religious beliefs. Personally, I put all such beliefs aside whilst still accepting that there exists an Infinite Intelligence (or ‘God’), but that’s really another matter!

David (Farrant)

Hi David.
Thanks for your answers. I think you must have misread my first question. I wasn't saying that "Evil has no validity in occultism", though as your answer shows that is an interesting question in its own right. I was actually asking about the upright and inverted pentagrams. What I said was:
I'm sure I've read that the well-known "Upright pentagram - Good; Inverted pentagram - Evil" idea has no validity in occultism. Could you clarify, please?

It's my understanding that the belief that the inverted pentagram is Satanic or otherwise "dark" is a fairly modern invention, and not correct. After all, if a group of people are standing around a pentagram on the ground, for some it will be "upright" and for others it will be "inverted", depending on where they're standing. Logically, a pentagram can be upright in five positions and inverted in five positions, and changing from one to the other doesn't necessitate turning it upside down, but simply rotating it by 36 degrees, a tenth of a circle.
Or am I completely wrong?

(I also don't hold with the idea of inverted cards in Tarot readings, on the grounds that each card encompasses a wide range of meanings -- but that's another topic!)

"Hi David.
Thanks for your answers. I think you must have misread my first question. I wasn't saying that "Evil has no validity in occultism", though as your answer shows that is an interesting question in its own right. I was actually asking about the upright and inverted pentagrams. What I said was:
I'm sure I've read that the well-known "Upright pentagram - Good; Inverted pentagram - Evil" idea has no validity in occultism. Could you clarify, please?"
Thanks David,

Sorry for any delay and to have missed the point in your last question.

What I meant was (although perhaps didn't answer properly) was that the pentagram (like the Hexagram made up of two triangles and which symbolises the unity between the Cosmos and the material Earth), is really only a symbol, and really it makes little difference to people employing its use - except in the symbolism It is only a symbol. The only importance it can have, is in the minds of those employing its use.

If it is used 'upside down' (with its apex pointing downwards), then it is seen to represent a 'negative aspect' in magical rituals. But again, it depends on the beliefs of those of those employing its use.

If its apex was pointing 'upwards', for example, and it was believed this represented 'negative powers', it would have the same effect - if indeed, it has any 'effect' at all.

The pentagram I discovered inscribed on the floor of a mausoleum in Highgate Cemetery in 1971, had been inscribed with its apex reversed, which made me conclude that the ceremony that had been employed there, involved some 'negative intent'.

I think it is the symbolism that is more important here, as opposed to its geometrical use!

David

Thanks for this, David.
May I ask another question, very carefully and circumspectly so as not to name anyone else...

At the beginning of your interview it says that you are the founder and President of the British Psychic and Occult Society (B.P.O.S.), and a link is given. On the BPOS page you say it was formed in its infancy in 1964, and in 1967 became an official Society with the purpose of investigating psychic phenomena and all things ‘occult’. It was then officially named as the British Psychic and Occult Society, and membership was organised more thoroughly with the appointment of executive members and the distribution of a regular newsletter. At the beginning of your book David Farrant: In The Shadow of the Highgate Vampire you say: In 1983, the name of the British Occult Society (BOS) was officially changed to the British Psychic and Occult Society (BPOS) and subsequently both titles appear interchangeably (as appropriate to their point of reference) in the text. On page 166 of your book you say that in late 1967 you had the sudden idea to form an official occult society, and two paragraphs later, Running the Society turned out to be a full time occupation.

As it has been alleged in print that you were never even a member of the British Occult Society (I shall say no more than that), is there any physical evidence in the form of headed notepaper, letters to the Press, minutes of meetings etc, to confirm that you were in fact the founder and president of BPOS and its predecessor BOS? Are there any members from the 1960s or 1970s who would support your statement? Or could it be that there were actually two different organisations called the British Occult Society, with two different leaders?

Before the Moderator steps in, I am simply asking David Farrant for substantiation of something stated about him in the "17 Questions" interview, the subject of this thread; I am not making any personal attack and insult on any other person.

“At the beginning of your interview it says that you are the founder and President of the British Psychic and Occult Society (B.P.O.S.), and a link is given. On the BPOS page you say it was formed in its infancy in 1964, and in 1967 became an official Society with the purpose of investigating psychic phenomena and all things ‘occult’. It was then officially named as the British Psychic and Occult Society, and membership was organised more thoroughly with the appointment of executive members and the distribution of a regular newsletter. At the beginning of your book David Farrant: In The Shadow of the Highgate Vampire you say: In 1983, the name of the British Occult Society (BOS) was officially changed to the British Psychic and Occult Society (BPOS) and subsequently both titles appear interchangeably (as appropriate to their point of reference) in the text. On page 166 of your book you say that in late 1967 you had the sudden idea to form an official occult society, and two paragraphs later, Running the Society turned out to be a full time occupation.”

FOR DVB

What you have quoted is perfectly accurate, David; that is indeed what I stated for the interview and what I wrote in my new autobiography. Indeed, I went into even more detail than that in my book “Beyond the Highgate Vampire” first published in 1991.

I believe you also asked in your same question, if there existed any evidence (such as headed paper, membership lists, etc) that could verify early Society membership.

Well of course we had official headed paper and in the course of early investigations a few letters were answered to interested journalists. But as well as this (and perhaps more significantly) in 1979 and 1981 I had cause to bring two libel actions against the Daily Express and the News of the World. I do not intend to go into these again here, but these actions were brought by myself and the original British Occult Society, and headed paper was also used during these proceedings. I not only have copies of all this correspondence myself, but obviously two acting solicitors also have copies of this on file as much of it was produced in the High Court.

It is true that I changed the name of the Society in 1983 to the “British Psychic and Occult Society”, but this was entirely due to ‘outside pressure”. Content removed.

Anyway I hope that clarifies the points in your question.

David (Farrant)

Dear Moderator
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall you splattering "Content removed" over any of the slurs on Mr Farrant's character made by Someone Who Must Not Be Named -- so why is Farrant being censored here for a completely inoffensive statement?
David Farrant has been unfailingly courteous, gentle and humble in his answers to questions on this forum, in contrast to... No, of course, I'm not allowed to say. And yet he gets green-inked.
If you're going to censor people, it should be even-handed.
Alternatively, you could just stop kowtowing to the will of -- oh sod it, I'll censor myself to save you the bother.

"Dear Moderator
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall you splattering "Content removed" over any of the slurs on Mr Farrant's character made by Someone Who Must Not Be Named -- so why is Farrant being censored here for a completely inoffensive statement?"

Thanks for that DVD, but actually, its a bit late for anyone to try and censor that - by at least 26 years!

In December 1983 I changed the name of the Society to the British Psychic and Occult Society (BPOS) and this was reported in the Press (as well as elsewhere) at the time and in this respect, this remains a matter of public record.

Censoring a fact cannot change a fact. The best it can do is try and disguise it!

David (Farrant)

I like that. Very profound indeed.

I have to agree with DVB here. Having read the original comment, it seems a tad unjust to censor it, as it didn't really require it.

I'd hazard a guess that a certain individual who has been caught out lying, is trying to censor the truth.
Very sad really.

And where has the phantasmal Baldry's Cat gone off to?

De-clawed, neutered and barked high up into a thorn in Glastonbury?

He's still a member.
Maybe he's been muzzled...

David there's a question pertinent to your experiences put forth in a different section that was answered lastly with derision.
It lies in the subject of astounding sleep phenomena which you and the other David here expressed interest in and knowing of and is very similar to my own "was that a dream?" mystery we discussed previously.

Not sure if you'd care to address it but thought I'd point it out here;

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2444

Dave I wanna thank ya for yer timely reply. I have been relegated to last on the household queue to surf, pending the arrival of our replacement modem/router of our replacement internet provider.

Ya mentioned somethin' most folk don't seem to grasp well and that is why Catholics venerate Saints, Jesus' mother Mary, it has nuthin' to do with invokin' their spiritual presence in the here + now, but it does have to do with the nature of why they all have been canonized.

Roger considers such a practice 'invoking', which is deliberately misleading on his part. Anybody who needs to strengthen a weak spot in their spiritual armor is reminded to contemplate what that particular Saint endured in that regard. Yer not askin' that Saint to come down to earth to fill yer shoes, yer askin' that Saint if he/she can be a supplicant for ya, which is an entirely different concept, yes?

In the spiritual plane yer requestin' the continuation of a spiritual blessin' in the form of the State of Grace to overcome a serious temptation to commit a sin or whatever the reason for contemplatin' a particular Saints' personal accomplishment in that regard. Its like havin' a role model and then beseechin' that Saint to assist ya with insight as to how to achieve it for yerself. A good case in point is to read the trials + tribulations Padre Pio was confronted with.

This don't mean that Saint is replacin' Jesus in any weay shape or form. Jesus surpassed every mere mortal in this regard, all of the Saints who attempted to walk in HIS shadow in the spiritual walk in life met challenges that tested them to their utmost and they overcame all of these challenges. Sr Emmerich the stigmatist, or Sr Faustina are good examples of what it takes. Its this human factor role model on what another human endured on their path to Sainthood. It ain't that easy, it never has been.

In every case these Saints met their demons, like John Bosco vividly describes.

Self imposed exile my friend. If he responds to any single post, he'll probably be met with a chorus of "Could you please kindly answer the question your worshippleness."

I believe he's forced himself into a corner.
Makes for a rubbish chess player in that it's practically check and mate.

Ah, no, I was meaning BaldryCat, not the bishop, when I responded to: And where has the phantasmal Baldry's Cat gone off to?
Sorry for any confusion.

I believe you misread DVB's statements regarding Puss 'n Boots up there Jerry.

But your observation and deduction of what had been constant verbosity must be the logical answer to that mystery.

I stand corrected, gentlemen. Apt, but corrected.

I daresay the Cat will return with feline fury.
Perhaps it's trying to figure out how to stay out of the green zone?

That and perhaps trying to reword his song lyrics that were likely the last straw leading to a threads complete death and resurrection.

For good fun on a cold, wet day like I'm in, try starting on his blog at its beginning to see who in this saga has entertaining and keen senses of humor and who does not.

http://baldrycat.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html

I've read through bits and pieces on Cat's site before and it's a good bit of satire.

A comment left today reminds me of my own in response to the holy silence.

...as stated by Demonologist.

Content removed

"David there's a question pertinent to your experiences put forth in a different section that was answered lastly with derision.
It lies in the subject of astounding sleep phenomena which you and the other David here expressed interest in and knowing of and is very similar to my own "was that a dream?" mystery we discussed previously.

Not sure if you'd care to address it but thought I'd point it out here;"

I actually missed that part of that thread, TCJ: I don't know why, I must have been doing something else at the time.

I would nasically agree with what Lovuian says about the existence of an astral or ethreal body which is only glimpsed on rare occasions. It is probably easier to see thiis in waking 'dream states' because, and as I have said before, the fully conscious mind often acts as a barrier that prevents people from perceiving these things. There is nothing really 'supernatural' about this and certainly no need to be frightened by it.

I am afraid I cannot agree with Jabberwoc's view though, that such experieces must be caused by the 'taking of drugs'. Drugs do not have the ability to change states of consciousness in a mystical way - although they can distort it.

Thanks TCJ

David

Thank you David.

[Edited for personal privacy's sake and that my sides are sore from laughing at ones (more than one) wit and the lack of the same of another.]