David Farrant- Psychic investigator.

[brodski]

I've opened this thread because The Sean Manchester threads have attracted a number of new members to the forum, including David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society/The Highgate Vampire Society.

I am very interested to heat what David has to say on a number of paranormal topics

Can I make a two general requests,

1) can everyone, whatever their worldview please be polite- the Sean Manchester threads have tended to get a little heated to the detriment of discussion (and I am at fault there too)

2) Can we please not rake over personal matters nearly 30 years in the past, and how those personal matters have spread since- there is plenty of discussion on the Manchester threads about those things, I don't want to start another thread along the same lines.

I would like this thread to focus on David's understanding of the paranormal, and his evidence for the paranormal.

David,
You describe yourself in the other thread as a "psychic investigator", do you consider yourself a "psychic who investigates", or an investigator of psychic phenomena? (or both)

You state that you don't believe in "blood sucking vampires", do you believe in anything which you would label as a "vampire", what properties to these "vampires" have?

What would you consider the best evidence which you have gathered for the existence of the paranormal, vampires or psychic phenomena?

Thanks.

[Ducky]

Just a suggestion:

Perhaps we could ask one of the mods to moderate this thread to avoid any spillover from the feud to this thread to keep it not only civil but on point?


ETA:

I certainly don't want Mr. Ferrant or Mr. Manchester (Myth Buster) to feel they are simply in a flame war when we wish to seriously discuss their work.

[Miss Whiplash]

To appear fair, should we also start a contained thread for Manchester/Mythbuster, so we can keep his replies all in one place? I still have questions for him and they've been lost and/or dodged in the other threads.

[Ducky]

To appear fair, should we also start a contained thread for Manchester/Mythbuster, so we can keep his replies all in one place? I still have questions for him and they've been lost and/or dodged in the other threads.

Ah, well done. 2 moderated threads for each to present their views and discuss them without flaming.

Sounds good to me, but I pity the poor moderator who accepts that duty.

(Which means I would totally do it, if I were a moderator.)

[Miss Whiplash]

David,

My question to you: The Highgate case never received that much press in the US. What we had focused of Sean Manchester with only a passing reference to you. So, how did you become involved with this alleged vampire case?

There is a great amount of conflicting information on the internet. Were you a member of Sean Manchester's Occult Society, or were you operating on your own initiative?

[CatherineFearnley]

To appear fair, should we also start a contained thread for Manchester/Mythbuster, so we can keep his replies all in one place? I still have questions for him and they've been lost and/or dodged in the other threads.


When this happened elsewhere. They too had two seperate threads to make life easier. However you've already got the Sean Manchester thread so I wouldn't have thought it necessary to create a new one. I've noticed now MythBuster (Sean Manchester) seems to have disappeared from this message board.

Catherine.

[Ducky]

When this happened elsewhere. They too had two seperate threads to make life easier. However you've already got the Sean Manchester thread so I wouldn't have thought it necessary to create a new one. I've noticed now MythBuster (Sean Manchester) seems to have disappeared from this message board.

Catherine.

Fair enough. Though, I personally would like to see some sort of civil discussion. My curiosity is piqued, and I am not rude normally unless someone threatens me with prosecution under the UK's Religious Hate laws ;)

No seriously, screw manchester. Let's you, Barbara, david and us discuss whatever, and leave manchester to his empty threats of lawsuit.

Anyway, in case I forgot to post this, welcome to you, barabra and david. :)

[DavidFarrant]

FOR BRODSKI AND THE VAMPIRE,

Thank you for your questions. I will answer both of you; hopefully not in the midst of so much confusion about my apparent 'feud' with Mr. Manchester. (Believe it or not this is very much a 'one-sided feud'; or one instigated mainly by Mr. Manchester).

Thank you for your thought of creating this new thread, Brodski. I am not expecting that we will fully agree, but at least I hope I may be able to clarify a few basic facts for you.

For now,

David (Farrant)

[brodski]

Thank you for your questions. I will answer both of you; hopefully not in the midst of so much confusion about my apparent 'feud' with Mr. Manchester. Yes, i would like to keep this thread as free from "other" issues as possible.


(Believe it or not this is very much a 'one-sided feud'; or one instigated mainly by Mr. Manchester).
I can believe many things of Mr. Manchester. :)


Thank you for your thought of creating this new thread, Brodski. I am not expecting that we will fully agree, but at least I hope I may be able to clarify a few basic facts for you.

For now,

David (Farrant)
I look forward to your replies.

[Skeptic Guy]

David,

I am posting a question I had for you from the Manchester thread. (See attached). Can you please respond? Thank you.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2265665#post2265665

[CatherineFearnley]

Fair enough. Though, I personally would like to see some sort of civil discussion. My curiosity is piqued, and I am not rude normally unless someone threatens me with prosecution under the UK's Religious Hate laws ;)

No seriously, screw manchester. Let's you, Barbara, david and us discuss whatever, and leave manchester to his empty threats of lawsuit.

Anyway, in case I forgot to post this, welcome to you, barabra and david. :)


Thanks for the welcome. We too are looking forward to sensible discussion for a change which hopefully will not involve any direct insults and accusations from the Manchester camp. Let's have some decent questioning for a change.

Catherine

[DavidFarrant]

For Brodski, Skeptic Guy and The Vampire,

I have noted all your questions which I will answer. Your questions are really quite complex, Brodski, as is Skeptic Guy's further one - not difficult at all, but need a little more time than I have at this exact moment. The Vampire's question is really quite simple in comparrison so I will deal with this first - after all, she is a lady!

The Vampire basically asks how I became involved with the Highgate 'vampire' and if I was 'ever a member of Manchester's Society'.

To answer your first point first: I never became involved with the 'Highgate Vampire', simply because there never was a 'Highgate Vampire'!

There WAS an unexplained phenomenon - or 'ghost' - that had been witnessed at Highgate Cemetery (including by myself) in late 1969 and in the early 1970's. But this phenomenon (although genuine as far as such things are said to go) was NOT a 'vampire'. It got turned into one by certain people trying to cash in on the original investigation by the British Psychic and Occult Society into an earthbound entity, or 'ghost, that had been witnessed in and around Highgate Cemetery.

This investigation got 'slightly out of hand' as I tried to explain earlier, and which I will go into more later.

Was I ever a member of Mr. Manchester's society? No. Quite simply because he never had any society.

I formed the British Psychic and Occult Society back in 1967. It started out with a small group of people interested in unexplained phenomena, mainly locally in the Highgate area at first. I firsy met Mr. Manchester in 1967 when he was playing the saxophone in a local pub in Highgate called The Woodman, and it was then that he first learned of the Society's activities and investigations into paranormal activity and 'ghosts'. Highgate Cemetery was not fully 'on the agenda' then, although I had first visited HC in 1962 and I was well aware of all the local stories about a 'ghost' said to lurk there. I only really took the case up several years later. Mr. Mnchester came to learn about this, and the next moment the Highgate ghost - or enexplained phenomenon - got turned into a 'vampire'!

This might be anover-simplified answer, but it is nevertheless all true.

I will get back to the other points tomorrow.

For the moment,

David

[Luke T.]

I so hate it when someone steals my perfectly good graveyard ghost and converts it to vampirism.

[CLD]

David Farrant writes:

There WAS an unexplained phenomenon - or 'ghost' - that had been witnessed at Highgate Cemetery (including by myself) in late 1969 and in the early 1970's. But this phenomenon (although genuine as far as such things are said to go) was NOT a 'vampire'.

According to http://www.afallon.com/stories/highgate.htm :

David Farrant, who lives in Muswell Hill Road, said that the reports of grave robbery sprang from his own investigations into a ghostly apparition seen in Highgate Cemetery.

He said: "I went into the cemetery at night to investigate them, thinking they were nothing more than tree branches casting shadows in the moonlight, but I myself saw a tall figure that convinced me.

"We went down there a few nights later to hold a seance, but were arrested by the police who were keeping watch."

If this is accurate, what exactly "convinced" you that what you saw was indeed a figure, and that it was of paranormal origin?

[Clu]

Aaaah yes the good ol' turn the ghost to a vamp routine... and you dont question whether there was a 'ghost' or not? How is the 'ghost'-story more likely than the vamp one?

[Clu]

Me thinks Myth seems quite familiar with this topic for someone unafilliated with neither party... :catfight:

[Clu]

Myth, you really dont like Farrant do you?

[Myth Buster]

Me thinks Myth seems quite familiar with this topic for someone unafilliated with neither party...

Not "affiliated" with either party, but in communication to varying degrees over a period of time for research purposes with both parties.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Can we drop the ad hom drek and discuss the specific claim(s) regarding paranormal activity and any objective, verifiable evidence in support of said claim(s)?

[Zep]

Well... In reviewing what we have so far, I'm going to be MIGHTY surprised if this is not just another way for Mr Farrant to self-publicise via this forum. Call it a hunch, or intuition, if you will.

However, I can be surprised. Carry on!

[Ducky]

Not "affiliated" with either party, but in communication to varying degrees over a period of time for research purposes with both parties.

:rolleyes:


No apology. And, furthermore, I have been asked by Sean Manchester's people to stay off this topic as a complaint is already under consideration within the terms of the Religious Hatred Act 2006, section 1, 29C 1 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60001--b.htm).

[DavidFarrant]

FOR CLD AND CLU,

I will interpose with a quick answer here before I come back to the original questions from Brodski and Skeptic Guy.

CLD asks how I was so sure that the fogure I witnessed was supernatural by origin.

I originally went to the Cemetery to attempt to find some logical explanation for the entity that had been witnessed by so many other people.

The answer is at at first (that is right at the onset) I did not realise the figure was supernatural. It appeared to be clad in a dark cloak and the 'points of light' that I took to be its eyes, I initially assuned had been made by some hidden torch or something. In short, I initially thought it was some very hunan person who had heard the local stories abot a vampire (which had cleverly been spread by one particular individual for the purposes of gaining personal publicity) and was dressed up as one trying to frighten passers by. But in a matter of seconds, this impression changed. The area around me suddenly turned icy cold (like a fridge) and the 'thing' seemed to trying to 'hypnotise' me. Put another way, I felt I was quickly being 'drained of energy' and was being forced into some 'enticed sleep'. I realised then that it ws no human being and that I was under psychic attack. I mentally recited a cabalistic incantation (which I'd previously been taught through my involvement in Wicca and spiritualism) and the entity promptly vanished and the temperature returned to normal. Thus I was convinced that the figure wasn't human but that I was only witnessing what other people had already seen. No. I can't offer you material proof. Except to say it was not imagination and I was NOT on drugs as two schoolgirls had been when they claimed to have seen 'bodies rising from their graves' back in 1967. (The latter being a proposition which Mr. Manchester has always endorsed).

As for "Myth Buster" knowing 'so much about me' CLU, in fact, 'he' doesn't. 'He' is merely 'cutting and pasting' the usual material which he writes himself and plasters incessently all over the Internet.

That is why I intend to ignore it here and only stick to, and answer, genuine questions.

I do not intend to answer the ravings of a very sick mind. I don't really have to in any event. His ravings really say far more about himself than they ever could about me. People have often said that this person is obsessed with myself. Now he's merely proving it. Most unChristian!

For now,

David

[Darat]

I've moved a couple of posts from this thread by Myth Buster so I can review them later - they appear at a first glance to be in breach of my warning about trying to continue the personal feud on this Forum. However since Myth Buster will be banned if they are an attempt to continue the personal feud I'll take the time to examine more carefully.

And let me again restate this so the matter can be dropped.

Myth Buster is lying regarding this claim "Not "affiliated" with either party,....". If as he states he is not Sean Manchester then he is a close personal and/or business acquaintance of Sean Manchester.

[CatherineFearnley]

Well... In reviewing what we have so far, I'm going to be MIGHTY surprised if this is not just another way for Mr Farrant to self-publicise via this forum. Call it a hunch, or intuition, if you will.

However, I can be surprised. Carry on!

For Zep

We are not going to be self publicising anything. We did not create this thread. This was done because of a need of a separate thread for us to answer any questions and this is what we are and intend on doing. Nowhere have we listed any of our books or other sites. If other members of the forum which to do this then that is fine with us. Indeed other members have included several of our links in their posts. In fact we were not even aware of this forum until a couple of weeks back and a situation was pointed out to us.

I hope that this clarifies the situation for Zep but in the meantime please feel free to ask any further questions and again as stated elsewhere we'll answer them to the best of our ability.


Catherine

[DavidFarrant]

For Brodski,

For Brodski,
I’ll try and answer your three questions. It will have to be quite brief as each question could really merit a book on its own!
You ask if I am a psychic who investigates or just someone who investigates psychic phenomena.
I have never claimed to be a psychic; although I have put forward my views on Life (with a big ‘L’) and philosophy from time to time in the past. I do not think you can entirely separate psychic phenomena from the latter, as things claimed to be psychic are, after all, really a part of Life; or perhaps the ‘Universal Life Force’, which might be a better way of putting it.
The answer would have to be though that I am a non-psychic, but at the same time an ordinary person (don’t laugh!) who investigates psychic phenomena.
Do I accept the existence of blood-sucking vampires (in their literal sense)?
The answer is most definitely ‘no’, I do not and never have done.
But there are different types of ‘vampires, of course (I keep to the word ‘vampires’ to avoid any confusion, but it is not the right word). There are ‘human vampires’ of course. That is human beings who are quite capable of draining the mental energy of another. (And this also works both ways in that there are some people of ‘uplifting’ or re-vitalising another).
But to come to what I think you mean . . . Yes. I have come to accept that there are indeed some ‘outside presence’s’ or ‘non-worldly’ (i.e. non-physical) forces that can ‘drain people’ mentally. Such visitations usually take place at night and occur when a person is in asleep, or just falling asleep. These ‘entities’ have been reported since the dawn of history and are commonly known as the incubus and the Succubus. These are not ‘vampires’ as such, but the symptoms of their attacks could often be confused with those of alleged ‘vampires’, and vice versa. I have spoken to literally dozens of people over the years who claim to have experienced such nightly visitations. Yes. I would say that these are undoubtedly genuine. I do not claim to know the Cause, but I can certainly testify to the effects.
You ask what is my ‘best evidence’ for the existence of psychic phenomena?
This is really a loaded question! I do not have evidence ‘in my pocket’, but I can certainly testify to many unexplained occurrences that can not be explained by any physical or rational means.
I have witnessed drastic changes in temperature at certain locations on many occasions. I have also witnessed material objects move, apparently of their own volition. I have witnessed the effects such (psychic) energy can have upon electrical systems; not least by causing electrical clocks to stop simultaneously or to cause light bulbs to fade, even explode. I have seen a person thrown to the ground (with some considerable force) in a reputedly haunted place when there was nobody in the vicinity who could have otherwise caused this.
I have witnessed the effects this ‘energy’ can have upon some animals, and far more besides.
Well, I hope these very simple answers go some way to answering your questions. I suppose it is unlikely that you might agree. But again I say, I am only testifying to the EFFECTS of such occurrences. I am not claiming to know the exact Cause.
For the moment,
David

[Darat]

OK you have witnessed many of these events over many years - do you have any documentary evidence bar your statements (or other eye witness statements) for example film or video footage?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
You ask what is my ‘best evidence’ for the existence of psychic phenomena?
This is really a loaded question! I do not have evidence ‘in my pocket’, but I can certainly testify to many unexplained occurrences that can not be explained by any physical or rational means.
<snip>


How in the world is this a loaded question? He presupposed nothing in the framing of the question that would force you to accept something you do not agree with in order to answer the question; unless you are disagreeing with the possibility of having evidence of psychic phenomena. It's a very simple, and fair question. Given your years of investigation, what N number of pieces of evidence do you find most supportive of your assertion that psychic phenomena exists?

[Clu]

To DavidF:

I think that Darat asks a pretty good question, where's your evidence? Not your own testimony but a more - excuse the frase - reliable source such as pics, vids or any other recording

[DavidFarrant]

For Darat and Psychic Guy,

First, Psychic Guy, can I just say that I went back to answer your question about 'types of vampires' but I find that I have already really answered this in my reply to Brodski just back. I hope that is a sufficient answer, but of course ask anything else if you want.

For Darat,

I have accumalated dozens upon dozens of personal witness statements over the years. And scores more signed letters that I have permission to use.

If you are asking if I have any sensational 'ghost footage' on film (video or otherwise) I am afraid the answer is 'no'. But this has certainly not been through lack of trying. Some very strange things have happened on camera (or with camera equipment to be more precise) but there is nothing that could be presented as 'solid' or physical evidence.

Let me give you but one short example.

In 1984, some of us were keeping a nightly vigil next to a 'haunted lake' just some 30 miles north of London. The ghost of a 'white lady' had been locally reported disappearing into the lake.

At around 4 am we all witnessed a 'white shape' gliding across the middle of the lake. A friend of mine 'snapped off' three photographs of this but when later developed those negatives were blank; notstanding that all the other photographs we had taken of the lake beforehand were all intact.

I guess that it hardly evidence, but that incident was witnessed by other people, notstanding that there are only three blank negatives to support it.

I should perhaps add, that on several occasions the light meter on my old SLR camera refused to function at a few reputedly haunted locations - the Ancient Ram Inn being one of them.

Sorry if this seems to be an 'anti-climax', but I have never really made any sensational claims to the contrary.

David (Farrant)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

How about a more simplified question; do you have any evidence you can present that is not anecdotal in nature?

[CLD]

At around 4 am we all witnessed a 'white shape' gliding across the middle of the lake. A friend of mine 'snapped off' three photographs of this but when later developed those negatives were blank; notstanding that all the other photographs we had taken of the lake beforehand were all intact......I should perhaps add, that on several occasions the light meter on my old SLR camera refused to function at a few reputedly haunted locations - the Ancient Ram Inn being one of them.

Hi David,

Re: the above

1. "post hoc" reasoning" - blank negatives, trouble with light meter = ghost did it

2. "count the hits, ignore the misses"- forget the 50 times equipment misfunctioned in ordinary circumstances, remember the 2 times it misfunctioned in "haunted" surroundings

You seem to have been around the world of supernatural claims for many years. What is your opinion of scientific scepticism?

[Luke T.]

I so hate that when ghosts appear at 4 a.m. in the middle of lakes I forget to take off my lens cap.

[wombatwal]

I am very naive about these ghosts appearing at lakes, cemeteries etc.
But do they only appear at night or in dimly lit places.

[Psiload]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

[/B]

At around 4 am we all witnessed a 'white shape' gliding across the middle of the lake. A friend of mine 'snapped off' three photographs of this but when later developed those negatives were blank; notstanding that all the other photographs we had taken of the lake beforehand were all intact.

Are there any swans to be found in the area of the lake? I'm asking because I used to live on a lake that was home to many swans, and on certain nights, when the moonlight was just so, the sawns would appear as shimmering white shapes gliding across the lake. It was eerie... as a matter of fact, my wife and I used to say, "The ghosts are back." whenever the phenomenon occured.

Just a thought.

[DavidFarrant]

For Psiload,

Thanks for that, Psiload. Swans would have indded provided a logical explanation, except there weren't any. There were no ducks either but there was a group of small moorhens around the edge, but these are tiny black birds and in any event do not come out at night,

We did in fact check the origanal location shots for anything the 'eye might have missed' but there was nothing. No apparent variments or reflections of light on the water; absolutely nothing.

What perhaps interested me so much about this case was the definite element of water involved. Many of our ourdoor investigations at the time were centered at locations where such apparitions had been reported and the element of water had been involved. It would be safe to say that in a large percentage of cases such 'apparitions' (or 'pictures' as I prefer to call them) had been connected in some way to the element of water. If there was no lake, river or stream visibly present, then we would often find that it had just been raining (or actually ws raining) or low pressure was present, such as the 'heavy' or 'close' atmosphere that often precedes a thunder storm. I came to the conclusion many years ago that there is some definite connection between these reported 'pictures' (whether they be 'pictures' of 'human' figures, animals or even objects - such as coaches or lond since demolished buildings) and the element of water. And 'no', I can't prove it so please don't ask me to! I can onle produce physical case records where the element of water has come to the fore.

Thanks for your response,

David

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

How about a more simplified question; do you have any evidence you can present that is not anecdotal in nature?
DavidFarrant?

[omegablue]

WolfShade, I think he already said that he does not have any evidence of the kind you want.

By the way i have another simply and direct question to David:

Arent those claims of succubus and incubus related to sleep paralysis only? I don´t see any claims of that kind meaning that these entities literally appear to people during normal waking states of consciousness and do suck energy from them.

regards

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

WolfShade, I think he already said that he does not have any evidence of the kind you want.

By the way i have another simply and direct question to David:

Arent those claims of succubus and incubus related to sleep paralysis only? I don´t see any claims of that kind meaning that these entities literally appear to people during normal waking states of consciousness and do suck energy from them.

regards
I'd like a clear yes/no from him, rather than the somewhat evasive one posted before. If the answer is "no", then there is little reason in continue the discussion as to the claims of past encounters and the discussion should, perhaps, refocus on what could be done to provide objective evidence in the future.

[Ducky]

I'd like a clear yes/no from him, rather than the somewhat evasive one posted before. If the answer is "no", then there is little reason in continue the discussion as to the claims of past encounters and the discussion should, perhaps, refocus on what could be done to provide objective evidence in the future.

I agree.

[DavidFarrant]

For Omegablue,

For Omegablue,
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no apparent evidence that these entities [I assume you mean if these even exist at all] ever appear to people, or manifest, during normal (waking or everyday) states of consciousness.
I have to say that I agree with that entirely; I have not come across any evidence for this either.
But then I can only ask why it is that these ‘attacks’ or visitations invariably take place when a given person is in a ‘sleeping state’. (Often people are abruptly awakened to become aware that such an ‘attack’ or ‘visitation’ is taking place).
My own understanding of this, is that it could just be that the ‘everyday thinking mind’ which is operative when people are fully awake, is lulled or at rest when people are asleep, and therefore no longer acts as a 'barrier' to prevent other deeper levels of consciousness from become operative; or actually, on occasion manifesting themselves so that they can be glimpsed or observed by the conscious mind (which is apparently what happens when people are suddenly awoken from sleep to find themselves being subjected to these attacks).
You mention ‘sleep paralysis’ and I will not attempt to question here whether these entities (the Incubus and Succubus) were originally projections to explain sleep paralysis, or whether such entities do not exist at all and the symptoms experienced are only really due to the state of sleep paralysis.
That would really be an impossible argument, and I could not take it up because I frankly don’t know.
But I do know what the common symptoms of sleep paralysis are, whether put these down to ‘visiting entities’ or not.
In general, people are invariably awakened to become aware of a strong sensation of ‘pins and needles’ in their arms or legs, or both. Within seconds they become aware of a heavy pressure on their chests or middle (although somebody was kneeling on them) and are soon rendered totally immobile unable to move or even cry out. These attacks can last for a few minutes sometimes; although obviously it seems much longer that that to the particular person experiencing the ‘attack’. I have come to understand that also there is sometimes a ‘sexual element involved’ during these ‘visitations’, but many people are recultant to mention this due to embarrassment.
It is perhaps worth noting that there are other common symptoms that affect people experiencing these ‘attacks’:
People (perhaps I should say ‘victims’) experiencing these nightly ‘attacks’ (I use the word ‘attacks’ without commitment to whether these are ‘internal’ or ‘external’) often begin to have vivid dreams (often nightmares), become prone to bouts of sleep-walking and, in their waking hours, lose their appetites and develop an aversion to sunlight or bright light. They can also become lethargic and weak – although I suppose you could put this down to the strain of the experiences themselves and a genuine fear to go to sleep.
I do not know what is the actual cause behind these nightly ‘attacks’, but I do know that these frequently occur world-wide and constitute a fearsome reality to those people experiencing them.
For now,
David (Farrant)

[Darat]

For Omegablue,

For Omegablue,
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no apparent evidence that these entities [I assume you mean if these even exist at all] ever appear to people, or manifest, during normal (waking or everyday) states of consciousness.
I have to say that I agree with that entirely; I have not come across any evidence for this either.
But then I can only ask why it is that these ‘attacks’ or visitations invariably take place when a given person is in a ‘sleeping state’. (Often people are abruptly awakened to become aware that such an ‘attack’ or ‘visitation’ is taking place).


...snip...

Have you ever heard of "sleep paralysis (http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/S_P2.html)"?

[omegablue]

It is perhaps worth noting that there are other common symptoms that affect people experiencing these ‘attacks’:
People (perhaps I should say ‘victims’) experiencing these nightly ‘attacks’ (I use the word ‘attacks’ without commitment to whether these are ‘internal’ or ‘external’) often begin to have vivid dreams (often nightmares), become prone to bouts of sleep-walking and, in their waking hours, lose their appetites and develop an aversion to sunlight or bright light. They can also become lethargic and weak – although I suppose you could put this down to the strain of the experiences themselves and a genuine fear to go to sleep.

Well David, I think this is the crucial point in which perhaps fact may become myth and lead to vampire histories. If people start to suffer regularly from sleep paralysis it may imply that person is suffering from mental stress, or some difficulty to get asleep or any other known reasons why people should start to experience sleep paralysis. Most of them are related to tiredness or mental stress. It is no wonder if these people are found to be weak and turn to avoid sunlight while feeling weak by this constant lack of sleep or sleep inadequacies . I myself become weak to sunlight in the next morning if I do not sleep or sleep for a few hours. Sunlight surely irritates my sight when I´m on sleep deficit.

I think if some paranormal phenomenon would exist in this specific case of attacks, it would be the alleged subtle body of energy, which was studied and believed to exist by for example Wolfgang Pauli , a renowned and important physicist alongside with his friend and former co-worker and also famous, psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung who studied the unconscious for his entire life. The idea of the subtle body could be a fuel to start the fire of the ancient soul myth. This energy body is also present in the chinese medicine, called on western world "alternative medicine", which includes chakras (hindu terminology) or points of high energy concentrations and flows in the exact middle of the body. This energy would also perhaps equal to the "chi" claims of channeling energies in some body parts by moving your meditating mind´s awareness to that points. By being on a meditative state which favors visualization, you actually feel the physical tinglings and real energy sensations moving from part to part. I myself was skeptical about the existence of these strange things until I became curious enough in order to start practicing the alleged methods of inducing trance in order to have OBE or "astral projections". I can say that these things are very real and are mostly alike to all people who experience it. The most common effects are felt by almost everyone who describes the experience.

Right before you feel like leaving the body , you may be stuck in a state in which you seem to experience a lot of entities around you, often of threatening nature. This is the mental state in which people often says about being attacked, sexually abused, drained or being pressured on the chest. The difference is that people have it by accident, spontaneously or by a physical problem like those science in general speculates to be associated with repeated sleep paralysis episodes. When I´m about to induce these experiences, exactly before it triggers, I feel my body strangely energized from the chest and head flowing to the other parts. It is often so overwhelming that you may be in panic and wake temporarily paralyzed or with heavy tingling and energy sensations throughout the body.

Note carefully that i´m not saying that there is in fact a suble body, but all the sensations listed above are real and everyone who tries the method with some patience is able to induce these strange experiences. And as there is no scientific explanation as for why all this unknown energy do flow throughout the body while tranced, I found this model of a subtle body or subtle energy an interesting starting approach, for reasons I could talk later if someone would be interested.

Ohh I could go on all night long about the possible causes of these sensations of being abducted, but as it relates to this discussion I think I´ve explained my opinions about that matter. The crucial point is not the existence of the phenomena but HOW people do interpret them. Let me know what you think.


regards

[DavidFarrant]

For Omegablue,
Thank you for your long reply. It makes a change to talk to someone who is not ‘over-sceptic’!
I think you summed up an essential point at the end of your reply when you said that the crucial point is not [about] the existence of these phenomena but how people interpret them.
Yes. It surely depends on interpretation, as this phenomena is too wide-spread to deny it exists, anymore than you could really deny that people dream. They do. We all do. (And no, I am certainly highly sceptical myself of ‘dream interpretation’ and think that much of this is based on ‘fantasy ground’).
So, we are aware of the general symptoms of such ‘sleep attacks’ (and I have extensive first hand cases on file victims of such ‘paralysis’ all describing or experiencing virtually identical symptoms), but the other essential question is, what is the actual cause?
Let me say, that I think you have explained some possible causes clearly and concisely, at least, as far as it is possible to explain or point out the reality of other stages or states of consciousness. (By the way, I am not claiming to have exclusive knowledge of other levels of consciousness but I know that these exist, albeit that most people live their entire lives without experiencing these).
While on the important question of Cause, please let me stress here what I know the Cause is NOT. (Not good English, I’m sorry, but I think we have to dismiss technical grammar here!).
I can not accept that these ‘sleep attacks’ are the result of any visiting spirits or ‘demons’ (Incubus and/or Succubus). I am afraid I am not a great believer in ‘outside entities’ or ‘spirits’ – at least, in the manner these are so often described ‘parrot fashion’ and so flippantly.
But having said this, it is perhaps easy to see how visiting ‘entities’ or ‘demons’ have been explained to be a cause, often the main cause.
Unlike yourself, people generally undergoing such ‘sleep attacks’ have little or no idea as to what is really going on (add to this the obsessive superstition and belief in demons in past centuries), and so they may be quick to put down such attacks (the paralysis and sexual element as well) to the intervention of ‘outside intelligence’s. Indeed, some people are even convinced that they have become ‘possessed’; a fact not helped by the opinions of some clergy – and others – who recommend some sort of exorcism be conducted.
In other words, it is perhaps easy to see how belief in the alleged existence of the Incubus and Succubus (and other alleged ‘outside intelligence’s for that matter; including all sorts of supposed demons and the devil) came into existence. These may just be projections of the human psyche – no more, no less.
I am not trying to suggest that a false or misguided belief in the cause, makes the reality of these ‘sleep attacks’ any less real. Try telling that to the people that have experienced them!
But in essence I must agree with yourself, that any potential understanding of these ‘attacks’ must begin with the human psyche itself, or the recognition that there do exist other levels of consciousness. Not just ‘three’ as Freud tried to maintain (conscious. subconscious and unconscious) but perhaps dozens upon dozens; some obviously ‘nearer the surface’ (or closer to waking consciousness) than others.
I do not know what the actual causes of these common ‘sleep attacks’ are. But I like to think that I know what they are not.
Coming from myself of all people, perhaps, that might sound a little strange. I just think that many cases of psychic phenomena, whilst perhaps being witnessed and in that sense valid, are not totally independent of human consciousness, or rather the human mind.
For now,
David

[Big Les]

Diverted from this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71335&page=15)

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

David - just to try to clarify what the others are saying about the old "keeping an open mind" chestnut. The fact that you think it reasonable to suggest that there might be such things as psychic attacks, psychics vampires etc is your own subjective take on "what might be beyond our six senses". Others believe that it's reasonable to posit headless ghosts, fairies, and countless other ideas. You join us in dismissing those, yet talk about things that as far as the evidence goes, are no more or less likely to exist. To you, hell, even to some of us sceptics, a headless ghost might seem less likely than your psychic concepts. But that's just your personal "threshold" for what seems reasonable, common sense, not too far out of left field.

But whether it seems that way to us or not, as sceptics we apply the same standards across the board; you need evidence for your psychic ideas just as the Hampton Court fans need it for their ghost, just as the Bigfoot aficionados need it for their (even more plausible yet equally lacking in evidence) upright ape. Hence Cuddles' urging us not to keep our minds "so open that our brains fall out". I hope that clears up our position. Note that most here only get agitated when people actually claim that X is the case, and especially when they try to persuade others of this or (even worse) make money off the back of it. You don't seem to have done any of this, and are rather making casual observations of your take on things. Above all, you've been polite and refused to get defensive yourself, which is great. But there's always going to be a certain amount of "grilling" if you offer thoughts along supernatural lines without offering evidence for this; try not to take offence if people start getting "short" with you. Just take that as an indication that the discussion is becoming circular and perhaps leave it at that.

[DavidFarrant]

Thanks for clarfying that Big Les,

Sorry not to have got back before, but its sometimes difficult to remember thngs in order with so many other things to do. Quite apartfrom all the responses elsewhere and trying to keep all the publications up to date, I'm also caught up in two legal processes at present which need almost constant attention. (No! not against me - one which I instigated myself, the other in which I'm just involved for somebody else).

I do understand what you say. I just wanted to make the point that I have really not made any specific claims, if anything, only discussed claims or beliefs that are already in existence.

(I am dismissing the 30-35 year-old newspaper reports that Manchester keeps desperately trying to introduce. The majority of those have been taken deliberately out of context to confuse events as these actually occurred. I was acquitted on many of the charges to which the police statements related, but this is conveniently not mentioned).

I hope I made it clear to the moderators, that I wished to deal only with Manchester's (outrageous) claims. This I have tried to do, but it is difficult when people constantly keep demanding that I produce 'evidence' Ironically, perhaps, I am just as much a sceptic to many of these things (particularly many alleged cases of 'psychic phenomena) as other poeple are. Maybe its partly just not allowed to be at all sceptical because of what I'm seen to represent! I don't know.

Anyway, thanks again,

For the moment,

David

[Big Les]

David,

Thanks for your response. It's often the case that people have some area or subject to which they don't necessarily apply the same sceptical approach that they do otherwise, and there are many reasons for that. I'm not going to "evangelise" about throwing out any beliefs you may have; that's not the idea. You've clearly understood where we're coming from in our approach, and you rightly say that you haven't made any claims as such. It's a somewhat atypical situation anyway, drawn here as you were by the Manchester ferrago. I can't help but think that if Manchester had taken your attitude and approach to his arrival here, there might have been a reasonable debate about the whole thing. Or perhaps just a massive flamewar; who knows?!

[Cuddles]

I do understand what you say. I just wanted to make the point that I have really not made any specific claims, if anything, only discussed claims or beliefs that are already in existence.

The answer is at at first (that is right at the onset) I did not realise the figure was supernatural. It appeared to be clad in a dark cloak and the 'points of light' that I took to be its eyes, I initially assuned had been made by some hidden torch or something. In short, I initially thought it was some very hunan person who had heard the local stories abot a vampire (which had cleverly been spread by one particular individual for the purposes of gaining personal publicity) and was dressed up as one trying to frighten passers by. But in a matter of seconds, this impression changed. The area around me suddenly turned icy cold (like a fridge) and the 'thing' seemed to trying to 'hypnotise' me. Put another way, I felt I was quickly being 'drained of energy' and was being forced into some 'enticed sleep'. I realised then that it ws no human being and that I was under psychic attack. I mentally recited a cabalistic incantation (which I'd previously been taught through my involvement in Wicca and spiritualism) and the entity promptly vanished and the temperature returned to normal. Thus I was convinced that the figure wasn't human but that I was only witnessing what other people had already seen. No. I can't offer you material proof. Except to say it was not imagination and I was NOT on drugs as two schoolgirls had been when they claimed to have seen 'bodies rising from their graves' back in 1967. (The latter being a proposition which Mr. Manchester has always endorsed).


Bolding mine. While I appreciate your reasonable tone, your claim that you have simply discussed other people's claims and not made any of your own is quite blatantly false. A cynical person could suspect you of deliberately lying in order to avoid coming under the same pressure to provide evidence for your beliefs as Manchester. I should remind you again that Manchester (or whoever) was banned for his behaviour, not because we were supporting you over him. Most people think your beliefs are exactly as silly as his, and if you bring them up on this forum, as you have done, people will ask for evidence. If you continue to dodge questions and lie about your previous posts you will be held to account for this.

[DavidFarrant]

FOR CUDDLES,

No I was not lying. What seems to be happening is that you are attributing your own interpretation/s to myself, and then expecting me to answer some erroneous assumption.

What I described actually happened (whatever it was that happened) to myself as a personal experience. It seemed so real that at first (in the very first moments I thought it was a very human being dressed up). I am not avoiding this issue (I have spoken about it publicly on many occasions and I described it in my books).

I described that experience here mainly because of all the distorted nonsense Manchester has circulated about it, to the effect that it was a ‘blood-sucking vampire’ – which it was not.

So you are quite entitled to refer to it as I publicly stated it here as well. But please don’t accuse me of lying about it because I never made any claims about it here: I just recalled an event that had happened (if you don’t believe this, just read back again).

Had I been asked any questions about this either by other people or yourself, and I had then made claims about it (for example that I knew or could ‘prove’ what it was; then that would have been a slightly different matter).

There is one other thing here, if you don’t mind me pointing it out: why is it you seem to attach so much importance to an event (or events) of 37 years ago? (like Manchester does all the time). Do you not think you could get slightly relevant answers if you dealt with events in the present?

I was just recording the sequence of events as this particular incident occurred at the time, without making any ‘claims’ about it other than to state that the entity was not natural or ‘human’ – notwithstanding that this appeared to take on a human form.

What I wrote was a description of what happened. Can you point out for me where I claimed I knew what it was?

As a matter of fact, even to this day, I am convinced that this ‘figure’ was psychic by nature. And remember also, what I witnessed several other local people had already witnessed and reported before I had seen it.

What was it? I honestly don’t know. I can tell you, however, that it was certainly not a ‘vampire’!

For now,

David (Farrant)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Let's break this down.

Mr. Farrant,

Could you please address the following:
1) How long have you been investigating paranormal phenomenon?
2) If you had to, and you do for this post, pick one case/investigation/incident/event that you feel would be the best to present in support of your work, what would it be?
3) What elements of #2 are objective (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/objective) in nature and are at least risk for subjective (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/subjective) interpretation (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/interpretation)?

[Cuddles]

Can you point out for me where I claimed I knew what it was?

OK

I was just recording the sequence of events as this particular incident occurred at the time, without making any ‘claims’ about it other than to state that the entity was not natural or ‘human’ – notwithstanding that this appeared to take on a human form.

Here you claim that is was not natural or human, therefore you are claiming it was paranormal.

As a matter of fact, even to this day, I am convinced that this ‘figure’ was psychic by nature. And remember also, what I witnessed several other local people had already witnessed and reported before I had seen it.

Here again you claim it was "psychic", another paranormal claim.

What was it? I honestly don’t know. I can tell you, however, that it was certainly not a ‘vampire’!

And here you claim is was not a vampire, and while I'm sure most of us agree, this is in fact a claim.

There is one other thing here, if you don’t mind me pointing it out: why is it you seem to attach so much importance to an event (or events) of 37 years ago? (like Manchester does all the time). Do you not think you could get slightly relevant answers if you dealt with events in the present?

Relevant to what? You claim to have experienced paranormal events, I have simply asked you for evidence and to explain why you believe this. I have also asked why you keep saying you have not claimed anything, despite direct quotes from you where you very clearly do. If you think it would help to discuss more recent events where you claim paranormal phenomena then feel free to present them to us, but I cannot discuss claims you make if you do not talk about them. So far you have only said anything about events from long ago, and so I have asked, along with others, for more information. If you believe this is somehow unreasonable then you are definately in the wrong place.

[DavidFarrant]

For Archan Wolfshadee and Cuddles,

I would just ask you both to accept a quick acknowledgement here just for the immediate moment. I am NOT evading answering your 2/3 questions Archan W. At least you have asked me straightforward and understandable questions, as compared to previously. Having said that, I have a meeting here tonight so will have to do it after that.

For Cuddles,

We don't really seem to be getting anywhere with your question when I have already answered it.

OK. Quickly try again . . .

I am not denying that I claimed the 'entity' was 'psychic' by nature - I never have. What I said was - and am saying again as you seem not to have grasped it- was that I have never made any direct claim or claims to explain its appearance. I have never said 'it was this' or 'it was that', and it follows that I have never made any claim that I could prove what it was. (What it was NOT, maybe, and again, it was not a vampire).

May I put it another way for you to perhaps help you understand it? Lets remove the word 'psychic' which I use often for sake of easy convenience. I witnessed the materialisation of some unknown energy which was not physical and certainly not human. So much is fact. The only other observation I made was that I felt that I was 'being drained of energy'. I do not know what it was. I can say, however, that several independent people since (some recently) have reported being 'drained of energy, in the same immediate area (without actually seeing any manifestation) which indicates to me personally, that this is still active and maybe caused by some 'energy spot' on the earth's surface. That is not a claim; it is just my personal opinion based on what actually happened to myself and what has since happened to other people who have reported a similiar thing. And, 'no', I can't prove it. If you are unable to accept this - then don't! Nobody is really forcing you to believe it; least of all myself.

I will reply to you soon Archan W.

So 'till later,

David

[Cuddles]

The only other observation I made was that I felt that I was 'being drained of energy'. I do not know what it was. I can say, however, that several independent people since (some recently) have reported being 'drained of energy, in the same immediate area (without actually seeing any manifestation) which indicates to me personally, that this is still active and maybe caused by some 'energy spot' on the earth's surface. That is not a claim;

Do you seriously not understand what a claim is?

I witnessed the materialisation of some unknown energy which was not physical and certainly not human. So much is fact.

That is a claim. It is a paranormal claim. It is a claim that you have definitive proof (hence the word "fact") of some phenomenon that is not physical, and is therefore unkown to science. It does not matter that you don't know what it is, or that you don't use the word "psychic" or "ghost" or whatever. You are claiming that something paranormal has happened.

In addition to this you are implicitly claiming that there are "energy spots" on the Earth, and since this cannot be any type of energy currently known to science, you are also claiming that there is a new type of energy that must be, by definition, paranormal. And since you apparently know these spots exist, you are also implicitly claiming to be able to detect them.

It is not embarrassing to believe in the paranormal. Many people do. Most of us on this forum are not believers and spend some of our time helping people who are find explanations that actually agree with the real world. We often learn new things ourselves. Many of us even live in the hope that something new will be discovered, be it new types of energy, psychic powers or ghosts. However, what we do not look upon kindly is people who are deliberately deceitful.

At this point you have two choices. It is clear to everyone reading the threads you have posted in that you have made claims. To quote again
I witnessed the materialisation of some unknown energy which was not physical and certainly not human.
This is a claim. Now, you could be a reasonable person, admit that you have made claims and discuss them or not as you see fit. This is what any honest person would do. Or you can carry on denying the very obvious facts and be exposed as either a deliberate fraud or just hopelessly delusional. It is your choice, but most people here will not be so friendly with someone who is either a proven liar or incapable of understanding simple English.

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

Another quick reply to:
In addition to this you are implicitly claiming that there are "energy spots" on the Earth, and since this cannot be any type of energy currently known to science, you are also claiming that there is a new type of energy that must be, by definition, paranormal. And since you apparently know these spots exist, you are also implicitly claiming to be able to detect them.

Actually, I did not say this. YOU did! (See above). That is your interpretation of what I originally stated.

You are again trying to 'put words into my mouth', Cuddles.

I did not 'claim' anything about 'discovering energy spots'. I said that this could be an optician in the case stated. Again read back. If you do, carefully, you will see that this is your own interpretation - or misinterpretation about 'energy spots' - not mine!

If you want to quote what I originally said, then at least please be accurate!

For now,

David (Farrant).

[CLD]

From "Interview With David Farrant"*
http://www.davidfarrant.org/Interviews.html

DF: There are certain methods I can't really talk about. But the Society get together to form a psychic chain and direct the psychic energy towards the person in question., a bit like an exorcism. We very rarely do this unless its a very serious case, and this was a very serious case.

I: Why can't you talk about it?

DF: There are certain things we're not supposed to discuss and, even if we did, people wouldn't really understand them. But there are certain talismans, symbols and words that contain power if they are utilized in the right manner. Its nothing sensational, but its kept secret because some of them have been known for centuries and have been handed down. One of the reasons for secrecy is that if they become known, they'd be abused.

David, while not an overt claim, the above certainly implies a claim that psychic energy is real. (In any case, I'm interested in knowing the secrets and I promise I won't abuse them.)

*From reading the above interview and your responses in this forum, I get the impression that you have mastered the art of intentionally creating an impression that something is factual while denying you have made any claim that it's factual.

[DavidFarrant]

For Wolfshade and CLU,

You quoted an interview I gave whereby I was asked why I was not allowed to discuss certain things; in this case 'words of power'. You quoted my answer whereby I replied that I could not discuss certain things to protect such things from misunderstanding and abuse.

Well, you know, CLU, you have really answered your own question. In other words, words and thoughts really have no power in themselves,; they only have the 'power' we invest in them.

As you have read that interview, who may also have gathered that many years ago, I had been Initiated into an esoretic Order - hence my reply.

But getting away from that:

Wolfbane asked me yesterday how long I had been investigating the paranormal.

In relatively vague terms (without giving precise weeks or months), I rally became actively involved in the esorteric Order towars the end of 1963, but my 'on the ground' research into the paranormal and physchic phenomena really began after the mid 1960's.

A particular case that I have regarded as significant? They have all been, if it comes to that, even a majority when 'nothing happened'. For it has often been the case when we may have arranged a nightly watch (that obviously included getting available people there and organised and setting up necessary equipment), nothing 'out of the ordinary' had been observed or recorded.

In many other cases, things occurred that could not be explained by way of a normal explanation (eg distinct but unexplainable sounds or noises, drops in temperature in certain areas, unexplainable effects upon objects - often electrical equipment, and certainly direct effects upon animals either taken, or enticed, into a given location or area. And yes, we have sometimes caught unexplainable 'light manifestations, or 'images' on night vision cameras, commonly on static (left playing) LP video tape.

On much rarer occasions, I have personally seen objects move or fall without ant human intervention (physical intervention, I should say) and I have witnessed people being 'pushed' - even pushed over to the ground - by some 'invisible force' at a few locations.

Probably, some of the most memorable 'watches' took place in rural North Wales. I was certainly fascinated by many inexplicable lights in the sky seen high in the clear air over the mountains. These have been seen by hundreds of independent residents over the years (and the police have many reports on file) but, before you even think it!, no, I do not accept the existence of UFO's. But something is causing these and they must remain without any apparent material explanation.

I hope this goes some way in answering your question, Wolfshade. It is really the best I can do with the limited space available here.

For the moment,

David (Farrant)

[Expression_man]

Mr Farrant

I recently stated in a thread I made, regarding out of body experiences, that I wouldn't post again in this forum again until I had something to offer people with regards to proof. Having read your accounts here and experienced what we will call "psychic attack" first-hand, allow me to convey the reality of the situation we are faced with.

We are struggling against an overwhelming bias which has come about due to a mental critique lacking those critical experiences described by you. It is not a part of the reality in this place. While I am aware that we do not speak for eachother and that you would also be highly critical of my own experiences, the problem is the same.

I am responding to this thread because it is evident to me that you are not the type who wastes hours discussing these things in internet forum communities. This place is a breeding ground for selective thinking and should not be taken seriously, ever. Any example, or set of examples, you relay will be taken out of context in an endeavor to describe them by another means which will seem more plausible to the people in question.

My thread was hostile in nature and was part of a reaction I had to James Randi's well-known cynicism. While you have, with good grace, bore the insults to your name you have not had much success in explaining to these people that which lies beyond their current means of perception.

It is a trap. You have been provoked into coming here and the people have been conditioned to refute everything you say, no matter how reasonably you convey the subject material. You have not been shown the same level of respect you continue to offer and it is perhaps time to reconsider what, if any, fruit this place will bear if you continue to respond to its members.

You have bore the insults with good grace and responded kindly to those with questions and, as far as I am concerned, that is a better measure of a man rather than how critical his thinking may be.

Please do not allow yourself to be provoked by these people. They become angry the moment their world view is compromised.

Whatever you decide to do keep in mind that there are those who visit this place while searching for answers and that you are providing variables worth considering.

Do not respond to this as it will only derail the discussion. I am merely angered by the level of ignorance this place harbors, you need not be.

Stay well.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Mr. Farrant,

My screen-name is Arkan_Wolfshade. Not Archon, or Archan, or Wolfbane. You are either doing a poor job reading, which would call in to question your abilities as an investigator; or you are intentionally changing my screen name.

In either case, I would highly recommend that you pay closer attention to what is posted.

[DavidFarrant]

For Archan Wolfshade,

I am sorry about my apparent mistake in mispelling your name when trying to answer your question. I notice that you made no comment about your original requested answer; just a comment about my spelling error.

Please note: this was NOT deliberate, as you seemed to imply.

You may have noted that I do not paste replies (questions or answers) in my answers. I merely summarise points instead before answering them. That is just my habit as a writer. If I mispelled your pen name, again I am sorry. And again, this was not deliberate.

Call it 'fatigue', non-attention to my terrible typing, or what you will. But it was really not with the intention with which you now seem to be taking it!

For the moment,

David (Farrant)

[Cuddles]

I did not 'claim' anything about 'discovering energy spots'. I said that this could be an optician in the case stated. Again read back. If you do, carefully, you will see that this is your own interpretation - or misinterpretation about 'energy spots' - not mine!

If you want to quote what I originally said, then at least please be accurate!

OK, once again

indicates to me personally, that this is still active and maybe caused by some 'energy spot' on the earth's surface.

This is exactly what you said. There is no point trying to wriggle out of this. You made claims. You said this was a psychic phenomenon. If you believe this but do not want to discuss it then just say so. The more you deny having said things that appear just a post above your denial, the more you seem like either a deluded fool or a wilful liar.

In addition, I should point out that this thread was started for a reason : to discuss your claims and your evidence for them.

What would you consider the best evidence which you have gathered for the existence of the paranormal, vampires or psychic phenomena?

To continue posting here while denying the former and refusing to provide the latter would seem more than a little silly.

[Cuddles]

Please do not allow yourself to be provoked by these people. They become angry the moment their world view is compromised.

:id:

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

Firstly Cuddles, you are not 'provoking' me as you suggest in the comment you posted by somebody else.

The truth is, I just find you to be extremely niave when it comes to the question of the paranormal and psychic phenomena in general.

You seem far too fond of playing, or relying, on material words which cannot, in any case, properly define the immaterial.

I said that there MAYBE 'energy spots' on the Earth's surface (actually I was only referring to one possibility in one particular case) not that there definitely ARE. There is a world of difference between these between these two descriptions; the former would represent a theory or possibility (not a claim) while the latter (which I did NOT state here) would have otherwise been a claim.

I am not in the business of making definite statements of fact about things psychic and/or paranormal. That is just the same as asserting that such things 'definitely do not exist', it is just the other side of precisely the same coin.

You know (really no offence intended) I get the impression that you exist in a very stark world; a world made up only of black and white with no room for varying shades in between. That is obviously a matter for you. But at least allow for the Reality of Life, or the right of other to explore this free of the bounds and strict limitations of brooding materialism.

Why can you not (and again I mean this without offence) ask me something sensible raher than arguing about material words? Try it. You might be pleasantly surprised!

For the moment,

David (Farrant)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Less hand waving, and more facts please.

[Paul]

I just find you to be extremely niave when it comes to the question of the paranormal and psychic phenomena in general.Actually most people in this thread are exactly the opposite of naive on the subject, it is you who appears to be credulous.


You seem far too fond of playing, or relying, on material words which cannot, in any case, properly define the immaterial.Of course they can define it, that's what they're for, they just can't show it's existence.


I said that there MAYBE 'energy spots' on the Earth's surfaceNo you didn't you said the cause maybe "some 'energy spot' on the earth's surface" which indicates that you are unsure about the cause, not the existence of energy spots.


I am not in the business of making definite statements of fact about things psychic and/or paranormal.Then what is the point of years of research?


That is just the same as asserting that such things 'definitely do not exist', it is just the other side of precisely the same coin.Saying 'well, I can't really say, maybe, maybe not' is not the opposite of 'there is no reliable evidence for the existence of the paranormal, therefore I choose not to believe until such time as evidence may become available'.


at least allow for the Reality of Life,As has been pointed out to many people, on many occasions here, the reality of life is far stranger and far more intriguing than anything paranormalists have come up with.


Why can you not... snip ...ask me something sensible raher than arguing about material words? Try it. You might be pleasantly surprised!We only have words to argue with, their correct use is important if we are to understand each other's position correctly.

As for asking something sensible, you avoid providing anything but vague hints in reply to any question; please, tell us the kind of question you would consider sensible and which would elicit a full response.

[DavidFarrant]

For Paul,

I must say I slightly surprised to see you answer a reply that I sent in response to someome else (i.e. 'Cuddles). It doesn't really matter, I suppose, as I'm sure she (he?) will see it.

Just to say, I do not really want to invent questions for myself, as you virtually suggested.

Having said that, please ask me anything you want. As long as it is relevant to the general subject of the paranormal (and not a continueous play on meaningless words - that is, words taken out of original context), I do not mind.

After all, Brodski did start this discussion Thread for me, which is basically why I've remained here. If you read his starting remark, he also asks people to be courteous about the subject. I think most people have, with the exception of one or two who seem more concerned with a 'love affair' over the grammatical meaning of words or phases!

Forget all that. If you have a question on the subject (or rather, my supposed connection with the subject), please just ask. I will answer you simply if I can.

For the moment,

David (Farrant).

[Expression_man]

Mr Farrant

There's a stereotype going around regarding the concept of what we shall term "ghosts". While I realise this is vague and could encompass many different phenomena, how do these entities tend to behave once they acknowledge the presence of an observer?

[CLD]

In many other cases, things occurred that could not be explained by way of a normal explanation (eg distinct but unexplainable sounds or noises, drops in temperature in certain areas, unexplainable effects upon objects - often electrical equipment, and certainly direct effects upon animals either taken, or enticed, into a given location or area. And yes, we have sometimes caught unexplainable 'light manifestations, or 'images' on night vision cameras, commonly on static (left playing) LP video tape.

Just because you could not explain these things at the time does not mean they have no explanation, or are unexplainable. Ignorance of the cause of an effect is simply ignorance of the cause of an effect. It does not mean "unexplainable". All too often I see paranormalists rush to place an "unexplainable" tag on something that has dozens of possible (and very likely) mundane explanations. I have concluded that they often do this to in order to appear "mysterious" and "spooky" to the weak-minded, and perhaps help to enhance their prestige, followers, reputation, etc.

[Expression_man]

Just because you could not explain these things at the time does not mean they have no explanation, or are unexplainable. Ignorance of the cause of an effect is simply ignorance of the cause of an effect. It does not mean "unexplainable". All too often I see paranormalists rush to place an "unexplainable" tag on something that has dozens of possible (and very likely) mundane explanations. I have concluded that they often do this to in order to appear "mysterious" and "spooky" to the weak-minded, and perhaps help to enhance their prestige, followers, reputation, etc.

But all you do is sit there.

[Skeptic Guy]

But all you do is sit there.

And your point being?

[DavidFarrant]

Thanks for that CLD and sorry for the short delay.

I think you make an essential point about Cause and Effect, and I really don't think there is too much difference between us there.

I think you might agree that many 'effects' (of so-called paranormal phenomena) can be established or, at least, accepted. Where we differ slightly, is when you say 'well, please provide proof of the actual effects' when sometomes even this is not possible.

It would be rather like me saying to yourself . . . tell me what you were doing exactly one week ago today at a certain time. Of course, you would either reply (and I don't mean this to only relate to yourself personally, it is just a general example to hopefully prove a point) . . either 'it is none of your business' (fair enough) or tell me where you were and what you were actually doing. That is 'fair enough' as well, should that be the case. Most reasonable people would accept 'your' explanation to a simple question.

But, if having answered me, I replied, well . . . 'I can't believe you because you have offered me no proof so in effect, your explanation or answer only amounts to a 'claim'.

This is not meant to be some flippant example. Because that is only what some people are attempting to do with my explanations to questions here. And we are only talking about generally accepted 'effects' here; without getting onto any specific 'Causes'. I would say that such an attitude could not be applied to Causes, in any event, because the origin of these often lies beyond normal (or physical) perception.

So, we agree in part, but not totally.

I have never given a link here before, but a recent post I made on this subject might possibly interest you. It is a reply I made some two years ago to the Pagan Federation (of all people!) entitled "Beyond the Mental Realm".

Please ignore all the 'paranormal posts' as that is not really whaaat I want to refer you to.

The link is: http://groups.msn.com/FriendsofDavidFarrant

(It can be found on the Home page under "What's New?)

Anyway, thanks again for your points,

For now,

David (Farrant)

[jaynebeal]

sorry to go back to an earlier thread but if this ghosty in highgate cemetery were real...why on earth would he disapear just because you said an incantation that may well mean something to you but....to tell you the truth...if I were a ghosty and some one threw an incantation at me...i think I'd crack up laughing...not dissapear in a poof! i would crack up at the notion that i should change who I am just because i've lost my body...i wouldn't suddenly becoming prone to dissapearing under the threat of incantations that firstly I'd never heard of and secondly wouldn't get rid of me even if I had. spiritualism seems to think that it holds sway over the spirits of the departed when in nearly every case I've seen the medium was either a blatant con artist or merely deluding themselves into thinking they had a talent that they didn't posess. bring on the ghosties and let them talk for themselves..........they can do that can't they?...in evp terms supposedly.......let's not rely on sighted anecdotes...let's have something tangible!

bealie

[CLD]

[B][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Thanks for that CLD and sorry for the short delay.

I think you make an essential point about Cause and Effect, and I really don't think there is too much difference between us there.

I think you might agree that many 'effects' (of so-called paranormal phenomena) can be established or, at least, accepted. Where we differ slightly, is when you say 'well, please provide proof of the actual effects' when sometomes even this is not possible.

It would be rather like me saying to yourself . . . tell me what you were doing exactly one week ago today at a certain time. Of course, you would either reply (and I don't mean this to only relate to yourself personally, it is just a general example to hopefully prove a point) . . either 'it is none of your business' (fair enough) or tell me where you were and what you were actually doing. That is 'fair enough' as well, should that be the case. Most reasonable people would accept 'your' explanation to a simple question.

But, if having answered me, I replied, well . . . 'I can't believe you because you have offered me no proof so in effect, your explanation or answer only amounts to a 'claim'.

I guess I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying then. Regarding cause and effect, would you say we differ in the following ways?

Observed Effects
I was scared
I saw a strange figure
My batteries went dead
My film fogged
I felt cold

CLD's list of possible causes
Fear induced by emotion
Shadows, foliage, paradolia
Faulty batteries
Faulty film, faulty camera, operation error
Environmental temperature variations, fear-induced body sensations

David Farrant's list of possible causes
Something beyond current human understanding

[Tamazon]

Hello David,

Being on a skeptical forum, I am skeptical about paranormal claims and the like. I wish someone could provide proof about such things, but I have yet to hear of any.

A question about this:

what I witnessed several other local people had already witnessed and reported before I had seen it.

Is this a remote area? If not, then about the many people who pass through there who don't experience anything paranormal? It would seem that the folk who do get "psychically attacked" or had their "energy drained" would likely have heard the stories and would know what is likely to happen to them. And lo and behold...it did. If you expect something to happen, it probably will. (In your own head)

Also, are you a psychic inverstigator to convince yourself of the paranormal or others? If after 40 years (is that right?) of investigating all you have is anecdotes and no tangible proof, then wouldn't that be "proof" enough that there is no such thing?

Sorry, I hope I'm not sounding snippy or mean it's just that I wonder why people still believe in the paranormal when after so many years of searching, no actual, verifable proof has been found.

Thank-you

[jaynebeal]

that's not strictly true...many experiments have been carried out that tend to show promising results, way more than probability would allow but they are not consistent with one person over a prolonged period. I quote Dean Radins analogy of a baseball hitter getting results of about one third as an average....just because he misses the rest of the time does not mean that he never hits the ball in the frst place.

bealie

[DavidFarrant]

For Tamazon,

Thanks for that.

You may be a sceptic on a sceptic forum, and I suppose you must be wondering what I as a non-sceptic (at least I am sceptical but not to the degree of being fanatical) am doing here? I guess the answer is, I’m really not too sure. I am aware that I am here, of course, but it certainly wasn’t ‘planned’ or anything of that nature. I reality, I was really ‘pushed’ onto another thread on the forum by a certain person making untrue allegations about others and myself. That is another story, but somebody there decided to open a thread for myself here (incidentally Brodski, where have you gone!?) which is why I find myself in the middle of all this sceptism! I decided to stay for the time being as to have ‘run off’ might have been considered (by some people here) as yet more 'evidence' that nothing related to the paranormal is authentic or true.

I will come back to your points about the area being isolated or not (as a matter of fact it was, at least by night), and if, or how, some people claimed to have been ‘drained of energy’ after having been in the area or after having actually encountered this phenomenon – or whatever it was (or possibly still is).

You also asked the usual question about ‘lack of evidence’, which I will refer to again in relation to this particular case. (I will have to limit the ‘evidence’ to particular cases or the task would be generally impossible).

So, until a little later,

David (Farrant).

[Big Les]

that's not strictly true...many experiments have been carried out that tend to show promising results, way more than probability would allow but they are not consistent with one person over a prolonged period. I quote Dean Radins analogy of a baseball hitter getting results of about one third as an average....just because he misses the rest of the time does not mean that he never hits the ball in the frst place.

bealie

What experiments are those? How much is "way more"?

[Cuddles]

For Cuddles,

Firstly Cuddles, you are not 'provoking' me as you suggest in the comment you posted by somebody else.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The truth is, I just find you to be extremely niave when it comes to the question of the paranormal and psychic phenomena in general.

:id:

You seem far too fond of playing, or relying, on material words which cannot, in any case, properly define the immaterial.

Oh those naughty material words that can only talk about things that actually exist.

I said that there MAYBE 'energy spots' on the Earth's surface (actually I was only referring to one possibility in one particular case) not that there definitely ARE. There is a world of difference between these between these two descriptions; the former would represent a theory or possibility (not a claim) while the latter (which I did NOT state here) would have otherwise been a claim.

Ooo, semantics! Woos are so cute when they argue about the exact definition of words because they don't have a leg to stand on.

I am not in the business of making definite statements of fact about things psychic and/or paranormal. That is just the same as asserting that such things 'definitely do not exist', it is just the other side of precisely the same coin.

You said:
"I witnessed the materialisation of some unknown energy which was not physical and certainly not human. So much is fact."

Once again you are a proven liar.

You know (really no offence intended) I get the impression that you exist in a very stark world; a world made up only of black and white with no room for varying shades in between. That is obviously a matter for you. But at least allow for the Reality of Life, or the right of other to explore this free of the bounds and strict limitations of brooding materialism.

I exist in the real world. You should visit it one day, it's really so much more interesting than the strange fantasy worlds of psychics and vampires.

Why can you not (and again I mean this without offence) ask me something sensible raher than arguing about material words? Try it. You might be pleasantly surprised!

I can't find any words that aren't material.

Having said that, please ask me anything you want. As long as it is relevant to the general subject of the paranormal (and not a continueous play on meaningless words - that is, words taken out of original context), I do not mind.

After all, Brodski did start this discussion Thread for me, which is basically why I've remained here. If you read his starting remark, he also asks people to be courteous about the subject. I think most people have, with the exception of one or two who seem more concerned with a 'love affair' over the grammatical meaning of words or phases!

Yes, he did start it for you. So why have you not answered him?
I would like this thread to focus on David's understanding of the paranormal, and his evidence for the paranormal.

David,
You describe yourself in the other thread as a "psychic investigator", do you consider yourself a "psychic who investigates", or an investigator of psychic phenomena? (or both)

You state that you don't believe in "blood sucking vampires", do you believe in anything which you would label as a "vampire", what properties to these "vampires" have?

What would you consider the best evidence which you have gathered for the existence of the paranormal, vampires or psychic phenomena?

Thanks.

Forget all that. If you have a question on the subject (or rather, my supposed connection with the subject), please just ask. I will answer you simply if I can.

I have a very simple question. Why do you keep lying about things you have posted? I have pointed out, on more than one occasion, places where you have directly contradicted your previous posts on this thread alone. Why?

And as another question related to Brodski's OP, since this thread was started specifically to discuss your beliefs in the paranormal and your evidence for them, why have you so far refused to discuss them, or even acknowledged that you have any such beliefs?

[DavidFarrant]

For Tamoza,

To go back to your couple of points about the witnessed phenomenon at Highgate.

(I see Cuddles is back throwing another tantrum about that! but I shall ignore that for the moment as at least your questions are rational; at least, as far as such questions can go).

You did make an important point about the possibility that if people knew the phenomenon was supposed to ‘drain people of energy, and then encountered it, they might actually activate this faculty themselves.

Actually this was not the case with the witnesses I spoke to at the time. They were all people unknown to each other. They may have had a general knowledge that the cemetery had a reputed ghost, but none were aware of the specific symptoms (of being ‘drained of energy’) until this had happened to themselves. It did not happen to everybody but I spoke to four independent people who verified this saying that they had been considerably weakened after having encountered it.

You are right, of course, that these people might have otherwise induced this symptoms themselves. Just as a person might be told that a ‘ghost’ haunts a certain building or place, and actually ‘see’ one after going there!

I believe you asked if the cemetery was situated in a remote area or not. Yes it is, certainly not like many other cemeteries in Greater London. Even by day there were not many people around and even fewer (mostly dog walkers) by night.

You then asked that persistent question that materialists ask (no offence intended to yourself but it is true), can you produce any evidence to ‘prove’ the existence of the paranormal?

I have frequently said that I have witnessed the effects of such energy (as many people world-wide have) but I have NEVER claimed that I know the Cause. Neither would I, as that would be the height of self-delusion or arrogance. The truth is that nobody knows (at this moment in time, at least) just what it is that causes these unexplained ‘happenings’. I would say that anybody claiming to know the Cause is either deluding themselves or a liar. It is similar (in principle anyway) to somebody saying . . . ‘I can prove what God is’! This is not a flippant thing to say: there are actually some people around who claim that they can understand the intangible or invisible. On the other hand, there are people who assert the exact opposite i.e. that they can disprove the invisible or intangible by reverting to material means.

In reality, it is actually impossible to ‘prove’ (materially) either of the latter. But that should not invalidate the possibility that something other than material substance exists beyond the material world.


No. This is not being evasive. You know, I was pushed once (by a group of sceptics as it happens) to define myself. All I could say was that I just consider myself to be a ‘disciple of Life’ No more or nothing less than that.

For the moment,

David (Farrant)

[Tamazon]

Thanks for your reply and clarification.

I'm not as intelligent as my fellow posters on this forum and don't even pretend to be able to debate as well as them. Most are very knowlegable when it comes to aspects of the paranormal.

What I'm saying is that I'm just your average housewife wondering about what is true. I've only been actively involved with skepticism for about 2 years, before that being mostly a fence sitter and not giving these things too much thought. What I did find in my researching though that turned me into a "materialist" as you say is that every time I hear psychics or so-called experts on the paranormal speak, they are all contradictory to each other and mostly very absurd. (not a jab at you sir, just in general)

I do not
invalidate the possibility that something other than material substance exists beyond the material world.

nor do most skeptics. (Sorry guys, don't mean to put words in mouths, tell me if I'm wrong) But they feel no need to believe with blind faith in things that have no basis in fact. That's why evidence is asked for. Most of us are willing to completely change our entire world views if only such proof could be proffered. And if it can't be as you say, then why all the fuss over something that "may" be there. Geesh, and they call skeptics close-minded. If absolute proof to the opposite were presented to the believers, they would still believe. I hate it when believers are so concerned that I live in such a bleak and stark reality. On the contrary, the material world has enough awe, beauty and mystery to keep me pleasantly entertained for a long time.

Sorry for the babbling but it annoys me when I read on the believer forums how us skeptics are such hateful, mean, close-minded people. I'm just like them but like to think that I've opened my eyes enough to think about things critically and rationally and examine claims before just swallowing them whole. Skeptics can come off as harsh but that is just impatience with people unwilling to listen to reason. I find myself like that sometimes. I can't stand reading all the love and hugs mushiness on the believer forums. I much prefer the biting humor and consistency of the facts here.

Oops, guess I probably de-railed the topic here. Sorry.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

To restate Tamazon's point (please correct me if I am in err here):
We (skeptics) do not claim that lack of evidence proving the existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn (hereafter IPU) means it does not exist. However, given the lack of evidence for an IPU's existence, it is appropriate to operate under the assumption that it does not exist until such time as evidence is provided that it does exist.

ETA: not that one can not put forth an argument against the case of IPUs existing (see Dawkins' The God Delusion), but this can be a dicey proposition to undertake.

[DavidFarrant]

For Archan Wolfshade (and Tamazon)

I will answer your points tomorrow.

JUst for the moment, can I say, that nobody I know even considers the existence of "Invisible Pink Unicorns" to be a real possibility. Such things only exist as figaments of the human imagination. But surely, that is the whole point! In other words, how do you define very human concepts about the Unknown, with actual Reality?

For now,

David (Farrant)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is the goddess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddess) of a satiric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire) parody religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody_religion) aimed at theistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism) beliefs, which takes the form of a unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn) that is paradoxically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox) both invisible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisibility) and pink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn#_note-0) These attributes serve to satirize the apparent contradictions in properties which some attribute to a theistic God.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn#_note-M)
The IPU is commonly used to highlight the perceived fallacious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy) or arbitrary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary) nature of supernatural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural) beliefs by, for example, replacing the word "God" in any theistic statement with "Invisible Pink Unicorn".[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn#_note-1) A quote from the alt.atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.atheism) FAQ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAQ) sums up this use of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:
The point of this silliness is to prod the theist into remembering that their preaching is likely to be viewed by atheists as having all the credibility and seriousness of [the atheists'] preaching about the IPU.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn#_note-2) It is accepted that there are no actual believers in this mock goddess, but it has become popular, especially on atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) web sites and on-line discussion forums, to feign belief in her both for the sake of humor and as a form of critique or satire of theistic belief. These professions of faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession_%28religious%29) also serve to demonstrate the difficulty of refuting avowals of belief in phenomena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomena) outside human perception.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn#_note-3)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn#_note-4)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn
bolding mine

[Flange Desire]

...many experiments have been carried out that tend to show promising results, way more than probability would allow...

At last!
This is exactly what we are all looking for!
Evidence to support an extraordinary claim!

Please, please show us these many experiments tending to show promising results, way more than probability would allow.

ps, My crystal ball indicates that you won't.
And the chicken entrails confirm this.

[Tamazon]

JUst for the moment, can I say, that nobody I know even considers the existence of "Invisible Pink Unicorns" to be a real possibility.

But it wouldn't surprise me if there were people who did. That's the point I'm trying to get at about why it's hard for skeptics to believe. Everybody has different ideas about paranormal things. Look at religion, so many different kinds and different variables for each. Even paranormal experts and psychics can never agree with each other and all explain things differently. It just sounds too much like hypothesis, conjecture and imagination for me not to think that these beliefs are just that....beliefs.

Am I making sense? Not sure. Sometimes I can't explain my thoughts very well.

[DavidFarrant]

For Tamazon,

I think I can understand what you are saying very clearly; maybe I''m unclear on one thing - which are these 'believers' forums that you refer to? I have come across many political forums, scentific ones, philosophical and mystical ones, paranormal and religious ones (ad naseum), but are you referring to any specific one or 'one's'?

In a way, I suppose, that question is irrelevant, because many all contain that apparently necessary - but dangerous - word, 'belief'.

I have to be careful what I say here (my remarks have apparently offended a lot of people in a lot of places, including on my own Websites, in the past), but I have always pointed out the dangers of believing in anything (from 'God' through to materialism, through to the non-material or the 'paranormal'). I have pointed out that belief in anything - more so, 'blind belief' - blocks understanding of it. For if you come to understand something - albeit by gradual degrees - there is no need to 'believe' in it.

If we do not understand a particular thing, surely it is more logical to admit that we do not understand it, but nevertheless say . . . 'well, I am going to try and find out about it' (uncover it layer by layer, if you like). For to say, I think (believe) this is so without any attempt to understand it leads to a 'blind end' when all we have to support a particular opinion is simply that, opinion (belief).

This does not only apply to the paranormal, it surely applies to most things in life; although it can be especially 'dangerous' when applied to the non-material, such as 'God' - or the heirarchy of Gods or demi-Gods and the 'legions of evil' (devil) - that are seen to oppose them.

And no. Let me say here that I am NOT an atheist. There may well be an Infinite Principle that put us all here. But it is surely not to be found in any projection of the human mind. This applies equally to things paranormal. It also applies to the question of Mysticism which is at a far highger end of the spectrum.

As I said, if you come to understand something, there is no need to any longer believe in it.

What you said makes perfect sense to myself, Tamazon. Though whether you can understand what I trying to point out in relation to your observations about lack of proof in relation to the intangible or 'paranormal', I am not so sure about.

Anyway, for the moment,

David

[Cuddles]

(I see Cuddles is back throwing another tantrum about that! but I shall ignore that for the moment as at least your questions are rational; at least, as far as such questions can go).

No answers then? I will repeat once again the reason this thread was started.
I would like this thread to focus on David's understanding of the paranormal, and his evidence for the paranormal.

David,
You describe yourself in the other thread as a "psychic investigator", do you consider yourself a "psychic who investigates", or an investigator of psychic phenomena? (or both)

You state that you don't believe in "blood sucking vampires", do you believe in anything which you would label as a "vampire", what properties to these "vampires" have?

What would you consider the best evidence which you have gathered for the existence of the paranormal, vampires or psychic phenomena?

Thanks.

And again my questions :

Why have you failed to answer any question relating to your beliefs and your evidence for them?

Why have you lied about your beliefs and the claims you have made?

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

And again my questions :

Why have you failed to answer any question relating to your beliefs and your evidence for them?

Why have you lied about your beliefs and the claims you have made?
__________________

I don't see any qustions here.

The first is just a general line with no questions in it (at least not questions that you specify); the last line is not a question but a statement - your personal statement - and its not really possible to answer a statement.

So with regard to 1) I suggest you specify a question if you really want a sensible answer. With regard to 2) I have just answered you.

For the moment,

David (Farrant)_

[Cuddles]

For Cuddles,

And again my questions :

Why have you failed to answer any question relating to your beliefs and your evidence for them?

Why have you lied about your beliefs and the claims you have made?
__________________

I don't see any qustions here.

The first is just a general line with no questions in it (at least not questions that you specify); the last line is not a question but a statement - your personal statement - and its not really possible to answer a statement.

So with regard to 1) I suggest you specify a question if you really want a sensible answer. With regard to 2) I have just answered you.

For the moment,

David (Farrant)_

You're really not doing yourself any favours here. Not only do you refuse to admit to things you have typed yourself, but you are now apparently incapable of even understanding what a question is, let alone answering one.

I'll spell this out in very simple words. This thread was started so you could answer some question regarding your beliefs and for you to present the evidence for them. You have not done so. I very clearly asked you why you have not done this. This was the question. I cannot specify it any more clearly than this because it is not possible to write any more simply without asking a 6 year old to write it for me.

The second question was a question, hence the question mark and it's begining with the word "why". This is very basic primary school stuff that you really should know by now. To spell it out again, I have shown in a few places that you have lied about your claims of the paranormal, mainly be saying that you had not said things which you had said only a few posts earlier. My very simple question was asking why you did this.

I don't believe that you are really this stupid, and I doubt anyone else here does. It is very interesting to see the degree to which you ramble and obfuscate when asked very simple questions though.

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

Okay, Cuddles,

You have accused me of lying; now I invite YOU to prove that you are telling the truth . . .

1) Type out very clearly the specific questions of your's that you say I have not answered here.

2) Then, type out the exact quotes you say that I have made, and, underneath each one, type out any other (of my) quotes where you say such a quote has been changed or condradicted.

It is very simple, Cuddles.

Well? I am sure everyone is waiting!

For now,

David (Farrant)

[bruto]

For David Farrant:

I hope you'll forgive me if I've missed a reference in this rather dense thread, but getting back to the original experience of the ghost or whatever it was in Highgate....

I'm struck by the relatively frequent reference in such cases to sudden and drastic drops in temperature. Has any useful attempt been made to measure these changes? Since recording thermometers are not terribly expensive these days, it would seem worthwhile to find a way to get, at least in this area, beyond the subjective "I felt a chill" level.

[Cuddles]

You have accused me of lying; now I invite YOU to prove that you are telling the truth . . .

Fortunately anyone who has actually read any of my posts can quite easily see the parts where I clearly pointed out exactly what I am talking about, especially posts 50, 59 and 76. The fact you need this typed out yet again really doesn't help you seem any less of an idiot.

1) Type out very clearly the specific questions of your's that you say I have not answered here.

From post 85
Why have you failed to answer any question relating to your beliefs and your evidence for them?

Why have you lied about your beliefs and the claims you have made?

The first question refers to the original post by Brodski which asked you
David,
You describe yourself in the other thread as a "psychic investigator", do you consider yourself a "psychic who investigates", or an investigator of psychic phenomena? (or both)

You state that you don't believe in "blood sucking vampires", do you believe in anything which you would label as a "vampire", what properties to these "vampires" have?

What would you consider the best evidence which you have gathered for the existence of the paranormal, vampires or psychic phenomena?

Thanks.
You have not answered any of this. My question is simply why not?

2) Then, type out the exact quotes you say that I have made, and, underneath each one, type out any other (of my) quotes where you say such a quote has been changed or condradicted.

As I have already pointed out several times
I am not in the business of making definite statements of fact about things psychic and/or paranormal.
I witnessed the materialisation of some unknown energy which was not physical and certainly not human. So much is fact.
and
I have really not made any specific claims.
I realised then that it ws no human being and that I was under psychic attack.

It is extremely obvious to anyone that the each pair of statements contains direct contradictions. You repeatedly say you have not made any claims, despite your own posts which very clearly make claims. You say that you do not state definite facts and then go on to state something as a definite fact. Contradicting yourself once or twice is not a problem, but you have done so repeatedly, even after having your errors pointed out to year. Therefore, you are lying.

It is very simple, Cuddles.

Very simple. Now why won't you answer them?

Well? I am sure everyone is waiting!

I doubt it really. I'm only doing this while my simulation is running, but I really doubt many other people are bored enough to pay any attention to you. In the words of Buzz Lightyear : "You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity.".

[Cuddles]

For David Farrant:

I hope you'll forgive me if I've missed a reference in this rather dense thread, but getting back to the original experience of the ghost or whatever it was in Highgate....

I'm struck by the relatively frequent reference in such cases to sudden and drastic drops in temperature. Has any useful attempt been made to measure these changes? Since recording thermometers are not terribly expensive these days, it would seem worthwhile to find a way to get, at least in this area, beyond the subjective "I felt a chill" level.

You see the problem here. This is exactly what I have been trying to get him to answer. So far he has refused to say a single word about his experience or any evidence for it, despite that being the stated intentions of this thread in the OP. Most people here are very interested to know what he thinks happened and why, as we are with all paranormal experiences, but for some reason David seems incapable of even acknowledging that a question has been asked, let alone actually answering it.

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

You are obviously only listening to yourself, Cuddles. Here is Brodski’s original post (which you quoted and accused me of not answering) and here was my reply. (At post 25). Please do pay attention to what is being said Cuddles. And please note, this was a perfectly sensible question that I answered as accurately as I could.

“I would like this thread to focus on David's understanding of the paranormal, and his evidence for the paranormal.

David,
You describe yourself in the other thread as a "psychic investigator", do you consider yourself a "psychic who investigates", or an investigator of psychic phenomena? (or both)

You state that you don't believe in "blood sucking vampires", do you believe in anything which you would label as a "vampire", what properties to these "vampires" have?

What would you consider the best evidence which you have gathered for the existence of the paranormal, vampires or psychic phenomena?

Thanks, (Brodski).
__________________



For Brodski,
I’ll try and answer your three questions. It will have to be quite brief as each question could really merit a book on its own!
You ask if I am a psychic who investigates or just someone who investigates psychic phenomena.
I have never claimed to be a psychic; although I have put forward my views on Life (with a big ‘L’) and philosophy from time to time in the past. I do not think you can entirely separate psychic phenomena from the latter, as things claimed to be psychic are, after all, really a part of Life; or perhaps the ‘Universal Life Force’, which might be a better way of putting it.
The answer would have to be though that I am a non-psychic, but at the same time an ordinary person (don’t laugh!) who investigates psychic phenomena.
Do I accept the existence of blood-sucking vampires (in their literal sense)?
The answer is most definitely ‘no’, I do not and never have done.
But there are different types of ‘vampires, of course (I keep to the word ‘vampires’ to avoid any confusion, but it is not the right word). There are ‘human vampires’ of course. That is human beings who are quite capable of draining the mental energy of another. (And this also works both ways in that there are some people of ‘uplifting’ or re-vitalising another).
But to come to what I think you mean . . . Yes. I have come to accept that there are indeed some ‘outside presence’s’ or ‘non-worldly’ (i.e. non-physical) forces that can ‘drain people’ mentally. Such visitations usually take place at night and occur when a person is in asleep, or just falling asleep. These ‘entities’ have been reported since the dawn of history and are commonly known as the incubus and the Succubus. These are not ‘vampires’ as such, but the symptoms of their attacks could often be confused with those of alleged ‘vampires’, and vice versa. I have spoken to literally dozens of people over the years who claim to have experienced such nightly visitations. Yes. I would say that these are undoubtedly genuine. I do not claim to know the Cause, but I can certainly testify to the effects.
You ask what is my ‘best evidence’ for the existence of psychic phenomena?
This is really a loaded question! I do not have evidence ‘in my pocket’, but I can certainly testify to many unexplained occurrences that can not be explained by any physical or rational means.
I have witnessed drastic changes in temperature at certain locations on many occasions. I have also witnessed material objects move, apparently of their own volition. I have witnessed the effects such (psychic) energy can have upon electrical systems; not least by causing electrical clocks to stop simultaneously or to cause light bulbs to fade, even explode. I have seen a person thrown to the ground (with some considerable force) in a reputedly haunted place when there was nobody in the vicinity who could have otherwise caused this.
I have witnessed the effects this ‘energy’ can have upon some animals, and far more besides.
Well, I hope these very simple answers go some way to answering your questions. I suppose it is unlikely that you might agree. But again I say, I am only testifying to the EFFECTS of such occurrences. I am not claiming to know the exact Cause.
For the moment,
David

Again, ask me a specific and sensible question, Cuddles, and I will give you a direct answer. If for some reason, I do not know the answer, then I will say so.

But when you say things like 'why have you not produced evidence?', that is far too general and unspecific. Evidence to which particular case, for example.

FOR BRUTO

Yes we certainly measure temperature (and air pressure) Broto; in fact, that is one of the first things we do.

I'll come back to you a little later today, if that's OK.

Answering Cuddles seems to expend so much unnessary energy!

For now,

David (Farrant)

[Cuddles]

But when you say things like 'why have you not produced evidence?', that is far too general and unspecific. Evidence to which particular case, for example.

OK, I admit I missed that you had answered some of his question. However, you have yet to answer the part about evidence, which is the part that I, and probably others, are most interested in. Simply claiming that you have seen or been told something is not evidence. You have yet to provide any evidence for anything whatsoever, so absolutely anything would be good, vampires, psychics, energy spots, you choose. If you notice, the question was "What is your best evidence?". It's interesting that so far your best evidence consists of denying that any evidence exists. You also have yet to answer my question of why you were clearly lying about things you have previously said. You invited me to prove it, which I did so yet again, and yet you once again completely ignored that part.

[Cuddles]

Yes we certainly measure temperature (and air pressure) Broto; in fact, that is one of the first things we do.

So according to this you do measure things and therefore should at least have data, if not evidence. Why have you not mentioned this before, since you clearly consider it an important part of your "investigations". Do you think temperature and air pressure can somehow indicate the presence of something paranormal? If so what evidence do you have to suggest this is the case? If we assume this is the case, what data have you collected on the various places you have looked at and how do you analyse this and relate it to your theories?

[EternalSceptic]

that's not strictly true...many experiments have been carried out that tend to show promising results, way more than probability would allow but they are not consistent with one person over a prolonged period. I quote Dean Radins analogy of a baseball hitter getting results of about one third as an average....just because he misses the rest of the time does not mean that he never hits the ball in the frst place.

bealie


This analogy is plain wrong. It is a basic property of statistcs that it can be used meaningful only for observations which are repeatable, simply because in statistics the result derived from the largest sample has precedence over all results from parts of this sample. If for example a person in ESP experiments has significant positive results during some runs alternating with neutral and maybe negative results it is not valid to view the single runs separately and to claim the person was tired, fed up, the environment was bad etc. This _may or may not_ be the case, but the statistic results have no meaning as a proof, only the result of all runs together is valid, and even this result only if further testing does not significantly reduce the score.

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

You are absolute right, Cuddles. I was ignoring you because I didn’t want to keep ‘ going
‘round in circles’. You kept repeating that I was contradicting myself, so lets examine what you say was contradictory or constituted the fact that I was ‘lying’.

You re-quoted (as below)
Quote:
2) Then, type out the exact quotes you say that I have made, and, underneath each one, type out any other (of my) quotes where you say such a quote has been changed or contradicted.
As I have already pointed out several times
Quote:
I am not in the business of making definite statements of fact about things psychic and/or paranormal.
Quote:
I witnessed the materialisation of some unknown energy which was not physical and certainly not human. So much is fact.
and
Quote:
I have really not made any specific claims.
Quote:
I realised then that it was no human being and that I was under psychic attack.
It is extremely obvious to anyone that the each pair of statements contains direct contradictions. You repeatedly say you have not made any claims, despite your own posts which very clearly make claims. You say that you do not state definite facts and then go on to state something as a definite fact. Contradicting yourself once or twice is not a problem, but you have done so repeatedly, even after having your errors pointed out to year. Therefore, you are lying.

Here the quotes together so that we can all see them easily:

:
1) I am not in the business of making definite statements of fact about things psychic and/or paranormal.

2) I witnessed the materialisation of some unknown energy which was not physical and certainly not human. So much is fact.

3) I have really not made any specific claims.

4) I realised then that it was no human being and that I was under psychic attack.


Could you please explain to me here (well everybody reading this) what makes me a ‘liar’ about the above? I think we can dismiss 1) and 3) out of hand. I had already explained that I was not making a ’claim’ just describing an unexplained experienced as best as I could. To recall an experience is not to necessarily make a claim about it surely?

What is contradictory about my description of the manifestation? I explained that when I first sighted it at the onset, I fractionally assumed that it WAS somebody (human) dressed up and out to frighten passers by. That’s how real it seemed at first.

In only seconds, I realised that it was NOT human. The area turned icy cold and ‘it’ seemed to be draining me of energy.

I am not going to repeat it all again; my question to you is, what is contradictory in those statements; either on their own or taken all together?

I did not understand what this ‘entity’ was (and still don’t), only that I had witnessed what many other local people had already reported.

It is difficult to see how you can so adamantly call somebody a ‘liar’ just because they encountered something ‘psychic’. I have never made any claims about this experience other than to describe what I saw.

So having answered you yet again, do you think we could now move on to something else and stop wasting meaningless time on this matter?

I will come back to the important question of unexplained phenomena and ‘changes, or variations in temperature a little later. I have not forgotten but if I did, I am sure you would remind me!

For now,

David (Farrant)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Here the quotes together so that we can all see them easily:

:
1) I am not in the business of making definite statements of fact about things psychic and/or paranormal.

2) I witnessed the materialisation of some unknown energy which was not physical and certainly not human. So much is fact.

3) I have really not made any specific claims.

4) I realised then that it was no human being and that I was under psychic attack.


Could you please explain to me here (well everybody reading this) what makes me a ‘liar’ about the above? I think we can dismiss 1) and 3) out of hand.
On what grounds can you just dismiss 1 and 3 out of hand? Where those, or were those not, statements you made?

I had already explained that I was not making a ’claim’ just describing an unexplained experienced as best as I could. To recall an experience is not to necessarily make a claim about it surely?

What is contradictory about my description of the manifestation? I explained that when I first sighted it at the onset, I fractionally assumed that it WAS somebody (human) dressed up and out to frighten passers by. That’s how real it seemed at first.


This is fine, you are merely making a statement about your impressions of the situation.

In only seconds, I realised that it was NOT human. The area turned icy cold and ‘it’ seemed to be draining me of energy.
That is a claim. Stating that the temperature changed is a measurable claim (measurable at the time of the incident). Stating that "it" seemed to be "draining [you] of energy" is also a claim.

I am not going to repeat it all again; my question to you is, what is contradictory in those statements; either on their own or taken all together?

I did not understand what this ‘entity’ was (and still don’t), only that I had witnessed what many other local people had already reported.
This is another claim. You are stating that it was not human (from before) and that it was an "entity".

It is difficult to see how you can so adamantly call somebody a ‘liar’ just because they encountered something ‘psychic’. I have never made any claims about this experience other than to describe what I saw.
Equivocation. You made objective statements that corrolate to claims. You did not make subjective statements that could only be considered opinions. Attempting to pass off your statements as nothing more than subjective opinion is dishonest, both as a discussion participant, and as a researcher.

[DavidFarrant]

For Archan Wolfshade,

No. You see we are getting tied up over meaningless words again. You can observe something without necessarily making claims about it. In this case I have always been very careful not to (make claims, which in any event, would amount to no more than speculation).

Look, let me put it this way. Take a recent television you might have watched (anything, it doesn't matter).

If it happens to be a sequence in a film and you relay it - or describe it - as you have observed or witnessed it, that is not a claim.

Claims only come into it, if you start to speculate on a particular character - or characters - and what you think their role or motivation might be. THAT would amount to a claim, or claims.

You can observe something just as it is. Describing something that you might have observed is quite different from making claims about it.

There is a distinct difference. Although I don't think you can quite see it!

David (Farrant)

[Rrose Selavy]

David Farrant, you may think you're being clever in your attempts to deflect answering simple questions but you most definitely are contradicting yourself - Wittgenstein, you ain't. Now where to start ?-


Quote:
I witnessed the materialisation of some unknown energy which was not physical and certainly not human. So much is fact.


So you witnessed (ie saw) something that "materialised " but wasn't physical - quite a feat! And wasn't human , well there's plenty of natural normal phenomena that isn't "Human" . so big deal.

and yes it's perfectly obvious to anyone who hasn't loss the will to live with following this thread that

A) you are making claims.

B) you haven't any evidence to present that would distinguish your anecdotal claims from any other ghost story as told by Private Fraser from the BBC Dad's Army sitcom.

Now I'm sure you will attempt to "deconstruct" my post like others who have the audacity to question your One Man Gothic Away Day Historical Enactment Society to further evade the reason this thread was set up but I may have more useful things to do like grow my toenails....

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

For Archan Wolfshade,

No. You see we are getting tied up over meaningless words again. You can observe something without necessarily making claims about it. In this case I have always been very careful not to (make claims, which in any event, would amount to no more than speculation).

Look, let me put it this way. Take a recent television you might have watched (anything, it doesn't matter).

If it happens to be a sequence in a film and you relay it - or describe it - as you have observed or witnessed it, that is not a claim.

Claims only come into it, if you start to speculate on a particular character - or characters - and what you think their role or motivation might be. THAT would amount to a claim, or claims.

You can observe something just as it is. Describing something that you might have observed is quite different from making claims about it.

There is a distinct difference. Although I don't think you can quite see it!

David (Farrant)
Bullspit. Your using equivocation to try to dodge having to substantiate anything. A claim, especially in the context of this site does not require that you speculate or explain the how or why, but only the what. A person applying for the JREF million under a category of, say, telekinesis only need say (claim) that they can (for example) levitate a pencil. They need to hypothesis how they can levitate the pencil.

You are clearly playing word games in an effort to avoid having to substantiate anything you post here.

ETA: and, please, if you can't spell my screen name correctly, or take the time to cut and past it, just abbreviate it to "AW", or some such.

[Expression_man]

I think people are reading too deeply into this. It you see an object, which at first glance, seems to be humanoid but exhibits different characteristics...

The ability to defy physical gravity/float whatever it is.
An ability to attack someone "energetically"*.
Exhibits intelligence.

It's only natural to say that it isn't completely physical. It may have form but there's no way of knowing what to attribute it to.

Thus you have an unidentified phenomena, psychic in nature.

Just because you can't make it "fit" is no reason to get angry.

*I'd describe it as having your body shut itself down without your permission. Ask David what his experience was like though.

[Luke T.]

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!

Excuse me while I hoist you on your own petard.

No creatures on the far side of the moon, eh? I so hate it when someone disrepects my Blue Fairies On The Moon (http://www.skepticreport.com/lighterside/bluefairies.htm). :mad:

So asking you to believe in my blue fairies on the moon is asking too much. And yet, you asking us to believe in a ghost floating over a lake isn't?

Asking you to be open-minded enough to believe in a ghost seen carrying its head around the grounds of the Tower of London is, in your own words, ridiculous and you simply wouldn't believe it. Yet we are asked to be open-minded enough to believe you didn't just see a ghost, but that you were also submitted to a psychic attack by said bright-eyed ghost in a graveyard.

Ridiculous! I simply don't believe you. Common sense.

I'm sure you understand.

[DavidFarrant]

For Luke T.,

I have not read your "Blue Faries on the Moon", Luke, so I can't comment. In any event, think I'll give it a miss if you don't mind!

for the moment,

David (Farrant)

[DavidFarrant]

Hi Bruto, Hello again Cuddles,

For Bruto and Cuddles,

Basically you asked the possible relevance (if any) of changes in temperature and reputed cases of unexplained phenomena – or rather cases that I have investigated.

One of the most important factors that I have commonly found at places reputedly haunted (either inside buildings or outside them), is that it is often to feel – and record – inexplicable changes of temperature.

We usually use an electronic thermometer; and any significant changes in temperature are timed precisely and the exact locations marked, and usually photographed. This information is kept on the particular case file and sites are normally tested as a matter of course; and for continuous hours if it happens to be a long vigil.

Dramatic changes in temperature have often been noted at so-called ‘haunted’ sites. (And ‘no’ Cuddles, before you even ask, I am not claiming to know the cause but we do have some evidence of the ‘physical’ effects).

I can give you one example were definite temperature changes were recorded during a nightly vigil over a period of several hours. (In fact, I can give you many, but pick one where these changes were regular and consistent). This was at the Ancient Ram Inn near Bristol in 1998. We had obtained permission to hold a nightly vigil there (one of two in fact) to make some tests and see if we could obtain some evidence for the psychic disturbances regularly reported there.

Anyway, a colleague of mine set up an electrical thermometer in the Bishop’s Room – said to be the most ‘haunted’ room in the building. She noticed, and noted, that in an approximate 6 foot radius in an area of the room, that every 15 minutes there was a distinct 4% drop in temperature which occurred every 15 minutes, and lasted for about 5 minutes. The temperature then returned to its previous reading; again, within about 30 seconds.

We inspected the floor, and the ceiling below it, but there was no material cause to account for this. There was another strange thing: a small candle we had burning in this area simultaneously went out although there was absolutely no draught and there did not appear to be any reduced level of oxygen.

I also noticed that in the attic, more-or-less directly above this area, the light meter on my old SLR camera absolutely refused to register a reading although it worked normally when pointed away from this area.

A claim? No a factual occurrence that was witnessed by three other people.

The conclusion? Some effect occurred that was not caused by normal physical means. Cause? Cause unknown.

I have mentioned this as but one example of many at places where we were trying to discover the source of this energy i.e. the energy that caused this, and similar occurrences, to take place.

David (Farrant)

[Cuddles]

Basically you asked the possible relevance (if any) of changes in temperature and reputed cases of unexplained phenomena – or rather cases that I have investigated.

And you have not explained that relevance. Why do you think a temperature change means anything other than the temperature having changed? Why do you think there must be some unknown acting when there are literally millions of real, physical things that can affect the temperature?

A claim? No a factual occurrence that was witnessed by three other people.

Well that is actually a claim. Can you prove it happened? Can you prove it was witnessed by others? Simply seeing a change in temperature is a much more believable claim than claiming you have seen something psychic, but it is still a claim, whether you like it or not.

The conclusion? Some effect occurred that was not caused by normal physical means. Cause? Cause unknown.

And this is also a claim. You claim that something happened that was not caused by anything physical. You can deny it all you like, but this is exactly what a claim is. What is your evidence that it was not physical?

I won't bother responding to your previous posts since Arkan and Luke have covered them very well.

[Luke T.]

For Luke T.,

I have not read your "Blue Faries on the Moon", Luke, so I can't comment. In any event, think I'll give it a miss if you don't mind!

for the moment,

David (Farrant)

I hope you get a chance to read about the fairies. It is an excellent example of how a person can state the most ridiculous claims and support it with evidence. I wrote it in October 2002, and to this day, I get emails from people who think it is for real.

[bruto]

Hi Bruto, Hello again Cuddles,

For Bruto and Cuddles,

Basically you asked the possible relevance (if any) of changes in temperature and reputed cases of unexplained phenomena – or rather cases that I have investigated.

One of the most important factors that I have commonly found at places reputedly haunted (either inside buildings or outside them), is that it is often to feel – and record – inexplicable changes of temperature.

We usually use an electronic thermometer; and any significant changes in temperature are timed precisely and the exact locations marked, and usually photographed. This information is kept on the particular case file and sites are normally tested as a matter of course; and for continuous hours if it happens to be a long vigil.

Dramatic changes in temperature have often been noted at so-called ‘haunted’ sites. (And ‘no’ Cuddles, before you even ask, I am not claiming to know the cause but we do have some evidence of the ‘physical’ effects).

I can give you one example were definite temperature changes were recorded during a nightly vigil over a period of several hours. (In fact, I can give you many, but pick one where these changes were regular and consistent). This was at the Ancient Ram Inn near Bristol in 1998. We had obtained permission to hold a nightly vigil there (one of two in fact) to make some tests and see if we could obtain some evidence for the psychic disturbances regularly reported there.

Anyway, a colleague of mine set up an electrical thermometer in the Bishop’s Room – said to be the most ‘haunted’ room in the building. She noticed, and noted, that in an approximate 6 foot radius in an area of the room, that every 15 minutes there was a distinct 4% drop in temperature which occurred every 15 minutes, and lasted for about 5 minutes. The temperature then returned to its previous reading; again, within about 30 seconds.

We inspected the floor, and the ceiling below it, but there was no material cause to account for this. There was another strange thing: a small candle we had burning in this area simultaneously went out although there was absolutely no draught and there did not appear to be any reduced level of oxygen.

I also noticed that in the attic, more-or-less directly above this area, the light meter on my old SLR camera absolutely refused to register a reading although it worked normally when pointed away from this area.

A claim? No a factual occurrence that was witnessed by three other people.

The conclusion? Some effect occurred that was not caused by normal physical means. Cause? Cause unknown.

I have mentioned this as but one example of many at places where we were trying to discover the source of this energy i.e. the energy that caused this, and similar occurrences, to take place.

David (Farrant)


Thanks for the response. I don't find the conclusions terribly convincing, and suspect you of bias in your evaluation of what you're experiencing, but that is a different matter. A cyclical 4 percent drop in temperature does not strike me as terribly dramatic, or very mysterious, and I think further investigation might reveal a more mundane cause for it (for instance, I might suggest that you make similar measurements in a variety of similar spaces that are not thought to be haunted, to provide a useful base for comparison), but I give you credit for at least trying to gather real data other than subjective impressions, and even if I'm not greatly impressed by the depth of your research, at least you know how to answer a direct question with a relevant answer.

[DavidFarrant]

For Luke T.,

I hope you get a chance to read about the fairies. It is an excellent example of how a person can state the most ridiculous claims and support it with evidence. I wrote it in October 2002, and to this day, I get emails from people who think it is for real.

(Your quote)

As I said before, I have not read it. But by your own admission you seem to admit that your own account is a "ridiculous claim", so why should I really want to read it!?

I might have missed something here. If I have, sorry. But I really can't see your point.

David (Farrant).

[DavidFarrant]

For Bruto,

Thank you for your response about the possibility of abnormal 'temperature changes' perhaps being caused by some unknown energy. (My original proposition).

If you want to ask me anything further about this, then please do so.

For now,

David (Farrant)

[CLD]

I also noticed that in the attic, more-or-less directly above this area, the light meter on my old SLR camera absolutely refused to register a reading although it worked normally when pointed away from this area.

A claim? No a factual occurrence that was witnessed by three other people.

The conclusion? Some effect occurred that was not caused by normal physical means. Cause? Cause unknown.

David,

A light meter in an old SLR exhibited an intermittent operational defect. Rather than attempt to find out if natural influences (such as heat, cold, vibration, physical orientation, battery corrosion, contact corrosion, photocell breakdown, etc.) might be the cause, you assume paranormal forces are at work. Does this not strike you as slightly irrational?

[DavidFarrant]

For CLD,

No, not in the least irrational CLD because those are the first possibilities we looked at. If you recall, I sid a while back, the first thing I do is always look for a logical explanation.

A friend (a professional photographer) had given me a 1500 ASA film (black and white) for the occasion (of exceptionally low light).

Now, the owner of the Inn had left a 40 watt table lamp on in the attic for safety reasons. (It was littered with junk and would otherwise have been very dangerous).

On entering the attic, the meter registered normally when pointed around or directly at the small light. However, when entering the small area on the floor over the ceiling of the "Bishop's Room" below (where the constant drops of temperature were occurring) it just went 'dead' - even when pointed at the light bulb. When stepping back outside of this small area, however, it would function normally.

And back downstairs, it would register in a darkened room if merely pointed at a lighted candle.

So no, there was nothing wrong with the camera.

This is not a 'claim' (the word Cuddles seems to be in love with!), just a recorded observation.

For now,

David

[Flange Desire]

David:

I was very interested in your claim "I witnessed the materialisation of some unknown energy which was not physical and certainly not human. So much is fact.".

Seems that Rrose Sevaly was interested too.
But I don't see any reply from you.

1) How exactly did you witness it? Did you smell ozone? Did you see a ball of fire? Did your hair catch fire?

2) How did you conclude that it was 'unknown energy'. How did you differentiate it from the boring old normal energy?

3) How did you conclude that it was 'not physical'? And what does that mean exactly when refering to an energy that can is 'witnessed'?

4) What makes your very strange claim a fact?

Perhaps you were just using some words strangely, and you actually mean something quite different from what it looks like you are saying.
If so, please clarify.

ps, I would concur with you that a 'materialisation of unknown enery' is unlikely to be human.

[Big Les]

For Luke T.,

I hope you get a chance to read about the fairies. It is an excellent example of how a person can state the most ridiculous claims and support it with evidence. I wrote it in October 2002, and to this day, I get emails from people who think it is for real.

(Your quote)

As I said before, I have not read it. But by your own admission you seem to admit that your own account is a "ridiculous claim", so why should I really want to read it!?

I might have missed something here. If I have, sorry. But I really can't see your point.

David (Farrant).

He's trying to point out to you that there's no more reason to believe in a paranormal cause for your observed anomalies, than there is in blue fairies that live on the moon. To do so requires bias and wishful thinking on your part, things which we're all prone to but must eliminate whilst attempting to demonstrate that something is the case.

Does that help?

[DavidFarrant]

For Flange Desire and Big Les,

First, I'll come back to you both a little later - hopefully today, if not tomorrow. Friday is usually my busy day, and today is no exception.

I remember reading Rrose Sevaly reply (question/s) but did not realise I'd missed it. I'll go back to that as well.

Anyway, for now,

David

[Flange Desire]

bump
David?

[DavidFarrant]

For Flange Desire and Big Les,

No. No 'bump'!

As a matter of fact, I just came back on here to apologise for the short delay and saw your message.

I really have had a couple of other things to do, which have taken up more time than anticipated. I am NOT ignoring your two sets of questions (or the one you reminded me of from Rrose Sevaly) but rather than simply hasten a reply, I'll come back tomorrow to answer you.

They are not exactly 'quick answer' questions; but I know they are serious so want to answer them properly.

But no avoidance here, I assure you!

For now,

David

[Starrman]

For Flange Desire and Big Les,

No. No 'bump'!

As a matter of fact, I just came back on here to apologise for the short delay and saw your message.

I really have had a couple of other things to do, which have taken up more time than anticipated. I am NOT ignoring your two sets of questions (or the one you reminded me of from Rrose Sevaly) but rather than simply hasten a reply, I'll come back tomorrow to answer you.

They are not exactly 'quick answer' questions; but I know they are serious so want to answer them properly.

But no avoidance here, I assure you!

For now,

David

David,

Nice to meet you.

A 'bump' is just a method for keeping a thread near the top of the thread list, it's not any kind of warning to post or you'll be bumped from the forum.

I have no dog in this fight, but just wanted to add my observation that I have never seen someone making so many claims, all the while saying they are not making claims.

I really don't get why you are clinging to this one - you are making numerous claims, and rather than address the criticisms of the claims, you simply re-define them as not being claims.

If you go to a car dealership, and the salesman tells you the car 'gets 1,000 miles to the gallon, that's a fact', you would certainly call that a claim and demand evidence before you buy the car.

If someone says "I witnessed the materialisation of some unknown energy which was not physical and certainly not human. So much is fact", you would certainly call that a calaim and demand evidence before you beleived it.

[DavidFarrant]

Thank you for that Starrman,

And nice to meet you as well. I shall still be coming back very soon (tomorrow, I hope) to deal with those outstanding questions.

Incidentally, I really didn't realise what a 'bump' was! Which was why I answered like that taking it to mean . . . 'Why the silence'?

Probably I can address your point/s at the same time then. I won't do that now, but I really can't see where you get the word claims from (with an 's').
There was really only one 'claim' that everyone seemed to be challenging; that was the descrition of the phenomenon I witnessed and recalled here. I have certainly not made numerous claims, only questioned why one observation in question should automatically be termed a 'claim'. I did not even 'claim' to understand or explain it, which would surely make it even less likely to qualify as a 'claim'.

Anyway, I'll get back to this tomorrow, and thanks again for your response.

David (Farrant)

[Starrman]

Probably I can address your point/s at the same time then. I won't do that now, but I really can't see where you get the word claims from (with an 's').

I picked one example, since I was making an analogy. So you are now admitting you made at least one claim?

There was really only one 'claim' that everyone seemed to be challenging; that was the descrition of the phenomenon I witnessed and recalled here. I have certainly not made numerous claims, only questioned why one observation in question should automatically be termed a 'claim'. I did not even 'claim' to understand or explain it, which would surely make it even less likely to qualify as a 'claim'.
Anyway, I'll get back to this tomorrow, and thanks again for your response.


You said it was a 'fact' that you witnessed a materialization of an 'unknown energy' - that is a very specific claim, that demands clarification.

You understood it enough to give it very specific characteristics such as 'unknown energy'. Tell me, how can any person, with nothing more than their own senses, identify an 'unknown energy', or recognize the materialization of it?

[DavidFarrant]

For Starraman,

I'll answer this quickly as I still have to deal with the other points, besides which, I don't want people to think that I am 'jumping the gun'. No doubt you will find that I have adressed any other of your remarks when I come back to those.

I certainly have not now admitted that I made a claim. I was just clarifying that the claims that you put in the plural should have been just one as I was describing only one incident. When I said there was only one 'claim', I deliberately put the word in quotes to show I disputed the interpretation of that word.

All along I have been disputing your (everyone's) interpretation and use of that word. I have said (if you read back) that just observing or recalling something is not to necessarily make claims about it.

I gave the example of a television picture (anything, a film for example). To look at a television is not to make claims about it. You just SEE it. Claims only come in when you start to interpret the characters, scenery, locations etc. and offer personal opinions or theories about these. THOSE are certainly claims; no disputing. But there is a huge difference between basic observation and making claims about something . . . anything, not just things of a preternatural nature.

You say ;

Tell me, how can any person, with nothing more than their own senses, identify an 'unknown energy', or recognize the materialization of it?

This depends of our understanding of our own senses, surely?

If we can't properly understand own senses first to any degree. we are even less likely to perceive any expansion or 'extension' of these when this occurs in the material world. We are even less likely to perceive anything that might lay beyond them.

That is a skightly more complex matter but I suppose, in a way, it is still related to claims - or your apparent interpretation of these.

For the moment,

David (Farrant)

[Rrose Selavy]

Clear as mud. As usual.:dig:

[Starrman]

I'm willing to drop the argument about multiple claims, so we can just focus on the most extraordinary claim you make.


You say;

Tell me, how can any person, with nothing more than their own senses, identify an 'unknown energy', or recognize the materialization of it?

This depends of our understanding of our own senses, surely?

If we can't properly understand own senses first to any degree. we are even less likely to perceive any expansion or 'extension' of these when this occurs in the material world. We are even less likely to perceive anything that might lay beyond them.

Are you saying we don't understand our own senses to any degree? Really? That is absurd.


That is a skightly more complex matter but I suppose, in a way, it is still related to claims - or your apparent interpretation of these.

For the moment,

David (Farrant)

This in no way explains how YOU know that something is an unknown energy. Certainly YOU were unable to deduce what was happening, but that doesn't mean it was an 'unknown energy'. We know very specifically what kinds of energy there are, you can read about them here:

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

Now what you are saying, is that you encountered some kind of energy that is not on that page, or in any physics or chemistry text book. Now, maybe you want to re-phrase as 'I encounted an energy I couldn't explain', but you will have to admit that this is a far cry from witnessing 'unknown energy which was not physical and certainly not human'. How can an energy which is 'not physical' affect your physical body? I am becoming convinced that you are just making stuff up at this point...

[DavidFarrant]

For Starrman,

Yes, it would simplify it to keep it down to just the one incident (claim as you describe it) at the moment.

You say I am 'just making things up as I go along. But isn't that just personalising the issue? You can't 'make up' Life, it is just 'there'. If this were not the case, none of us would be here. Surely that is very straightforward and simple without the need to make any claims about it?

And you say:

How can an energy which is 'not physical' affect your physical body? I am becoming convinced that you are just making stuff up at this point...

The energy that gives us all Life and it is there (here) for all to see.

As you are typing this, you are looking and moving your hands. But your eyes by themselves cannot see, they are only vechiles for the Life force that 'sees' through them. Neither can your hands move themselves with an 'energy' (really a 'dangerous' word in this particular context) or consciousness to move them.

In reality, this is nothing to do with myself (or anybody) personally. But we can all be blessed with realizing this; then maybe we would see there is actually something beyond this physical body and the normally accepted thought patterns (I would call it 'material consciousness) that are seen to govern it.

So no. I am not making this up 'as I go along'. I have been saying this for years. And no (just in case you're thinking it!) I am not some 'religion freak'. (I am just as opposed to many of these with their blind beliefs and religious doctrines as I am to materialists who make claims to the opposite).

For now,
David

[Starrman]

But your eyes by themselves cannot see, they are only vechiles for the Life force that 'sees' through them.

This is another claim - please provide evidence for a 'Life force' that exists beyond the chemical energy humans rely on to keep running. (Stop eating for a while, and see how the life force does without food fueling the chemical fires that keep your engine running).

Neither can your hands move themselves with an 'energy' (really a 'dangerous' word in this particular context) or consciousness to move them.

I think you mean 'without' conciousness to move them. That is true, only because my hands do not have their own brain, they are connected to the one in my head. And I don't think 'energy' is a dangerous word, if you don't make up meanings for it.

In reality, this is nothing to do with myself (or anybody) personally. But we can all be blessed with realizing this; then maybe we would see there is actually something beyond this physical body and the normally accepted thought patterns (I would call it 'material consciousness) that are seen to govern it.

This is another claim - that there 'is something beyond this physical body' - please provide evidence for this. If you want to avoid making claims, stop using words like 'there is', 'in reality' or 'they are'. Claims usually follow words like that.

So no. I am not making this up 'as I go along'. I have been saying this for years. And no (just in case you're thinking it!) I am not some 'religion freak'. (I am just as opposed to many of these with their blind beliefs and religious doctrines as I am to materialists who make claims to the opposite).

Unless you have evidence that is not anecdotal, you are making it up (my bet is this is where we will get stuck in this debate). That is not such a bad thing, scientists make stuff up all the time. The difference is they find ways to test it. You don't seem to have gotten to this step yet.

And stop saying you don't make claims - you make plenty of them. It really is making you look silly IMO.

[DavidFarrant]

For Rrose Sevaly and Flange Desire
Your questions were:

David Farrant, you may think you're being clever in your attempts to deflect answering simple questions but you most definitely are contradicting yourself - Wittgenstein, you ain't. Now where to start ?-
:
Quote:
I witnessed the materialisation of some unknown energy which was not physical and certainly not human. So much is fact.

So you witnessed (ie saw) something that "materialised " but wasn't physical - quite a feat! And wasn't human , well there's plenty of natural normal phenomena that isn't "Human" . so big deal.

and yes it's perfectly obvious to anyone who hasn't loss the will to live with following this thread that

A) you are making claims.

B) you haven't any evidence to present that would distinguish your anecdotal claims from any other ghost story as told by Private Fraser from the BBC Dad's Army sitcom.

Now I'm sure you will attempt to "deconstruct" my post like others who have the audacity to question your One Man Gothic Away Day Historical Enactment Society to further evade the reason this thread was set up but I may have more useful things to do like grow my toenails....
And from Flange Desire:

David:

I was very interested in your claim "I witnessed the materialisation of some unknown energy which was not physical and certainly not human. So much is fact.".

Seems that Rrose Sevaly was interested too.
But I don't see any reply from you.

1) How exactly did you witness it? Did you smell ozone? Did you see a ball of fire? Did your hair catch fire?

2) How did you conclude that it was 'unknown energy'. How did you differentiate it from the boring old normal energy?

3) How did you conclude that it was 'not physical'? And what does that mean exactly when refering to an energy that can is 'witnessed'?

4) What makes your very strange claim a fact?

Perhaps you were just using some words strangely, and you actually mean something quite different from what it looks like you are saying.
If so, please clarify.

ps, I would concur with you that a 'materialisation of unknown enery' is unlikely to be human.
First Rose, Let me apologise for not ‘answering’ before. This was probably because I took your two statements in a) and b) to be statements made by yourself as opposed to questions put by yourself.

In a) you say that the experience I described was a ‘claim’. I have already explained here in some detail that this was not a claim but a description or recollection of an actual (albeit it not understood) experience. I don’t really see how it is possible to go further than this here. You state one thing, I state another. I think we can only ‘agree to disagree’ on this.

With regard to b) and your comparison of my experience to that of one of Private Frazer’s ghost stories, I can only say that we should remember that he was only reading from a script not relaying any particular personal experience. I think there is a marked difference here.

For Flange Desire:

I think we can safety dismiss your first query as to whether I smelt ozone, or whether I saw a ‘ball of fire’ and if my ‘hair caught fire’ out of hand. Here you seem to be saying I I implied the experience was connected with UFO’s or ‘alien beings’. I made no such suggestion, only you did.

In 2) you ask . . . 2) “How did you conclude that it was 'unknown energy'. How did you differentiate it from the boring old normal energy?”

I made no attempt to ‘differentiate’ anything from anything at the time. But I realised that it was not ‘normal’ in the sense that it fitted into our normal sense of reality. It suddenly disappeared, for example, which objects in the material run of things don’t usually do. Would you personally say that this is the way for ‘normal’ energy to behave?

In 3) you ask: “How did you conclude that it was 'not physical'? And what does that mean exactly when referring to an energy that can is 'witnessed'?

I think I have already answered the first part of this in 2). I would say to the last point that we do not know what this means. That’s precisely one of the things that I (and others) am trying to find out.
In 4) you ask: 4) “What makes your very strange claim a fact?

In case you misunderstood me here, I did not mean to imply that the experience itself amounted to a ‘material fact’.

I meant that what I EXPERIENCED was a fact. Or that it was a fact that I saw and experienced what I did. I would again not call this a claim. You can’t make claims fact.
you can only make claims ABOUT facts (understood or otherwise).

Well, I have tried to answer these questions again as clearly as possible.

I have not forgotten your points Big Les. Just a little later if this is okay.

For now,

David (Farrant)

[Starrman]

I meant that what I EXPERIENCED was a fact.


This doesn't even make sense - how can you experience a fact? I think what you meant is that it is a fact that you HAD an experience. Can we agree on that?

So when you say 'so much is fact' in the sentence in question - you mean it is a fact that you witnessed something - but not a fact that it was a materialisaion of some unknown energy that wass not physical or human. The latter part is just how you would describe the experience, and is soley a matter of your opinion. Do I have it now?

[DavidFarrant]

For Starman,

I think what you meant is that it is a fact that you HAD an experience. Can we agree on that?

So when you say 'so much is fact' in the sentence in question - you mean it is a fact that you witnessed something - but not a fact that it was a materialisaion of some unknown energy that wass not physical or human.
Yes, we can agree on that. That is basically what I was saying; I just couldn't see why people failed to understand it!

I'm not sure we can agree on the very last part . . . "but not a fact that it was a materialisaion of some unknown energy that was not physical or human". I suppose here again it is how we can interpret the word 'fact'. If you use the word to mean 'reality' (as this is understood), no it is not that. I do not know what it was and I have not pretended otherwise.

But when I stated tht it 'was not human', that is also a fact, as a fact that it was not human, although not 'fact' in the sense that I was stating as a 'fact' that I knew what it was.

There is just one point in your last post that I think we do not definitely agree over. It is the point of me 'being way behind scientists. Yes I am! And I would not really want to be any closer. This is not meant to sound arrogrant, I really mean it. You see, the one thing I came to understand is that Life (consciousness) can never be analaysed in a test tube (to put it a bit flippantantly, although it is not meant to be). That is where I part from physical science at the very inception. Sorry, but I just wanted to answer that point.

Anyway, for the moment,

David (Farrant)

[Cuddles]

The energy that gives us all Life and it is there (here) for all to see.
...snip...
there is actually something beyond this physical body

Once again with the claims. Evidence?

[DavidFarrant]

Hello again, Cuddles. Can't really say I've missed you - nice to have some peace for a change!

You want evidence for Life itself, Cuddles, and if you can't get it, you say that even Life is a claim.

Look around you. The evidence is that you are alive!

For now,

David Farrant

[Starrman]

Hello again, Cuddles. Can't really say I've missed you - nice to have some peace for a change!

You want evidence for Life itself, Cuddles, and if you can't get it, you say that even Life is a claim.

Look around you. The evidence is that you are alive!

For now,

David Farrant

Uggh! But where is the evidence that the life comes from anywhere other than within the physical body?

And come on - you want 'fact' to mean something other than 'reality'? In that case I'm a billionaire, if by 'billionaire' you mean someone who has about 5 bucks on him and about 10 in the bank. :)

[DavidFarrant]

For Starrman,

You say:

Uggh! But where is the evidence that the life comes from anywhere other than within the physical body?

The 'evidence' surely is that you are saying this, being aware of the physical body?

If you were not conscious of the physical body, you would not even be able to describe it.

You can not speak from 'inside it'. You can only really really speak from 'outside it', or you could not be aware of its existence in the first place.

To myself, all this is really so simple. Not 'simple' by explanation, perhaps, but by way of 'simple realisation'.

Anyway, that is the only way I can really answer this point,

David (Farrant)

[DavidFarrant]

TO GET BACK ON TOPIC!

I just thought that to get this thread slightly more ' back on topic' in accordance to its original title "David Farrant - Psychic Investigotor", I might post up one of my more rarely published articles on 'ghosts', unexplained phenonema, and their ilk. I am not trying to 'escape', any elucidation on subjects raised before this (anybody can still go back to these), rather than to give this thread a 'short break' and get back to the initial subject as originally started by Brodski. (I still don't know where he's gone!).

This original article was published some two years ago. Please make any comments you want, or ask any questions; but PLEASE don't assert that my general observations are merely 'claims' (an apparently favourite word around here!).

SO WHAT ARE GHOSTS?

Throughout time mankind has strived to understand and explain mysterious apparitions on non-worldly ‘intelligence’s that seem to have accompanied its very existence. From fleeting figures in the night, or those seen by day, to equally commonplace occurrences where the invisible seems to in some way impart or interfere with the physical world; a sense of the unknown or impenetrable has always seemed to have become entwined with those laws that have otherwise been assumed to make up ‘normal reality’.

Yet can ‘reality’-as this has come to be accepted - really stand against so much counter-evidence about the possibility of other realms of Being or existence - i.e. related stories about unexplained phenomena that abound to confuse material thinking - when frequently ‘reality’ itself is the subject of such diverse opinions, even amongst scientists and other hard-core experts? It would seem not. Indeed, it could be reasonably said that science itself, by clinging obstinately to material law as a formula for understanding the Unknown, has imprisoned itself in a material cage of its own thinking.

Perhaps one of the main failings on the part of materialists when attempting to understand psychic phenomena, is an inherent tendency on the part of many people to automatically categorize anything paranormal {or at least, what is assumed to be paranormal} under the heading ‘ghost’. For the word itself, invariably conjures up images of figures ‘carrying their heads’ or clanking chains, or of similar apparitions that may have returned to wander the earth with some assumed intent. Yet ironically, it is this assumption {and it is a common one}, that might actually hinder any potential understanding of such phenomena; for while ghostly figures may well be reported or have been to appear {and indeed, such figures have been seen to appear for centuries although not necessarily in the limited capacity as cited above} it is not generally realized or understood, that images of ’phantom figures’ may be literally no more than just that … images that are being ’replayed’, with no more active intelligence than the ’dead’ images stored on a video tape or transmitted as a television picture {in each case they are the same}.

In other words, many ghostly images may literally be no more than recorded pictures; but ’pictures’ that can only be witnessed when the correct circumstances and conditions prevail.

So then, the question might arise, just what are ’ghosts’? And if such nebulous entities exist, what are the possibilities of our understanding them?

Perhaps one answer to such a formidable question, could be in our disregarding the popular conception of ’ghosts’ themselves, and coming to the realization that there might be different categories of unexplained phenomena; this meaning, that unexplained phenomena as such are understood, could be divided into different types, according to the type of alleged manifestations; accounting, of course, for the various interpretations given to such sightings or manifestations by given witnesses.

As a psychic investigator, and as someone who has spent many years investigating this view, many facts seemed to have ’forced themselves to light’, and basically it can be said, that most cases of unexplained phenomena can be divided into separate types , or categories.

The first of these categories has, in fact, already been mentioned when explaining that many ghostly figures may be no more that ’replayed’ events which can - or do - materialize under certain conditions, and these include images of ’human’ figures, scenes or other events from some time past {such as images of horse-drawn coaches or unearthly battles, for example}; and the many reported sightings of ’black dogs’ or other ghostly animals. {Of course, there is a danger of perhaps ’oversimplifying’ cases in general here; but certainly, these given examples would appear to be typical of many reported sightings}. Whether such phenomena do indeed possess any active intelligence as is so often assumed would be a separate issue for debate, although my research has shown - whether ’active intelligence’ or mere shadows of events that might have long since disappeared into history - such phenomena are almost certainly dependent upon the existence of certain conditions to aid or bring about their materialization.

In fact, for some time now and in the many writings I have devoted to this subject, I have put forward the view that perhaps many ’ghostly phenomena’ {as they have come to be understood}, are not only mere reflections or pictures of forgotten past events, but are also images that can only exclusively manifest - or ’replay themselves’ - subject to specific conditions.

These ’conditions’ usually follow a given pattern; but locations {often including the essential presence of leylines}, lunar cycles and atmospheric conditions, and the presence of the element of water or stone, all seem to be essential ingredients that aid the appearance of many psychic phenomena, or ’ghosts’..

Such an observation may seem unique and far removed from popular conception {although it is by no means spectacular} but the actual realization that many phenomena under this first category may be no more than pictures of past events - literally just that - may provide an interesting clue into the understanding of many psychic phenomena and their ilk…

Cases vary, of course, and even they may be dependent upon the susceptibility or sensitivity of given witnesses to observe a given manifestation; but such manifestations do frequently occur world wide and too much evidence is in existence to totally discredit their actual authenticity…

There are, for example, numerous cases on record where various manifestations of psychic energy {albeit, more commonly referred to as ’ghosts’}, have materialized at precise locations; more often than not in or near old buildings constructed of stone {albeit perhaps in ruins} and they also seem to appear under certain climatic conditions, one of these involving the element of water.

‘Water wraiths’, similar apparitions of ghosts or white ladies, which appear frequently near lakes or rivers, are perhaps well known; but many other ghostly apparitions which might otherwise appear as ’real’ to human eyesight, might indeed be no less then replayed images from the past - just that.

Having expounded briefly on the possibility that a large percentage of unexplained phenomena can literally be grouped together and described as being ’replayed’ under certain physical conditions it should be emphasized, that a great number of other cases, including poltergeist activity - whereby objects seemingly move of their own accord or there are seen to be similar effects upon material conditions - may fall under a second category of unexplained phenomena; where many ghostly occurrences may be little more than the result of subconscious forces in the human mind itself, normally latent, but not always…

This is to say, that otherwise dormant levels in the human psyche, may be directly responsible for affecting or changing material conditions; unaccountable changes of temperature, doors opening and closing ’by themselves’, glasses and other objects being mysteriously moved or apparently breaking of their own volition; interference with electrical systems and appliances; even the apparent communication {usually by mediums} with so-called ’spirits’ - to name but a few.

Such a short example is not of course, intended to be an ’oversimplification’ of fact; indeed, space itself would prevent any lengthy exposition of a subject too complex to fit into the confines of this introduction.

But to summarize this second category of unexplained phenomena more precisely; it could be said, that there exist many levels in human consciousness - as yet not generally under-stood - which are certainly responsible for the manifestations of many alleged psychic phenomena; and frequently witnesses to such phenomena are invariably unaware that they may have inadvertently created a given manifestation or psychic disturbance themselves; least of all acknowledging, perhaps, that the outward effects of such manifestations originate from levels which lie beyond the everyday thinking mind.

But there would appear to exist another category of unexplained phenomena which are seemingly not the result of subconscious activity in the human mind, or indeed, can be attributed to ’non intelligent’ reflections or images that are periodically ’replayed’ from the past. And these involve out side entities that apparently possess some kind of ’intelligence’, which are reported as appearing to their human counterparts and having some deliberate - even devilish - purpose and intent.

To speculate about the possible existence of such entities, however, would be to enter an unsafe area of investigation when many reported ’phantom figures’ may easily have become subjected to fantasy or exaggeration.

Of course, this is not always the case, and sometimes, the most reliable of people will swear to having had ’factual’ encounters or visitations from ’formidable ghosts’ that they genuinely cannot explain’ other that to perhaps assert that a given apparition will be trying to convey some definite purpose or message.

Such testimonies are often authentic, and too many witnesses abound to dismiss their accounts with flippant abandon. But to revert to wild theories about the possible causation’s behind this particular type of psychic phenomena {and many indeed do; including many ghost writers as well as some witnesses themselves}, is to enter a dangerous realm where unfounded belief can easily offset serious psychic investigation.

As a psychic investigator, my role can only be to objectively access and present actual facts.

David Farrant

[CLD]

Assemble a bunch of stories, half-facts, and speculation. Weave in a bunch of weasel words like, "I have put forward the view", "one might say", "one can perhaps assert", "it might indeed be", and "it would seem that". Add some Rod Serling hyperbole ("levels which lie beyond the everyday thinking mind"). Mix well, and voila, you have an article that appears on the surface to be informative, yet is just so much fluff.

[Expression_man]

Assemble a bunch of stories, half-facts, and speculation. Weave in a bunch of weasel words like, "I have put forward the view", "one might say", "one can perhaps assert", "it might indeed be", and "it would seem that". Add some Rod Serling hyperbole ("levels which lie beyond the everyday thinking mind"). Mix well, and voila, you have an article that appears on the surface to be informative, yet is just so much fluff.

I think you're trying too hard to come to a conclusion based on 0.00% personal experience. It can certainly be frustrating, being unable to understand things, but when you start asking someone to give you more than what they're able to then that's just being lazy on your part. If you actually cared about any of what has been said then you might consider investigating it yourself.

The only thing of any importance here is that you won't. You will continue to do nothing about it while sitting there, intellectualizing the idea of other people's ignorance regarding your own way of thinking. You have nothing to go on so your choice of reality is subjective. There's nothing "wrong" with that, it's just that you don't recognise it and so you choose to avoid seeing the contention of previously documented reality. You would much rather shrug it off as it makes things that much easier for you. You want to discourage communication with individuals who think differently from you as it's a cause of mental torment, you exhibit this by your hostility towards the other party.

[Paul]

I think you're trying too hard to come to a conclusion based on 0.00% personal experienceI think you're trying too hard to believe in something with 0% evidence.


It can certainly be frustrating, being unable to understand things,That depends on what these things are and if there is any evidence to substantiate their existence.


but when you start asking someone to give you more than what they're able to then that's just being lazy on your part.Asking someone to support their claim is perfectly reasonable, especially if that claim is of a supernatural nature.


If you actually cared about any of what has been said then you might consider investigating it yourself.Investigate what, exactly, and how. What techniques and procedures would you suggest for the investigation of "stories about unexplained phenomena", "images that are being replayed" or "manifestations of psychic energy" ?


The only thing of any importance here is that you won't.It is entirely irrelevant, it is the maker of these claims that must show some results before others may try and duplicate them.


You will continue to do nothing about it while sitting there, intellectualizing the idea of other people's ignorance regarding your own way of thinking.Well, as the way of thinking of sceptics and critical thinkers is to ask for evidence to enable claims to be assessed, those ignorant of this will find their ideas questioned.


You have nothing to go on so your choice of reality is subjective.There is no choice of reality, there is the quality or state of being real 1 (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reality)


There's nothing "wrong" with that, it's just that you don't recognise it and so you choose to avoid seeing the contention of previously documented reality. You would much rather shrug it off as it makes things that much easier for you.What are you blathering on about?


You want to discourage communication with individuals who think differently from you as it's a cause of mental torment, you exhibit this by your hostility towards the other party.Have you noticed the banner at the top of the screen?

[CLD]

My comments on David Farrant's essay were not intended to be an attack on him personally. He has been very gracious to hang in with us, and has made a real effort to explain himself and his beliefs. The essay, however, is like the proverbial Emperor With No Clothes. It scrupulously avoids responsibility for factuality while simultaneously advancing the idea that mysterious and unknown forces are at work in the world. There really isn't any substance to it.

[DavidFarrant]

For Expression Man, Paul and CLD,

Thank you for all your comments and observations, whether 'for' or 'against' what I've said.

I don't really want to go back to it all again, except to say that maybe you have summed up an essential point of difference between us CLD (sorry, I don't mean to include Expression Man here as I felt he was being objective), when you concluded last . . . "It scrupulously avoids responsibility for factuality while simultaneously advancing the idea that mysterious and unknown forces are at work in the world. There really isn't any substance to it". [In the article and presumabably what I have said before this].

I think that is really the whole point. Whilst you and other people here see things only as 'factual', I can't. 'Factual things' exist in the world, and are a part of our very make up - from childhood we are all taught to observe that.

But I think a danger might be, is having acquired all our 'factual knowledge' and experiences, there is a danger to 'sit with these' (as many people do) and close our minds to anything that might otherwize lie beyond our limited understanding of the physical world (include the Universe in that, it is still the same) and rely only on such material knowledge without even trying to go beyond it.

People seem to be saying here that there is 'nothing beyond it' (that is, factual knowledge as this has been acquired and taught).

All I am trying to point out, is that I cannot really accept that the physical or material world can really provide proof of anything; unless, of course, we may choose to 'rest in materialism' as some form of 'safe security'.

I am really not condemning anyone here for thinking otherwise. My only criticism, if any, is that you seem to have taken materalism to a 'dogmatic extreme', which is bound to be in conflict with those who may not accept material facts in such a light; and I, for one, am one of them!

But thank you for saying it was 'nothing personal' CLD. In fact, I already realised that.

David Farrant

[CLD]

People seem to be saying here that there is 'nothing beyond it' (that is, factual knowledge as this has been acquired and taught).

Let's at least get this bit straightened out. I don't think anyone here is saying (dogmatically) that there is nothing that can exist beyond the knowledge we have today. On the contrary, one of the reasons to embrace science is that it's our best hope for expanding man's knowledge. But science demands proof. So if you are going to write an essay that suggests the existence of water wraiths, psychic energy, replayed events, etc. you need to provide some verifiable evidence to substantiate such stuff.

[Minarvia]

David HAS been very gracious to hang in here, as CLD said. And he's been very polite and is trying his best, I believe, to answer everybody, and that cannot be easy. Maybe, taking his article paragraph by paragraph, he can be asked specific questions about it and the discussion can go from there?
I'm not trying to intrude, I'm just wondering if maybe that wouldn't be an easier approach to any questions about "ghosts" and his experiences with them that anyone has for David.

[CLD]

I think a danger might be, is having acquired all our 'factual knowledge' and experiences, there is a danger to 'sit with these' (as many people do) and close our minds to anything that might otherwize lie beyond our limited understanding of the physical world (include the Universe in that, it is still the same) and rely only on such material knowledge without even trying to go beyond it.

OK. Let's say I observe something odd while in a cemetery late at night. Why must I look to the supernatural to explain it...when there exist dozens and dozens of possible non-supernatural explanations?

[Cuddles]

The 'evidence' surely is that you are saying this, being aware of the physical body?

If you were not conscious of the physical body, you would not even be able to describe it.

You can not speak from 'inside it'. You can only really really speak from 'outside it', or you could not be aware of its existence in the first place.

Evidence?

You keep happily stating these things, but you have provided nothing to back it up. Why do you think that the physical body cannot provide conciousness?

[Cuddles]

SO WHAT ARE GHOSTS?

Throughout time mankind has strived to understand and explain mysterious apparitions on non-worldly ‘intelligence’s that seem to have accompanied its very existence. From fleeting figures in the night, or those seen by day, to equally commonplace occurrences where the invisible seems to in some way impart or interfere with the physical world; a sense of the unknown or impenetrable has always seemed to have become entwined with those laws that have otherwise been assumed to make up ‘normal reality’.

Yet can ‘reality’-as this has come to be accepted - really stand against so much counter-evidence about the possibility of other realms of Being or existence - i.e. related stories about unexplained phenomena that abound to confuse material thinking - .

Counter evidence? Please provide some. This is what we have been asking you from the begining. Stories are not evidence.

when frequently ‘reality’ itself is the subject of such diverse opinions, even amongst scientists and other hard-core experts? It would seem not. Indeed, it could be reasonably said that science itself, by clinging obstinately to material law as a formula for understanding the Unknown, has imprisoned itself in a material cage of its own thinking

"We don't know everything, therefore everything we don't know must be true." Bollocks. If something can be observed, it is subject to scientific investigation. That is the whole point of science. In fact, the point of science is specifically to investigate things that we aren't sure of yet, yet sadly you are just one of many who persist in this imagining scientists as people who already think they know the answers and refuse to look at anything else. You are wrong.

Perhaps one of the main failings on the part of materialists when attempting to understand psychic phenomena, is an inherent tendency on the part of many people to automatically categorize anything paranormal {or at least, what is assumed to be paranormal} under the heading ‘ghost’. For the word itself, invariably conjures up images of figures ‘carrying their heads’ or clanking chains, or of similar apparitions that may have returned to wander the earth with some assumed intent. Yet ironically, it is this assumption {and it is a common one}, that might actually hinder any potential understanding of such phenomena; for while ghostly figures may well be reported or have been to appear {and indeed, such figures have been seen to appear for centuries although not necessarily in the limited capacity as cited above} it is not generally realized or understood, that images of ’phantom figures’ may be literally no more than just that … images that are being ’replayed’, with no more active intelligence than the ’dead’ images stored on a video tape or transmitted as a television picture {in each case they are the same}.

Straw man. I don't know of anyone who equate "paranormal" with "ghosts". I think it is far more common to assume psychic powers and mediumship than ghosts.

In other words, many ghostly images may literally be no more than recorded pictures; but ’pictures’ that can only be witnessed when the correct circumstances and conditions prevail.

So then, the question might arise, just what are ’ghosts’? And if such nebulous entities exist, what are the possibilities of our understanding them?

Nope, the question that might arise should be the second one. There is no point asking what ghosts are until you actually have evidence that they exist.

Perhaps one answer to such a formidable question, could be in our disregarding the popular conception of ’ghosts’ themselves, and coming to the realization that there might be different categories of unexplained phenomena; this meaning, that unexplained phenomena as such are understood, could be divided into different types, according to the type of alleged manifestations; accounting, of course, for the various interpretations given to such sightings or manifestations by given witnesses.

Once again, there is no point trying to classify "ghosts" as different things until you can actually show that they exist at all. Where is your evidence that they do?

As a psychic investigator, and as someone who has spent many years investigating this view, many facts seemed to have ’forced themselves to light’, and basically it can be said, that most cases of unexplained phenomena can be divided into separate types , or categories.

Which facts would these be?

more of the same

You can come up with all the theories you like, where is the evidence to support them? That is what we are asking for.

Having expounded briefly on the possibility that a large percentage of unexplained phenomena can literally be grouped together and described as being ’replayed’ under certain physical conditions it should be emphasized, that a great number of other cases, including poltergeist activity - whereby objects seemingly move of their own accord or there are seen to be similar effects upon material conditions - may fall under a second category of unexplained phenomena; where many ghostly occurrences may be little more than the result of subconscious forces in the human mind itself, normally latent, but not always…

This is to say, that otherwise dormant levels in the human psyche, may be directly responsible for affecting or changing material conditions; unaccountable changes of temperature, doors opening and closing ’by themselves’, glasses and other objects being mysteriously moved or apparently breaking of their own volition; interference with electrical systems and appliances; even the apparent communication {usually by mediums} with so-called ’spirits’ - to name but a few.[quote]

First, evidence is needed that anything happens that cannot be explained by mundane means. Second, evidence is needed that there are "dormant levels in the human psyche".

[quote]But to summarize this second category of unexplained phenomena more precisely; it could be said, that there exist many levels in human consciousness - as yet not generally under-stood - which are certainly responsible for the manifestations of many alleged psychic phenomena; and frequently witnesses to such phenomena are invariably unaware that they may have inadvertently created a given manifestation or psychic disturbance themselves; least of all acknowledging, perhaps, that the outward effects of such manifestations originate from levels which lie beyond the everyday thinking mind.

I'm sure it could be said that there are many levels of human conciousness. Whether there is any reason to say this is a different matter. Can you provide a reason?

But there would appear to exist another category of unexplained phenomena which are seemingly not the result of subconscious activity in the human mind, or indeed, can be attributed to ’non intelligent’ reflections or images that are periodically ’replayed’ from the past. And these involve out side entities that apparently possess some kind of ’intelligence’, which are reported as appearing to their human counterparts and having some deliberate - even devilish - purpose and intent.

To speculate about the possible existence of such entities, however, would be to enter an unsafe area of investigation when many reported ’phantom figures’ may easily have become subjected to fantasy or exaggeration.

To speculate about the existence of these entities requires substantial amounts of fantasy and exaggeration. You need to provide evidence that they exist. You need to provide evidence that anything even happened that could be explained by them. At the very least you need provide evidence that they are any different from your other recorded or human created "ghosts".

Of course, this is not always the case, and sometimes, the most reliable of people will swear to having had ’factual’ encounters or visitations from ’formidable ghosts’ that they genuinely cannot explain’ other that to perhaps assert that a given apparition will be trying to convey some definite purpose or message.

Such testimonies are often authentic, and too many witnesses abound to dismiss their accounts with flippant abandon.

"A million lemmings can't be wrong." We can happily dismiss anecdotal acounts because they are, quite simply, stories. We know people are often mistaken. We know human observation is flawed and easy to fool. We know people's memories are incredibly bad. We know people don't notice little details that are often very important in these cases. We know people lie. We know people embellish stories, deliberately or unconciously. We know humans find patterns where there are none. Despite the old saying, a million lemmings not only can be wrong, they usually are. It is just plain stupid to take a bunch of anecdotes as fact and claim that they provide proof of the paranormal. This is why scientific investigation is required. This is why we want evidence, not stories. Just because you can talk about it at great length does not make something true.

But to revert to wild theories about the possible causation’s behind this particular type of psychic phenomena {and many indeed do; including many ghost writers as well as some witnesses themselves}, is to enter a dangerous realm where unfounded belief can easily offset serious psychic investigation.

:id:

As a psychic investigator, my role can only be to objectively access and present actual facts.

Feel free to share those "facts" with us.

[DavidFarrant]

FOR CLD

You said:

“OK. Let's say I observe something odd while in a cemetery late at night. Why must I look to the supernatural to explain it...when there exist dozens and dozens of possible non-supernatural explanations?”

The first thing is that we should remember that these things (sighted apparitions as one example) do not necessarily occur in cemeteries. I realise that you probably only referring to my ‘cemetery experience’ but I mention this because it could be an important ‘clue’ or point.

Many apparitions have been reported in and around churches and other old buildings. Cemeteries and graveyards very often lie near churches; indeed, and frequently part of the grounds. A large percentage of old churches were built upon much earlier sites of worship [for Cuddles – and this CAN be proved], and these earlier sites date back into antiquity.

The point being, that locations might play an essential part in being able to ‘list’ where such things have been seen or reported. Not PROVE their existence, rather group many of these alleged (unexplained) manifestations as having at least, one common denominator; that being the actual location. It is possible to ‘map them’, if you like. It is thus much easier to state that (by the very law of averages) such things – as and when they are reported to appear – do not seem to be just the result of random coincidence.

Take this, and an obvious fact that many old buildings were built of stone, and you possibly might come even closer (from a parapsychologist’s point of view, at least) to putting these frequently reported (unexplained) manifestations into some sort of regular pattern.

I will not pursue this here (I would have to be really crazy to do so!) except to say that stone itself (whether visible or not) may actually capable or harbouring (and re-playing) a form of energy that is not recognised or understood by physical science. This energy may be totally unintelligent (again, like a television picture) but may result in a ‘visible picture’ (or an ‘audio presence’) and may be interpreted as a psychic apparition or ‘ghost’ (I really hate that latter word but use it for the sake of simple interpretation).

Yes. Of course, there may be many unexplained material or physical causes for these things. Human nature itself, especially under the right surroundings and conditions (such as those in a ‘spooky old house’ or a graveyard), can often generate – or rather create - certain manifestations which may not be in the least bit psychic by nature.

I hope that goes a little way in explaining that anyway.

And no, I haven’t forgotten you Cuddles – how could I?!?
For the moment,

David Farrant

[CLD]

You didn't actually answer my question, but that's OK.

The point being, that locations might play an essential part in being able to ‘list’ where such things have been seen or reported. Not PROVE their existence, rather group many of these alleged (unexplained) manifestations as having at least, one common denominator; that being the actual location. It is possible to ‘map them’, if you like. It is thus much easier to state that (by the very law of averages) such things – as and when they are reported to appear – do not seem to be just the result of random coincidence.


Of course they are not the result of random coincidence. People "see" spooky things in spooky places, just as people get scared while watching a scary movie about ghosts. That doesn't prove that ghosts are real.

stone itself (whether visible or not) may actually capable or harbouring (and re-playing) a form of energy that is not recognised or understood by physical science. This energy may be totally unintelligent (again, like a television picture) but may result in a ‘visible picture’ (or an ‘audio presence’) and may be interpreted as a psychic apparition or ‘ghost’ (I really hate that latter word but use it for the sake of simple interpretation).

Stone can function as a holographic projector? It should be easy to test for that, even using our "primitive" science, doncha think? But wait. I think I know what you're going to answer here. We may be able to set up a scientific test with a stone, but the crucial "psychic energy" needed to release its hologram will elude us, right? (Because psychic energy doesn't perform on cue, and I guess that's just the way it is in the spirit world) So we must just throw up our hands and declare the whole deal "beyond the limits of our current understanding"?

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

You know, Cuddles, you have a habit of asking questions (or making statements as well) that would take books to answer properly. Anyway, I will deal with the first part of your last post here, as its quite consise:

You say:

Evidence?

You keep happily stating these things, but you have provided nothing to back it up. Why do you think that the physical body cannot provide conciousness?

I am not trying to be 'condenscending', but if you onle realised the significance of that question, it would not be necessary to answer anything else. But that is not the case, so . . .

The physical body DOES provide consciousness. But consciousness is both inside and outside the body. Or put another way, the physical body is a part of your consciousness. (As I said before): If this was not the case, you would not be able to be consciousness of it. You need consciousness to be even able to be aware of the body.

You seem to imply (overwhelmingly) that consciousness is dependent on the physical body; or that the body creates consciousness ONLY.

That is not, in fact, the case. If there were no consciousness before the formation of the body, there could be no body!

Surely you don't believe that this body formed itself? Sorry. You may well do.

But though this might be a part of materialistic beliefs, I can only say that it forms no part of Reality.

For now,

David Farrant

[sat556]

Is that a claim?













:duck:

[Rrose Selavy]

The physical body DOES provide consciousness. But consciousness is both inside and outside the body. Or put another way, the physical body is a part of your consciousness. (As I said before): If this was not the case, you would not be able to be consciousness of it. You need consciousness to be even able to be aware of the body.

You seem to imply (overwhelmingly) that consciousness is dependent on the physical body; or that the body creates consciousness ONLY.

That is not, in fact, the case. If there were no consciousness before the formation of the body, there could be no body!

Surely you don't believe that this body formed itself? Sorry. You may well do.

But though this might be a part of materialistic beliefs, I can only say that it forms no part of Reality.

For now,

David Farrant

Blimey, David you're like a boxer who is so obviously attempting to (and failing) to intellectually punch (several) opponents who are so much heaver, the battering in the ring is almost sad to witness. The ref whould have stopped it way back. Yet you keep coming out for another round!

It may come as a shock to you but the general scientific consensus is that "consciousness" is a product of the brain, the nervous system and the senses, not the other way round.
I suggest you look up the definition before you try to rewrite basic biology , or any other established human endevour.

Some religions etc may allude to the "soul " or some "life force" exisitng before birth or after but that is nothing to do with facts .

and that's Reality with a capital R!

[Paul]

I am not trying to be 'condenscending'You're making a pretty good job of it.


The physical body DOES provide consciousness. But consciousness is both inside and outside the body.How is something created internally, also external?


Or put another way, the physical body is a part of your consciousness. (As I said before): If this was not the case, you would not be able to be consciousness of it.Part of the physical body causes consciousness; that does not imply a mystical nature or strange dual property for it.


You need consciousness to be even able to be aware of the body.Indeed, especially as conscious and aware are synonyms.


You seem to imply (overwhelmingly) that consciousness is dependent on the physical body; or that the body creates consciousness ONLY.If the body creates consciousness, which you already conceded, then it must necessarily be dependent on the body. Please explain to us what else is responsible for consciousness.


That is not, in fact, the case. If there were no consciousness before the formation of the body, there could be no body!Why do you keep contradicting yourself? What is your evidence that consciousness exists separate from and previous to the physical body?


Surely you don't believe that this body formed itself? Sorry. You may well do. Would you like a basic biology lesson?


But though this might be a part of materialistic beliefs,Do you know what you mean when you use the term materialism?
I can only say that it forms no part of Reality.Obviously not.

[DavidFarrant]

For Sat 556, Rrose Sevaly and Paul,

I think I have got you in the right order; but forgive me if I take all your points together, it is much easier . . .

Look, as far as I am concerned, this is not really a 'fight' (symbolic or otherwise). I am only trying to answer certain points - not trying to 'convert' anyone to what I'm saying - or rather, trying to point out.

I did say before, that there is a danger of taking this personally; in other words, attribute what I am saying to myself personally. Please try to look at what I am saying, as opposed to me saying it.

Claims do not really come into this (except in so far as that word has been introduced by others).

I am only trying to point out that Life (with a big 'L') is not dependent on the body; either my body, your bodies or anybody else's bodies.

To be clear (and I am not talking about 'claims' here, and you could see it yourself if you would but only look), I am talking about Life itself (or consciousness); 'That' very intelligence that gives all of us the power to even breathe. The body itself does not even have a 'biological power' to make it breathe. It might be 'biological' of itself, agreed, but without some non-biological energy or Life Force acting upon it, it would not have the power to do so.

I really cannot see what is so complicated in all this. I am not trying to present any 'extraordinary theories' here; just presenting the fact (yes, fact!) that without consciousness, we would not exist.

I am not talking about 'small time interlectual consciousness' here, as this has frequently deviated from its true source; I am talking about that Consciousness that gives all of us the power to actually Live.

Paul is seemingly saying (well, not just Paul) that we could actually exist without It.

But I guess this is what can happen sometimes when human beings virtually lose all sense of their true origin.

I am not claiming to be any sort of expert. But what I can tell you is that Life is certainly not 'biological'.

David Farrant

[Paul]

I did say before, that there is a danger of taking this personally; in other words, attribute what I am saying to myself personallyWithout evidence to the contrary, there is no other way to take statements made by you.


Please try to look at what I am saying, as opposed to me saying it.You are the only person we can question about your statements.


Claims do not really come into this (except in so far as that word has been introduced by others).Whether you admit it or not, it is apparent to others that some of your statements amount to claims.


I am only trying to point out that Life (with a big 'L') is not dependent on the body; either my body, your bodies or anybody else's bodies.If you mean life in general then obviously you are correct, if you mean human life then you are absolutely wrong.


To be clear (and I am not talking about 'claims' here, and you could see it yourself if you would but only look), I am talking about Life itself (or consciousness);Life is not consciousness and consciousness is not life.


'That' very intelligence that gives all of us the power to even breathe.Intelligence is not require to breathe, an autonomic nervous system is, however, very useful.


The body itself does not even have a 'biological power' to make it breathe.What is biological power?


It might be 'biological' of itself, agreed, but without some non-biological energy or Life Force acting upon it, it would not have the power to do so.Stuff, and indeed, nonsense.


I really cannot see what is so complicated in all this.That is part of the problem.


I am not trying to present any 'extraordinary theories' here;Yes you are.


just presenting the fact (yes, fact!) that without consciousness, we would not exist.I think you'll find you have that backwards.


I am not talking about 'small time interlectual consciousness' here, as this has frequently deviated from its true sourceReally, you find human consciousness small time and unimportant?


I am talking about that Consciousness that gives all of us the power to actually Live.You mean the one you have no evidence for?


Paul is seemingly saying (well, not just Paul) that we could actually exist without It.By normal excepted definitions, yes.


But I guess this is what can happen sometimes when human beings virtually lose all sense of their true origin.And what would this true non-biological, externally-conscious, life force powered origin be?


I am not claiming to be any sort of expert. But what I can tell you is that Life is certainly not 'biological'.It is very obvious that you are no expert.

[CLD]

I have given up trying to make sense of your essay. On to other things. According to Wikipedia's Highgate Vampire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highgate_Vampire) article:

There was more publicity about Farrant and Manchester when rumours spread that they would meet in a 'magicians' duel' on Parliament Hill on Friday 13 April 1973, which never came off.

Can you explain what it is you intended to do at this "magician's duel"? I did not know you claimed to practice magic.

[DavidFarrant]

For CLD,

What you said about my article is fair enough. Maybe best to leave that (as far as our personal views on that are concerned).

You have asked me about something else now (if I was invloved in 'magic', 'duels' etc) but that is really another subject completely as, for one thing, it involves talking about another person. I am rather reluctant, to do that here, but I will try and answer you tomorrow about that.

I can answer about my personal involvement in what you ask, but I do not really want to discuss 'other people'. But I'll answer you tomorrow.

For now,

David Farrant

[Expression_man]

It may come as a shock to you but the general scientific consensus is that "consciousness" is a product of the brain, the nervous system and the senses, not the other way round.

This does not mean that it is true. It is just an assumption based on our current level of understanding and is not without points of contention.

I suggest you look up the definition before you try to rewrite basic biology , or any other established human endevour.

Now that's condescending.

[Paul]

This does not mean that it is true. It is just an assumption based on our current level of understanding and is not without points of contentionDo these points of contention include an external, non-biological consciousness?

[RemieV]

David,

I think I get this... you're talking about Being. But Being is a philosophical idea, and philosophical ideas have a tendency to disappear when science proves them impossible.

At any rate, there is no way to offer proof of a philosophy that's going to satisfy anyone seeking evidence, so that's a pointless endeavor.

[Starrman]

For Starrman,

You say:

Uggh! But where is the evidence that the life comes from anywhere other than within the physical body?

The 'evidence' surely is that you are saying this, being aware of the physical body?

If you were not conscious of the physical body, you would not even be able to describe it.

You can not speak from 'inside it'. You can only really really speak from 'outside it', or you could not be aware of its existence in the first place.

To myself, all this is really so simple. Not 'simple' by explanation, perhaps, but by way of 'simple realisation'.

Anyway, that is the only way I can really answer this point,

David (Farrant)


OK - that's it for me, I'm outta here. The evidence that conciousness comes from outside the physical body is the fact that I am participating on a messge board. How could I have been so blind!?

Making stuff up <> evidence.

[Expression_man]

Do these points of contention include an external, non-biological consciousness?

Ah, now you're catching on. Last year was the first international medical conference on the subject of near death experiences. It was attended by physicians and scientific researchers from different countries who share a common interest in the subject (they would have had the phenomena reported to them directly). While the general consensus is that such phenomena are mediated by chemical changes in the brain it was also acknowledged that in some cases the subjects were completely braindead during the episodes. Many of the people in attendance admitted to having conducted research in secrecy so as to avoid ridicule. Some of the subjects in question were even able to report on events beyond their sensory range while having an NDE.

It's exciting stuff. There are other examples of external non-biological consciousness but they require further investigation in order to validate. Bringing them up here wouldn't serve any purpose other than to present something else to be shot at.

Let's keep things on track.

[DavidFarrant]

For CLD

You asked about a report (on Wikipedia) saying that I was to have a ‘magical duel’ with another man and if it was true that I ‘practised magic’ (this report was from 1973 incidentally).

I have given your question a great deal of thought; but on reflection concluded to answer questions from the past (especially the distant past) would not really be relevant to events in the present.

Of course I could answer you very easily, but to do so would be to introduce events of a highly controversial nature for which one individual has already been banned from here for persistently discussing.

As I said, I could answer this very easily, but there would be a real danger of this escalating here when I am supposed to be discussing psychic phenomena and the paranormal. Can you see the difficulty?

If you were to re-phase your question by asking about my attitude to psychic phenomena at given stages in the past, that would be far simplier and enable me to answer form a personal point of view without involving other people.

But this is not really a suggestion unless you wish to pursue the past this way.

A more important reason, perhaps, is that I consider the past to be relatively unimportant, and see it only as a necessary ‘learning process’ to obtaining understanding (of these things) in the present. I like to think I am relatively free of the past; and find it almost tragic to come across people sometimes who are so hopelessly enmeshed in it (the past) so as to lose all sight of reality in the present.

Well, I may not have answered your question, but I have certainly taken the trouble to explain why I haven’t!

David Farrant

[Paul]

Ah, now you're catching on.You, however, are apparently not.


Last year was the first international medical conference on the subject of near death experiences. It was attended by physicians and scientific researchers from different countries who share a common interest in the subjectIn what way does having a conference validate the subject?


While the general consensus is that such phenomena are mediated by chemical changes in the brain it was also acknowledged that in some cases the subjects were completely braindead during the episodes.And how, pray tell, were they able to communicate with patients who had 'Irreversible brain damage and loss of brain function, as evidenced by cessation of breathing and other vital reflexes, unresponsiveness to stimuli, absence of muscle activity, and a flat electroencephalogram for a specific length of time'? 1 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/brain%20death)


Many of the people in attendance admitted to having conducted research in secrecy so as to avoid ridicule.Really, there have been IANDS (http://www.iands.org/) conferences since at least 1993 and they are still afraid of ridicule; you would think it was some kind of pseudoscientific fringe research.


Some of the subjects in question were even able to report on events beyond their sensory range while having an NDE.People dream about flying, doesn't mean they can.


It's exciting stuff. There are other examples of external non-biological consciousness but they require further investigation in order to validate.You'll have to show one example before you go on to these unvalidated assumptions.


Bringing them up here wouldn't serve any purpose other than to present something else to be shot at. Don't you have any confidence in them?

[DavidFarrant]

For Paul,

You (and others) seem to be basically asserting that consciousness, whether in its active state or passive (unconsciousness) originates with the physical brain. (I think that is a fair summary, please tell me if its not).

The point I noticed you always seem to avoid, however, is what is it that first created the original brain? Can you answer this without just referring to physical chemicals which would otherwise be dead, inert and dormant without some intelligence acting upon them?

Can you answer this for me?

David Farrant

[Professor Yaffle]

Er, would that be evolution by natural selection?

Don't tell us you are an IDer too....

[DavidFarrant]

For Professor Yaffle,

I am afraid I don't know what an 'IDer' is, so you'll have to enlighten me on that.

To Answer: I don't know about 'natural selection' and have never read Dawin. But evoloution, yes, its all part of the same thing.

David Farrant

[RemieV]

ID = Intelligent Design

[DavidFarrant]

For Remiev,

Thank you Remiev. I suppose I can take that as some sort of compliment!?

I think you came much closer than many people here to seeing what I am trying to convey by calling it Being.

You rather spoil it but then asking for evidence. But that is the whole point because there are some things which you just can't produce evidence. THAT is probably the prime one.

David Farrant

[CLD]

As I said, I could answer this very easily, but there would be a real danger of this escalating here when I am supposed to be discussing psychic phenomena and the paranormal.

"Magical duels" sound very paranormal to me. Much more so than "the nature of consciousness", evolution, etc. But I understand if you can't answer, so how about you just choose one of the following that best fits:

A. The report of a "magical duel" was created by the local press based on wild rumours.
B. Yes, I am a wizard with limited magical powers and wizards often "duel".
C. The "magical duel" was cooked up by me and Manchester in order to sell books we were writing.

[RemieV]

David,

The only evidence there is and can ever be for Being is that you and I are here typing, as you said. It hardly qualifies as empirical evidence, and I'm not really asking for any. I think that Being, generally, is an interesting idea. However, that doesn't make it the most logical or the most correct.

I pointed out that oftentimes philosophy is discarded when the evidence rolls in. That has been true for every major philosophy that has ever existed, or rather that the evidence has come in contrary. The whether or not people persist in believing is more of an individual choice.

I think that what they're asking for is how you can know such things. I'm aware that you say you *don't* know, but it's clear from the way you are speaking that you know within yourself. Why did you come to that conclusion? Is it because of your personal philosophy, and therefore not only inarguable but also impossible to discuss, or did you come to it by another route that has smaller, possibly testable anecdotes?

You and I typing to one another does not fall into that category simply because there are many ways of looking at self-consciousness. You seem to fall into the marionette category, though you can correct me if I'm wrong. That category believes that your consciousness is more like a little man sitting in your head driving your body like a vehicle.

Other people believe that humans interact with one another, thereby creating self-consciousness for the interacters. (Bringing each other into Being.)

And I imagine that most of the ones you'll find here believe that we are nothing more than a complex biological mechanism acting out its genetic fate.

To you, the first one seems the most likely scenario. Where you differ, and where you might find trouble, is that it is one of the least likely. There is no reason to believe such a thing, while many find ample reason to believe in genetics and biology.

Which is why, should we pursue this route of conversation, it would be important to discover why that worldview was the one that made sense to you.

I, however, have a less dire question.

What kind of thermometers are you using?

Thanks,

RemieV

[Paul]

The point I noticed you always seem to avoid, however, is what is it that first created the original brain? Can you answer this without just referring to physical chemicals which would otherwise be dead, inert and dormant without some intelligence acting upon them?Have you heard of evolution?


Can you answer this for me?Not exactly, but then I'm not a neuroscientist or an evolutionary biologist, I'm also not arguing from ignorance. 1 (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html)

[DavidFarrant]

For CLD

Lets put up ALL your points, but I'm you're going to get very restrained answers (for reasons I stated before):

Magical duels" sound very paranormal to me. Much more so than "the nature of consciousness", evolution, etc. But I understand if you can't answer, so how about you just choose one of the following that best fits:

A. The report of a "magical duel" was created by the local press based on wild rumours.
B. Yes, I am a wizard with limited magical powers and wizards often "duel".
C. The "magical duel" was cooked up by me and Manchester in order to sell books we were writing.

A. No. It was not created by the Press. But the challegenge (to a magical duel) was made directly to the National Press by another person. They carried it on, as did he. The apponted night was Friday April 13th 1973.
I did not turn up explaining at the time that the whole thing had been turned into a publicity stunt by the 'other side'. The other person nevertheless turned up apparently impervious to the dozens of reporters waiting at the location on Hampstead Heath.

B. I have never claimed to be a wizard or even used that word.

C. It might well have been cooked up by people using my name to attract publicity to themselves in fact, this was the case. Whilst I had written numerous articles and given talks on the occult and paranormal by that time, I had not had a book published. So the answer to C. must be 'no'.

Anyway, I hope that basically answers that.

David (Farrant)

[DavidFarrant]

For RemieV

Thanks for those points Remiev. (I thought you were older than the little girl shown in your picture!).

I will get back to you a little later, hopefully this evening.

For now,

David Farrant

[Flange Desire]

[
I am not claiming to be any sort of expert. But what I can tell you is that Life is certainly not 'biological'.
David Farrant
You can tell us that, but that does not make it true.

[Flange Desire]

For CLD

Lets put up ALL your points, but I'm you're going to get very restrained answers (for reasons I stated before):

Magical duels" sound very paranormal to me. Much more so than "the nature of consciousness", evolution, etc. But I understand if you can't answer, so how about you just choose one of the following that best fits:

A. The report of a "magical duel" was created by the local press based on wild rumours.
B. Yes, I am a wizard with limited magical powers and wizards often "duel".
C. The "magical duel" was cooked up by me and Manchester in order to sell books we were writing.

A. No. It was not created by the Press. But the challegenge (to a magical duel) was made directly to the National Press by another person. They carried it on, as did he. The apponted night was Friday April 13th 1973.
I did not turn up explaining at the time that the whole thing had been turned into a publicity stunt by the 'other side'. The other person nevertheless turned up apparently impervious to the dozens of reporters waiting at the location on Hampstead Heath.

B. I have never claimed to be a wizard or even used that word.

C. It might well have been cooked up by people using my name to attract publicity to themselves in fact, this was the case. Whilst I had written numerous articles and given talks on the occult and paranormal by that time, I had not had a book published. So the answer to C. must be 'no'.

Anyway, I hope that basically answers that.

David (Farrant)

Wow! A masterpiece of non-answering!
So many words, but so little meaning!

CLD asked which of the three was the best fit.
You could have answered that with one letter - A, B or C;
or else you could have posited a better (short) explanation.

But you did not.

[DavidFarrant]

For Flange Desire

You state:

Wow! A masterpiece of non-answering!
So many words, but so little meaning!

CLD asked which of the three was the best fit.
You could have answered that with one letter - A, B or C;
or else you could have posited a better (short) explanation.

But you did not.

CLD gave me a choice to pick ONE of his three options A, B or C

Now, I had already explained that I did not have to answer any of them (if you'd have only read back, which you had obviously not) but I chose to answer all three.

How is that 'not answering?!??

David Farrant

[CLD]

Wow! A masterpiece of non-answering!
So many words, but so little meaning!


David actually did OK with that one as compared to some other questions. I got the idea that the whole "magical duel" incident was total bunk fabricated by the Press and by Manchester. And that he (David) does not claim to have magical powers. Good enough for me. Here's a bunch more questions. Evade or answer as you wish:

1. Do you believe Sylvia Browne has psychic powers?
2. What kind of thermometers do you use when doing "paranormal" investigation?
3. Despite centuries of interest in the subject, why is there no reliable proof in favour of the existence of the paranormal?
4. Do you believe in the existence of UFO's and aliens?
5. Do you believe in the efficacy of homeopathy?
6. Do you believe that Ouija boards can open a portal to Hell?
7. Do you believe in Electronic Voice Phenomenon (voices of the dead on audio tape)?
8. If "there exist things beyond the understanding of science", why can't vampires exist?
9. Have you ever seen a Leprechaun?
10. Is telekinesis real?
11. What would you accept as unequivocal proof that ghosts do not exist?

[DavidFarrant]

For RemieV

Hello again. To go back to what we were saying, you were pointing out that self-consciousness might consist of the ‘marionette type entity’ (that there is an ‘aware entity’ inside our heads that uses the body as a vechile and so guides and directs it), but might also consist or be bought about by ‘biological interaction’ that results in a biological mechanism (human beings although would obviously apply to the whole of nature) acting out its genetic fate. You suggested that the latter is the more generally accepted view. (I have not physically copied your exact phraseology, so hope this is a fair summary of what you meant.

You also asked what had bought me to my own conclusions about consciousness and if I followed (or had been influenced by, presumably) any particular philosophy. To answer the latter first, and so perhaps ‘get it in order’, I have never really followed any specific philosophy; although I have certainly ‘passed through’ a multitude of these, including religious and secular beliefs. I say ‘passed through’ because I have always maintained that I came to understand that Life was really just a ‘learning process’, but that to become ‘entrapped’ or to ‘follow’ ANY of these, really arrested the ‘learning process’. As an example, when I was very young (maybe from nine onwards until my very early teens) I came very much under the influence of spiritualism, although not long afterwards came to realise that this, too, was only another form of religious belief and that ‘spirits’ as portrayed by that Church simply had no real existence. I do not wish to digress; just to very simply answer your question.
With regard to your observation about ‘biological interaction’ being a main basis for life; of course it is. I never meant to imply otherwise. This same basic principle not only applies to human beings, but is applicable also to the teeming existence in Nature. (That is not meant to be offensive. I am not comparing human beings to animal life, just that the basic biological principle is the same).
Left here, I have nothing really to dispute with anybody. But I was really going a little way beyond this (a long way actually). I was just pointing out that Life was not just dependent on biology. It is dependent on that very Consciousness that governs biology. That Consciousness that first bought biology (hence ourselves) into existence.
I cannot put it more simply than that.
But regarding the first possibility, ‘marionette-type consciousness’, I am afraid that I cannot accept this either. To do so would be to imply that consciousness is solely confined to the physical body, and has no ‘life’ outside of it.
You cannot confine consciousness to the body. Yes. It is SEEN to be in the body but this does not necessarily make it so. It just means that people ‘seeing’ this (or accepting it) have not yet woken up to the fact that it is just not so.
Consciousness can not be in the body as such. Surely, if consciousness initially formed the body, it is not ‘trapped’ inside it?
To save any more misunderstanding here: I am not saying that consciousness is not in the body. Of course it is because it uses the body. But it is also outside of it, which is all I was trying to say.
At this stage in the evolutionary process, this might be a hard thing to see or accept. But it is really not so ‘mysterious’. Consciousness formed our bodies, and it can and will do so again, and again; and so on into Infinity if the need should arise.
You know this is really so obvious. For instance, why is it that people are so obsessed with life after death? (Sorry, maybe not people here!). We rarely question where we ‘were’ before we were born. If you think about this, it is really an essential point. We must have had life (consciousness) before we were born. For something that does not already exist, cannot come into existence.

Finally, no, I do not have any ‘secret knowledge’. In fact, this is not even a secret. It is just ‘there’ for anyone to see. And incredibly enough, it is absolutely free!
David Farrant

[RemieV]

David,

Thank you for the response. I'll read it over and answer more completely - but I did have a question tacked on the end that was more my own and less just a part of the train of thought already in motion.

What kind of thermometers do you use on your investigations?

Thanks again,

RemieV

[Paul]

I was just pointing out that Life was not just dependent on biology.Biology is the study of life, which is dependent on supportive environmental conditions.


It is dependent on that very Consciousness that governs biology. That Consciousness that first bought biology (hence ourselves) into existence.What do you claim this to be?


I cannot put it more simply than that.That may be the problem, trying to make this a simple solution is leading to unfounded assumptions.


You cannot confine consciousness to the body. Yes. It is SEEN to be in the body but this does not necessarily make it so. It just means that people ‘seeing’ this (or accepting it) have not yet woken up to the fact that it is just not so.Consciousness is a quality of the body, more specifically the mind, and is therefore confined to it. Consciousness is not seen, it is a state of awareness which may be observed in others. You are assuming that there is an external consciousness, but have not defined or explained it except in the very general terms of its supposed existence.


Consciousness can not be in the body as such. Surely, if consciousness initially formed the body, it is not ‘trapped’ inside it?There is no evidence that 'consciousness' formed the body.


To save any more misunderstanding here: I am not saying that consciousness is not in the body. Of course it is because it uses the body. But it is also outside of it, which is all I was trying to say.There is no misunderstanding, I would like to know why you believe there is an external consciousness and what, specifically, brought you to this conclusion


At this stage in the evolutionary process, this might be a hard thing to see or accept. But it is really not so ‘mysterious’. Consciousness formed our bodies, and it can and will do so again, and again; and so on into Infinity if the need should arise.Why should evolution affect our knowledge of your 'consciousness', and what leads you to this knowledge of infinity?


You know this is really so obvious.No, it is not, that is the point.


For instance, why is it that people are so obsessed with life after death?Because awareness of one's mortality is a powerful reason to seek comfort in a greater meaning for existence.


We rarely question where we ‘were’ before we were born. If you think about this, it is really an essential point.If you mean before we were conceived, then we were a collection of cells with potential.


We must have had life (consciousness) before we were born. For something that does not already exist, cannot come into existence.Babies don't spontaneously appear in the womb you know.


Finally, no, I do not have any ‘secret knowledge’. In fact, this is not even a secret. It is just ‘there’ for anyone to see. And incredibly enough, it is absolutely free!It's a secret from everyone that expends a great deal of time and intellectual energy searching for answers that you think are simple and need no education or research.

[Professor Yaffle]

What created the consciousness that created consciousness?

[jaynebeal]

sorry for not replying sooner but here I am anyway. alot of the experiments I have read of were done at Duke University, among other places and seemed to show promising results. I am also of the mind that expecting a repeatable experiment a hundred times over with a hundred percent hit as opposed to a vague hit and miss is like expecting a beginning gymnast to execute a triple pike without them knowing how to do a forward roll. I think that many of us have had at least one experience that seemed to be more than coincidence according to chance but I don't personally expect anything greater without training and as we don't yet know what that training would entail we don't get the results we want to see to prove it either way. I loved James Randi's encyclopedia or a-z of the paranormal, it had me in fits all the way through but that also doesn't mean that I am not open to some serious research into any possible talents we may posess. If it were to be possible then I should treat the mind as a muscle and train it in the right direction and only then expect greater things from it. opinions and disparaging remarks welcome...l.o.l.

Bealie

[DavidFarrant]

For CLD

I don't mind answering questions; but eleven at once?!? Its not as if they're even simple - some of them would take a book to answer!

Anyway, I'll have a go tomorrow.

But for now,

David

PS Yes, I have seen a lecrechaun - a friend of mine has got one on her mantlepiece; although it might be a pixie, I don't know!

[Cuddles]

Of course I could answer you very easily, but to do so would be to introduce events of a highly controversial nature for which one individual has already been banned from here for persistently discussing.

And once again you lie in order to avoid simple questions. No-one has been banned for discussing anything. Two people, not one, were banned for repeatedly breaking the forum rules even after several warnings. The subject they were discussing had no bearing on the decision to ban them.

[sackett]

Mr. Farrant, where may one buy your books?

[CLD]

For CLD

I don't mind answering questions; but eleven at once?!? Its not as if they're even simple - some of them would take a book to answer!

Anyway, I'll have a go tomorrow.

But for now,

David

PS Yes, I have seen a lecrechaun - a friend of mine has got one on her mantlepiece; although it might be a pixie, I don't know!

At least answer the thermometer question. That shouldn't require a paragraph.

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

Yes, two people were indeed banned, but the initial reason given by Darat, I believe, that usual discussion was welcome but he didn't want to see the forum used to pursue fueding.

THAT is what I was referring to, and I felt it would be entering 'dangerous terriorty' to answer questions directly involving other people.

Once again Cuddles, I think you've missed the point!

For now,

David

[DavidFarrant]

For CLD,

No, I intend to answer ALL your popints - not just one.

But, as I think I have said before, Friday is my busy day, so it will have to be tommorow. It will take about eleven short paragraphs to answer you properly. But they will have to be concise. But you can always come back to anything after that.

So for the moment,

David Farrant

[DavidFarrant]

FOR CLD,

I have listed your questions below, my answers follow:

1. Do you believe Sylvia Browne has psychic powers?
2. What kind of thermometers do you use when doing "paranormal" investigation?
3. Despite centuries of interest in the subject, why is there no reliable proof in favour of the existence of the paranormal?
4. Do you believe in the existence of UFO's and aliens?
5. Do you believe in the efficacy of homeopathy?
6. Do you believe that Ouija boards can open a portal to Hell?
7. Do you believe in Electronic Voice Phenomenon (voices of the dead on audio tape)?
8. If "there exist things beyond the understanding of science", why can't vampires exist?
9. Have you ever seen a Leprechaun?
10. Is telekinesis real?
11. What would you accept as unequivocal proof that ghosts do not exist?


1) Sylvia Browne and mediums? I do not know Sylvia Browne personally, and even if I did, I would not want to comment on individual people. I have had enough erroneous things said about myself without doing the same to other people! However, if you are asking about mediums in general, there are many deliberate frauds around, although there are also many genuine ones. I would not have thought the fraudulent ones were even worthy of discussion. No powers, no spirits, end of mystery! I would have thought it is far more relevant to enquire about how the genuine ones possess or demonstrate the knowledge that they are capable of doing. Is it really the work of ‘outside spirits’? or could there be a totally different explanation? I believe that the latter is the case, but that is way beyond the confines of your question or this answer.




2) Thermometers: when we do investigations indoors, where there is an electrical power supply, we use a special electronic thermometer which requires to be plugged in to the mains. These are fairly accurate in that they measure temperature changes fairly concisely, and quickly, in degrees centigrade. Outdoors, or where there is no electricity, we use battery operated thermometers, though these are slower to register temperature changes, or old fashioned mercury thermometers.




3) What do you mean by the word ‘reliable’? If you are relating this word to material or physical science, then I would agree there is probably none that would satisfy you, i.e. that could be tested by (modern-day) scientific means or observed in a laboratory. But there are numerous other ‘non-scientific’ cases that, by very virtue of their sheer persistence, would make them ‘reliable’ by the law of averages.




4) I think ‘belief’ is a very misleading word as I have said before. No, I don’t believe in the existence of UFO’s and aliens as portrayed in your question. But I would not discard the possibility of life forms on other planets either in this ‘known’ Universe or other Universes.




5) It is perhaps best to leave this one, because to deal with the subject of healing would not only be very complex, but would take us back to the issue of consciousness.



6) I have said many times that it is dangerous to experiment or ‘play around’ with Ouija Boards. That are capable of opening up unused channels in the human mind – at least, in the minds of some people. There are many unused levels in the human mind; to ‘play around’ with these without proper qualification, could be to result in ‘releasing’ forces not familiar to the ‘everyday mind’. These would (indeed are) be seen as ‘outside spirits’ when in reality, these might be said to be ‘inside forces’ released to the ‘outside’. I would not use the term ‘Hell’ as personally I do not accept the existence or reality of this. Unless, of course, we are talking about Hell right here (right now) on earth. Now that is a completely different matter.




7) Do I believe in EVP? Yes and no. – depending on what you mean. I believe it may be possible to take ‘recordings’ of ‘recordings’. Meaning, such ‘recordings’ are certainly not ‘voices of the dead’ in a literal or ‘live sense – but maybe just ‘replayed recordings’ of voices or impressions that almost certainly have no intelligence as such.



8) For the same reason that ‘blue fairies’ almost certainly do not exist on the moon. Intelligence itself should surely provide the answer here without any further proof needed.



9) Only on a mantelpiece or in an ornamental garden.




10) Is telekinesis real? Yes, I would say that it is – or can be. I personally do not find it so strange to accept that if the human mind can move a hand (or any other part of the body), it should not also be capable of moving or affecting an object.


11) That is really a negative question. It is like saying . . .”What do you accept as absolute proof that things unexplained do not exist”? Put another way;if a given phenomenon cannot be understood, does this alone constitute proof that it cannot exist? And what is the case with things that might exist but which cannot be explained or understood. If science later finds an explanation for something (the law of gravity, for example) we are quick to say . . . “Well it was there all the while, but now we understand it”. Yes, but it was ‘there’ (it existed) before it was discovered. Only basic ignorance prevented understanding before its discovery. The fact is that you can never prove that something does not exist, so that there can never be an ‘unequivocal proof’ of the unreality of ghosts, or psychic phenomena generally.


David Farrant

[DavidFarrant]

For Sackett

You asked where you could buy my books.

I hesitated in replying to you as I did not want to take advantage here by misusing this space for advertising, or even giving book titles.

Probably be easiest to give you the link to the main page of my website, and you can find the information you want by going down the index.

It is:

http://davidfarrant.org/index.html

I hope this helps anyway. You might find some other interesting things there as well as the books.

For now,

David Farrant

[Paul]

there are many deliberate frauds around, although there are also many genuine ones.How can a genuine medium be identified?


Is it really the work of ‘outside spirits’? or could there be a totally different explanation? I believe that the latter is the case, but that is way beyond the confines of your question or this answer.If you believe there is an explanation, you must have at least an idea of what it is; what differentiates it from hot or cold reading?


What do you mean by the word ‘reliable’? If you are relating this word to material or physical science, then I would agree there is probably none that would satisfy you, i.e. that could be tested by (modern-day) scientific means or observed in a laboratory. But there are numerous other ‘non-scientific’ cases that, by very virtue of their sheer persistence, would make them ‘reliable’ by the law of averages.If by non-scientific you mean anecdotal, that is not reliable evidence.

Regarding averages, to have an average there must be extreme values, with one or two cases you have no idea where they fall in the range.


I have said many times that it is dangerous to experiment or ‘play around’ with Ouija Boards. That are capable of opening up unused channels in the human mind – at least, in the minds of some people.Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just a personal believe without foundation?


There are many unused levels in the human mind; to ‘play around’ with these without proper qualification, could be to result in ‘releasing’ forces not familiar to the ‘everyday mind’.Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just a personal believe without foundation?


These would (indeed are) be seen as ‘outside spirits’ when in reality, these might be said to be ‘inside forces’ released to the ‘outside’.Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just a personal believe without foundation?


I believe it may be possible to take ‘recordings’ of ‘recordings’. Meaning, such ‘recordings’ are certainly not ‘voices of the dead’ in a literal or ‘live sense – but maybe just ‘replayed recordings’ of voices or impressions that almost certainly have no intelligence as such.
Where are these voices or impressions from, and how is it possible to capture them on a recording medium?


For the same reason that ‘blue fairies’ almost certainly do not exist on the moon. Intelligence itself should surely provide the answer here without any further proof needed.Intelligence provides the answer that other things you believe in do not exist, yet you persist, what is special about fairies or vampires?


I personally do not find it so strange to accept that if the human mind can move a hand (or any other part of the body), it should not also be capable of moving or affecting an object. Well, you should find it strange, as the internal mechanisms connecting the brain to the hand are not magically connected to inanimate objects outside the body.

[DavidFarrant]

For Paul,

I’ll get back to one or two of your points tomorrow. There seems little point in dealing with all these in the form of a ‘list’ though, as I’ve already given my answers, and all you seem to be basically saying is . . . “Show us the evidence”.

I have already explained (or tried to explain) that it is not possible to produce material evidence to ‘prove’ the existence of the ‘non-material’. That is really the whole point, but one which I feel you’ve missed totally. I guess one difference between yourself and myself is that you live in a totally ‘material world’, whilst my experience of Life (big ‘L’ deliberately) is that Life (of itself) is a long way from being physical or material.

That aside, where on earth did you get the impression that I have ever said that I accept the real existence of ‘fairies’ or ‘vampires’? Perhaps you can give me a reference to where I’m supposed to have said that, and we could also deal with that one!

But for now,

David Farrant.

[Paul]

I’ve already given my answers, and all you seem to be basically saying is . . . “Show us the evidence”.I'm trying to get you to think about why you insist on making statements based solely on personal opinion, and why these are not evidence of anything and will not be taken at face value.


I have already explained (or tried to explain) that it is not possible to produce material evidence to ‘prove’ the existence of the ‘non-material’.Then why do you insist on it's existence?


That is really the whole point, but one which I feel you’ve missed totally. I guess one difference between yourself and myself is that you live in a totally ‘material world’,I have very little choice in the matter.


whilst my experience of Life (big ‘L’ deliberately) is that Life (of itself) is a long way from being physical or material.What is this big L life and why do you claim special knowledge of it?


That aside, where on earth did you get the impression that I have ever said that I accept the real existence of ‘fairies’ or ‘vampires’?You have said the opposite, which was the point of my post: you deny the existence of certain supernatural phenomena while claiming knowledge of the existence of others, opinion and anecdotes seemingly being the only differentiating criteria.

[DavidFarrant]

For Paul

Your re-quote of my question and your comment:

Quote:
That aside, where on earth did you get the impression that I have ever said that I accept the real existence of ‘fairies’ or ‘vampires’?
You have said the opposite, which was the point of my post: you deny the existence of certain supernatural phenomena while claiming knowledge of the existence of others, opinion and anecdotes seemingly being the only differentiating criteria.

Paul, are you really being serious??!!

I have stated quite unequivocably that I do not - or ever have - accepted the existence of 'blood-sucking vampires'. You seem to be saying that I do. But where is YOUR evidence for this? (that I believe in such things). Your only 'evidence' seems to be that I have publicly stated that I investigate (but leave an open mind to) cases of unexplained phenomena (the paranormal, to use simple language) to try and find some explanation for various 'psychic happenings and events' that have been occurring for centuries. These are obviously too numerous to relate in their entirity here.

But the point is, why do you pick the rather ridiculous scenario of literal 'vampires' (the existence of which I do not accept) and try to use these as some sort of 'justification' that this proves the non-existence of the paranormal in general?

I do not somehow think you would ever make an objective investigator, Paul, when you tend to 'lump things together' like this.

'Vampires' are among the absurdities of the unknown - we are not in dispute there. But your seeming assumption that if 'vampires' are unreal (which I agree with) this stands as 'proof' that everything else must be of a paranormal nature, is slightly out of context to the subject being discussed here.

David Farrant
_

[Paul]

I have stated quite unequivocably that I do not - or ever have - accepted the existence of 'blood-sucking vampires'. You seem to be saying that I do. But where is YOUR evidence for this? (that I believe in such things).OK, for the third time, I KNOW THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN VAMPIRES. I have said as much in my previous posts; my point, which seems to evade you entirely, is that you apply special circumstances to some phenomena and not to others.

You said that 'intelligence itself should surely provide the answer' as to why fairies or vampires do not exist, yet you cannot see why the same applies to other phenomena for other people.


Your only 'evidence' seems to be that I have publicly stated that I investigate (but leave an open mind to) cases of unexplained phenomena (the paranormal, to use simple language) to try and find some explanation for various 'psychic happenings and events' that have been occurring for centuries.I think you need to read posts carefully before replying to them or submitting them; the evidence for your beliefs comes from your own posts.


These are obviously too numerous to relate in their entirity here.Please stop implying vast amounts of evidence or phenomena without submitting anything, or that a subject is too broad or complex to discuss here.


But the point is, why do you pick the rather ridiculous scenario of literal 'vampires' (the existence of which I do not accept) and try to use these as some sort of 'justification' that this proves the non-existence of the paranormal in general?Should I pick the ridiculous scenarios of ghosts, telekinesis, EVP or external human consciousness?


I do not somehow think you would ever make an objective investigator, Paul, when you tend to 'lump things together' like this.If I lump them together it is as supernatural phenomena which require extraordinary evidence if any claims are to taken seriously.


But your seeming assumption that if 'vampires' are unreal (which I agree with) this stands as 'proof' that everything else must be of a paranormal natureI didn't say no vampires=nothing supernatural, however, I do wish to know why you say no vampires because intelligence at the same time as yes ghosts because anecdotes.


is slightly out of context to the subject being discussed here.The context was your reply to previous questions.

[DavidFarrant]

For Paul,

You say:
OK, for the third time, I KNOW THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN VAMPIRES. I have said as much in my previous posts; my point, which seems to evade you entirely, is that you apply special circumstances to some phenomena and not to others.

So at last you seem to have accepted that I do not accept the existence of 'vampires'. Good. At last we may be actually getting somewhere!

I think the key to all this might be when you state . . . "is that you apply special circumstances to some phenomena and not to others".

I think this is where we graetly misunderstand each other.

You seem to be implying (that I am implying) that all unexplained phenomena can be categorised as having the same qualities (use the word 'ghosts' or whatever), when that is NOT what I am saying.

I have said on numerous occasions in the past (and yes, this is all on record) that there exist different categories of unexplained phenomena (which in turn can be divided into sub-categories).

I am not going to go into all these again here. But unless you can grasp the fundamental fact of what I am saying, we would forever be talking at cross purposes.

You seem to be saying (basically) that anything that cannot be 'proved' by materialistic means is of little value (materialistically) until it can be so proved.

I am simply saying that I do not believe this to be the case. You can not so flippantly dismiss things just because you cannot understand them, can you? (Well, I guess that is a futile question because apparently you do).

Look, do you have to go to elaborate means to 'prove' that you are alive; such as taking an ECG test just to prove that your heart beats; or an 'eyesight test' just to 'prove' that you can see?

You could do this admittedly, but surely it would all be a futile waste of time when all you would simply otherwise have to do is look at yourself in the mirror. Surely you do not need scientific paraphernalia just to prove such a simple fact?!?

If you could all but grasp that, you might see what I have trying to be explaining here. Life is not created by science; neither can it be understood by it.

David Farrant

[Paul]

I think the key to all this might be when you state . . . "is that you apply special circumstances to some phenomena and not to others".

I think this is where we graetly misunderstand each other.Then please explain why you think intelligence rules out fairies and vampires, but not other phenomena.


You seem to be implying (that I am implying) that all unexplained phenomena can be categorised as having the same qualities (use the word 'ghosts' or whatever), when that is NOT what I am saying.By definition, they are unexplained and we cannot know their qualities.


I have said on numerous occasions in the past (and yes, this is all on record) that there exist different categories of unexplained phenomena (which in turn can be divided into sub-categories).You can say it all you like, but you have provided no reason why others should accept your assertions.


I am not going to go into all these again here. But unless you can grasp the fundamental fact of what I am saying, we would forever be talking at cross purposes.There you go again, claiming there is further information, which you will not divulge, and asking me to accept your unsupported position.


You seem to be saying (basically) that anything that cannot be 'proved' by materialistic means is of little value (materialistically) until it can be so proved.If something does not exist materially, it is of no material value.


I am simply saying that I do not believe this to be the case. You can not so flippantly dismiss things just because you cannot understand them, can you? (Well, I guess that is a futile question because apparently you do).I do not dismiss things because I do not understand them, I do not understand neuroscience or quantum theory for example, however, I do doubt the existence of things for which there is not even a valid hypothetical justification.


Look, do you have to go to elaborate means to 'prove' that you are alive; such as taking an ECG test just to prove that your heart beats; or an 'eyesight test' just to 'prove' that you can see?It is quite possible to need tests to prove life or eyesight, your analogy is poor.


You could do this admittedly, but surely it would all be a futile waste of time when all you would simply otherwise have to do is look at yourself in the mirror. Surely you do not need scientific paraphernalia just to prove such a simple fact?!?What is the connection between seeing yourself in a mirror and showing the existence of EVP or telekinesis?


If you could all but grasp that, you might see what I have trying to be explaining here. Life is not created by science; neither can it be understood by it.No-one is saying science created life; the puzzle is why you insist that science cannot understand it.

[CLD]

David, I don't agree with most of your opinions, but I'm not going to go round in circles debating them. And I apologize for question #11 when I erroneously asked for proof of a negative. However, I really think you can be much less noncommital on these two:



7) Do I believe in EVP? Yes and no.

10) Is telekinesis real? Yes, I would say that it is – or can be.

[Cuddles]

So at last you seem to have accepted that I do not accept the existence of 'vampires'.

So how exactly do you explain this?

But there are different types of ‘vampires, of course

There are ‘human vampires’ of course.

Yes. I have come to accept that there are indeed some ‘outside presence’s’ or ‘non-worldly’ (i.e. non-physical) forces that can ‘drain people’ mentally.

[sackett]

Mr. Farrant, thank you for your reply to my question.

So you have something to sell.

[DavidFarrant]

For CLD

Well, at least we've narrowed the list down! I'll answer 7 and 10 again for you tommorrow.

For Sackett,

You asked (or said) "So you have got something to sell".

I do not advertise my books here. You asked about these so I referred you to my Wedsite, that's all!

David Farrant

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

There are some people (human people) who could be said to take on 'vampire-like characteristics' in that they can drain people of (mental) energy. But that does not make them 'vampires'; I was using the word only to describe such people.

There may well be also 'outside influences' (not human, as such) that can also drain people of energy. But in neither the first case nor the latter could these be termed 'vampires' in the sense of the Hammer Horror-type interpretation, which was the kind I was saying I simply did not accept existed.

Hope that clarifies that for you Cuddles; but somehow I don't think that it will!

For the moment,

David Farrant

[Paul]

There are some people (human people) who could be said to take on 'vampire-like characteristics' in that they can drain people of (mental) energy.Do you mean that these people can literally drain the energy, whatever that might be, out of a person, or that there are people who are such hard work that they make you feel mentally exhausted?


But that does not make them 'vampires'; I was using the word only to describe such people.Actually, if you meant it literally, it would still make them vampires, as 'the term vampire is also used to more generally refer to mythical or fictional creatures that drain power, energy, or life from unwilling victims'.1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire)


There may well be also 'outside influences' (not human, as such) that can also drain people of energy.Do you believe this, or is it idle speculation?


But in neither the first case nor the latter could these be termed 'vampires' in the sense of the Hammer Horror-type interpretation, which was the kind I was saying I simply did not accept existed.Why use a literary or film definition instead of one from the mythic/folkloric origins?

[DavidFarrant]

For Paul,

You say (quoting myself):


Do you mean that these people can literally drain the energy, whatever that might be, out of a person, or that there are people who are such hard work
that they make you feel mentally exhausted?


I said that some people are quite capable (albeit unconsciously) of draining others of energy. I meant literally just that. I did not mean some sort of ‘fight’ on the part on another person finding another person ‘hard work’ (although that also comes into it, but it is not what I meant). I was referring to some people that can literally drain others of (mental) energy, maybe without perhaps even realising it themselves.

You would probably say that this does not constitute ‘material proof’, but often some people can be in the physical company or proximately of a given person, and feel themselves ‘drained of energy’ after a certain time. Many people have reported becoming ‘physically weakened’ by others in such a way; to the extent that they have claimed to have been left ‘exhausted’ by their encounter with the person. Now, that is a ‘fact’; although I doubt that any ‘scientific means’ would be able to prove it.

You also said:

Quote:

But that does not make them 'vampires'; I was using the word only to describe such people. Actually, if you meant it literally, it would still make them vampires, as 'the term vampire is also used to more generally refer to mythical or fictional creatures that drain power, energy, or life from unwilling victims'.1

Paul, if you don’t mind me saying so, I think you are playing on words here. I thought I had explained that I was only using the word ‘vampire’ to illustrate a material meaning – not the other way around!

David Farrant

[Paul]

I said that some people are quite capable (albeit unconsciously) of draining others of energy. I meant literally just that... snip ...I was referring to some people that can literally drain others of (mental) energy, maybe without perhaps even realising it themselves.What is this mental energy in the first place, and what happens to it after it is drained?


You would probably say that this does not constitute ‘material proof’I would say it doesn't constitute any kind of proof.


but often some people can be in the physical company or proximately of a given person, and feel themselves ‘drained of energy’ after a certain time.This is what I meant by people who are hard work, that they naturally require more attention and thus have the effect of leaving those in their presence exhausted.


Many people have reported becoming ‘physically weakened’ by others in such a way; to the extent that they have claimed to have been left ‘exhausted’ by their encounter with the person.Reported and claimed being the important words there.


Now, that is a ‘fact’; although I doubt that any ‘scientific means’ would be able to prove it.It may be a fact that you have heard reports of these claims, it is not, however, fact that these claims have been shown to be true.


Paul, if you don’t mind me saying so, I think you are playing on words here. I thought I had explained that I was only using the word ‘vampire’ to illustrate a material meaning – not the other way around!What I mean is that the word is used to describe those engaged in the activities you posit; an energy draining creature can be called a vampire. Your definition of a vampire is not necessarily one shared by others.


David, it would be a good idea if you started to use the quote function, the way you are replying now is becoming harder to understand.

[Cuddles]

For Cuddles,

There are some people (human people) who could be said to take on 'vampire-like characteristics' in that they can drain people of (mental) energy. But that does not make them 'vampires'; I was using the word only to describe such people.

There may well be also 'outside influences' (not human, as such) that can also drain people of energy. But in neither the first case nor the latter could these be termed 'vampires' in the sense of the Hammer Horror-type interpretation, which was the kind I was saying I simply did not accept existed.

Hope that clarifies that for you Cuddles; but somehow I don't think that it will!

For the moment,

David Farrant

No-one but yourself has refered to strawman Hammer Horror type vampires. You said you believed in beings, human or otherwise, that can drain people of energy and refered to them as vampires. As Paul has rightly pointed out, since this is a perfectly normal definition of the word "vampire", we toook this to mean that you do in fact believe in vampires and questioned you about this. For some bizzare reason you once again say that we are not asking about things you have claimed since you do not belive in blood sucking vampires, despite no-one ever having mentioned them.

As it stands now, the fact is that you believe in vampires. You can call them something else if you like, but that does not change anything. The question you were asked was why you believe in things like this and yet don't believe in faries, when the reasons for not believing in both should be exactly the same? This is what Paul originally asked, and is the question you have totally failed to dodge.

[DavidFarrant]

For Paul,

I'll come back to you but first do you mind telling me (very non-technically) how you use the "quote" function? (It might come in very useful for Cuddles as she seems to have great difficulty in reading properly!).

Thanks,

David Farrant

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

For Cuddles,

To avoid a pointless exchange of words between us (over virtually nothing), I looked up the word ‘vampire’ in the dictionary (well two dictionaries actually).

I thought I was right (I rarely use dictionaries when I’m writing except to look up the spelling of a difficult word).

The word has two definitions: the one defining the traditional belief (i.e. corpses that come out of their coffins at night to feast on human blood) and one referring to ‘human vampires’. Re. the latter, the Oxford Dictionary’s definition is . . . “A person who preys ruthlessly on others”.

The Collins Dictionary gives a similar definition as the latter but adds the words “an extortionist”.

I was using the word ‘vampire’ in its latter sense, NOT the first one.

Is that clear enough for you Cuddles? Or would you also require ‘physical evidence’ to prove the existence of a dictionary?!?

For now,

David Farrant

[Paul]

do you mind telling me (very non-technically) how you use the "quote" function?No problem: in the bottom right corner of posts you will find the quote button, clicking this will bring up the message box with the original post wrapped in quote tags.

The format is [ quote ] text [ /quote ] without spaces between the square brackets. You can also select sections of text and click the wrap quote tags button (little speech bubble) at the top of the message box.

Be careful that when you are done there are no extraneous tags or the formatting will be wrong, you can use the preview button to check this and also to experiment with the tags.


Hope that helps.

[Cuddles]

For Cuddles,

For Cuddles,

To avoid a pointless exchange of words between us (over virtually nothing), I looked up the word ‘vampire’ in the dictionary (well two dictionaries actually).

I thought I was right (I rarely use dictionaries when I’m writing except to look up the spelling of a difficult word).

The word has two definitions: the one defining the traditional belief (i.e. corpses that come out of their coffins at night to feast on human blood) and one referring to ‘human vampires’. Re. the latter, the Oxford Dictionary’s definition is . . . “A person who preys ruthlessly on others”.

The Collins Dictionary gives a similar definition as the latter but adds the words “an extortionist”.

I was using the word ‘vampire’ in its latter sense, NOT the first one.

Is that clear enough for you Cuddles? Or would you also require ‘physical evidence’ to prove the existence of a dictionary?!?

For now,

David Farrant

Well, firstly there are at least five definitions, I'm not sure why you ignore the other three.

That aside, you now appear to be claiming that all you meant by "vampire" is that some people are nasty to others, either physically or mentally. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with your orginal claim which was

I have come to accept that there are indeed some ‘outside presence’s’ or ‘non-worldly’ (i.e. non-physical) forces that can ‘drain people’ mentally.

This is what we have been asking about. You described a "non-physical" presence that could drain "mental energy". You orignally used the term "vampire" to describe this, and we were happy using this word as well. It now seems you used "vampire" purely so that when we used it you could give a completely different definition of it and say that you dont believe in them. Unfortunately for you people here have intelligence generally higher than a diabled newt and can see straight through your pointless diversionary tactics. We don't care what word you use to describe a non-human being that drains human's energy, all we care about is that you appear to believe in this despite rejecting belief in faries for exactly the the same reasons you should reject belief in vampires.

Now, are you actually capable of answering the question? Why do you believe in people and non-physical "things" that can drain people's "energy" (whatever you think that means), while at the same time refusing to believe in faries and other things which are supported by exactly the same quantity and quality of evidence?

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

I did not know that there were five definitions of the word ‘vampire’ which is why I only stuck to the two main ones, and not other potential variations.

This thread was started by Brodski and I dealt with this question of ‘vampires’ and ‘outside forces’ right at the beginning. I can not keep repeating the same thing over and over again just because people might have read it properly. Here is what I said then (in part, but hopefully in relation to what you are now asking again) . .

For Brodski,
I’ll try and answer your three questions. It will have to be quite brief as each question could really merit a book on its own!
You ask if I am a psychic who investigates or just someone who investigates psychic phenomena.
I have never claimed to be a psychic; although I have put forward my views on Life (with a big ‘L’) and philosophy from time to time in the past. I do not think you can entirely separate psychic phenomena from the latter, as things claimed to be psychic are, after all, really a part of Life; or perhaps the ‘Universal Life Force’, which might be a better way of putting it.
The answer would have to be though that I am a non-psychic, but at the same time an ordinary person (don’t laugh!) who investigates psychic phenomena.
Do I accept the existence of blood-sucking vampires (in their literal sense)?
The answer is most definitely ‘no’, I do not and never have done.
But there are different types of ‘vampires, of course (I keep to the word ‘vampires’ to avoid any confusion, but it is not the right word). There are ‘human vampires’ of course. That is human beings who are quite capable of draining the mental energy of another. (And this also works both ways in that there are some people of ‘uplifting’ or re-vitalising another).
But to come to what I think you mean . . . Yes. I have come to accept that there are indeed some ‘outside presence’s’ or ‘non-worldly’ (i.e. non-physical) forces that can ‘drain people’ mentally. Such visitations usually take place at night and occur when a person is in asleep, or just falling asleep. These ‘entities’ have been reported since the dawn of history and are commonly known as the incubus and the Succubus. These are not ‘vampires’ as such, but the symptoms of their attacks could often be confused with those of alleged ‘vampires’, and vice versa. I have spoken to literally dozens of people over the years who claim to have experienced such nightly visitations. Yes. I would say that these are undoubtedly genuine. I do not claim to know the Cause, but I can certainly testify to the effects. [January 18th]

As stated, the ‘outside entities’ I was referring to were the Incubus and the Succubus - entities which are said to visit sleeping by night, render them paralyzed and are even reported as having sex with them (and yes, the latter is a dictionary definition lest you care to make an issue of that!).

I pointed out (and I have pointed out widely elsewhere) that such alleged ‘visitations’ may well have given rise to stories of vampirism; indeed, even been the root cause of it.

If I mention ‘blood-sucking vampires’ (which I have done widely here and elsewhere) it is to demonstrate that I simply do not accept the existence of these. It may be more pertinent to do so as my name has come to be synonymous with this type of ‘vampire’ thanks to a certain person spreading this false association widely across the Internet.

You say, if I believe in vampires, then that means I must also believe in faries, and that there is no difference.

There is a HUGE difference, Cuddles. I have already stated that I DO NOT accept the existence of this type of vampire, so there is really nothing to compare it to.

You’ll be saying next that just because I’m reporting and commenting on alleged Incubus and Succubus visitations (which reports are wide-spread and have been for centuries) then THAT must mean I believe in faries!

Come on Cuddles. Try and get things in proper perspective!

For the moment,

David Farrant

[Paul]

As stated, the ‘outside entities’ I was referring to were the Incubus and the Succubus - entities which are said to visit sleeping by night, render them paralyzed and are even reported as having sex with them (and yes, the latter is a dictionary definition lest you care to make an issue of that!).The most reasonable explanation for this is sleep paralysis; it can occur at sleeping or waking, obviously includes paralysis and can include hallucinations. The symptoms of combined paralysis and hallucinations are given different names in different cultures, and in Europe these include incubus, succubus and hag.


I pointed out (and I have pointed out widely elsewhere) that such alleged ‘visitations’ may well have given rise to stories of vampirism; indeed, even been the root cause of it.The most likely origin of the vampire myth is the appearance of recently deceased corpses: a ruddy complexion, bloating giving rise to a well fed appearance, products of decomposition being forced out through various orifices leading to the assumption of recent feeding and tissue recession and shrinkage giving rise to tales of fangs and claws.


You say, if I believe in vampires, then that means I must also believe in faries, and that there is no difference.The point here is that you say that intellectual capacity alone should be enough to dismiss such things as, at the very least, highly improbable. However, you then fail to apply this method to other phenomena such as telekinesis and EVP.


There is a HUGE difference, Cuddles. I have already stated that I DO NOT accept the existence of this type of vampire, so there is really nothing to compare it to.A large number of people currently believe that the blood sucking, grave-living vampires of folklore do exist and are prepared to exhume and mutilate corpses because of it.

[sat556]

Look, do you have to go to elaborate means to 'prove' that you are alive; such as taking an ECG test just to prove that your heart beats; or an 'eyesight test' just to 'prove' that you can see?


David. It is not whether or not you need to do these things that matters, it is the fact that you CAN.

[DavidFarrant]

For Paul,

Thanks for that. I have not actually used that quote button yet, but if I do and I mess it up’ at least you’ll know why in advance!

I in fact went into sleep paralysis into some depth when I was asked about vampires and I bought up the subject of the Incubus and Succubus in connection with this. (It starts around the bottom of page 1 here and goes onto page 2, I believe). I agreed that sleep paralysis was most probably the cause of these alleged ‘visitations’ – not visiting spirits or demons.

I realise that there may be many other causes for the myth of vampirism – premature burial, medical conditions etc.

What I was pointing out, however, that many people undergoing these attacks of sleep paralysis (and I have spoken to many), seem to share basic symptoms of the effects.

It is common for people to begin sleep-walking and having vivid nightmares. Many people lose their appetites and become anaemic. And many more become ‘disorientated’ and develop an aversion to bright light.

Now, and as you are probably aware, many of these symptoms (in fact all) are traditional traits associated with mythical vampirism, and I was merely pointing out that the vampire myth may well have been based on accounts of ‘visitations’ by the Incubus and Succubus, stories of which, in turn, derived from the state of sleep paralysis.

You asked why intelligence should be different when applies to different cases i.e. the existence of fairies as opposed to the possible actuality of telekinesis or EVP. I would have though the answer is obvious here, as I have already said:

Intelligence tells you that it is almost 100% unlikely that there actually ‘blue fairies living on the dark side of the moon. I think that most people would agree (although I must reserve that comment from people here!) that intelligence is sufficient to be relied upon here without needing material proof of ‘blue faiies’.

The matters of telekinesis and EVP, however, I would not say could be put into the category of mythical blue fairies. There are by far more cases to be investigated here which, by their very availability, shows that at least there exists something to be investigated.

However, I will leave these two issues here as CLD has asked me about this again, and I still have to get back to him (which I will soon).

David Farrant

PS As a ‘PS’ for Sat556 to save a separate post:

This really takes us back to where we were before. I merely said that you must have an independent consciousness to be aware of the fact that you have a material body. THAT is the consciousness I was referring to; not a ‘biological one’.

[CLD]

Intelligence tells you that it is almost 100% unlikely that there actually ‘blue fairies living on the dark side of the moon. I think that most people would agree (although I must reserve that comment from people here!) that intelligence is sufficient to be relied upon here without needing material proof of ‘blue faiies’.

The matters of telekinesis and EVP, however, I would not say could be put into the category of mythical blue fairies. There are by far more cases to be investigated here which, by their very availability, shows that at least there exists something to be investigated.

EVP and Telekinisis share something with Blue Fairies: a lack of reliable evidence that might provide proof of their existence. Here's what I mean by "reliable". You've seen a fellow spin his little psi wheel or turn pages of a book with his mind. That's not reliable evidence, since a thousand perfectly ordinary explanations could account for his "powers". In order to reliably examine what's going on, you must control the conditions of testing to screen for those ordinary explanations. Such a person is inevitably unable to repeat his feats under scientifically controlled conditions. Same goes for EVP: the "voices" never show up in a laboratory test conducted by nonbelievers who aren't pining for contact with the dead. In order for these fantastic phenomena to appear you must remove rational scientific method and substitute a healthy dose of belief. Pseudoscience thrives on the notion that "the jury's still out" with regard to such stuff, as if 10,000 people who see the face of Jesus in a tortilla can't possibly be wrong (and so we must be open to the possibility that Jesus can manipulate flour and dough to form his image for some unknown purpose).

[DavidFarrant]

For CLD,

I actually came onto here to reply to you about telekinesis and electronic voice phenomenon, but I see you have already made further points about these.

I will try and explain my perception of these topics, but first, could I just deal with this ongoing matter of ‘proof’ and/or ‘evidence which you make reference to (albeit answering myself) at the beginning of your last reply.

Without labouring the point, I would still say that intelligence (‘intelligence’ by means of realisation and perception, not via. means of the intellect – and there is a difference), plays a vital point in these matters. I agree with much of what you say, but the problem is, you seem to be going from one extreme to the other leaving no room for middle ground, or ground in which such intelligence can play a part.

You seem to be going ‘from’ . . . ‘Blue fairies exist on the other side of the moon but there is no need for proof because you have my word’ . . . to . . . ‘nothing unexplained or unusual can actually exist unless it can first be explained or proved by material means’. Such a dogmatic assertion is really no different from the first one, it is just the other side of the same coin. In fact, I would say that this latter approach is just as ‘dangerous’ as the first one in this respect (‘dangerous’, that is’ as a deterrent that prevents further understanding)… The first approach is obviously delusionary and can lead nowhere; but adopting the second dogma, serves to close the mind before you even begin. In other words, there is nothing wrong with being sceptical towards things unknown or unexplained, but being ‘over sceptical’ at the onset as a ‘pre-condition’ can only tend to blur any potential perception.

That said, to return to the matters of telekinesis and EVP:

Very basically, the unexplained movement of objects (discarding, of course natural causes like subsidence in an old building, for example), is usually said to be a) caused by some sort of ‘outside intelligence’, influence or force or b) caused by some effect from the human mind itself. I assume we are talking about the latter (b), which would be just as well because I myself am highly sceptical of (a).

This really comes back to my previous answer. Personally, I do not find it so strange that if the human mind is capable of moving our hands (or any other parts of the body), it should not be incapable of having an effect on some object outside of itself.

The latter need not be classed ‘supernatural’ or ‘unusual’ when certain frequencies within the mind itself are known to have an effect on objects. A trained singer raising the voice to a very high octave, is known to be capable of shattering a glass. I do not find it so incredible that a similar frequency could also effect a glass (or any other object for that matter), without the audio sound. There are surely many unused levels in the mind; the main difference, maybe, is that such potential is not normally released (at least, under ‘normal’ or everyday circumstances). So yes, I can accept the possibility of telekinesis without putting this down to anything preternatural about it. The only ‘preternatural’ thing about it, if anything, is that we (at this stage in evolution anyway) do not yet understand it.

As to EVP, I again do not find anything so strange or ‘supernatural’ about this. And yes, I do believe this can happen – and has happened.

I have said on so many occasions before, that what we so easily term ‘ghosts’ may not be ‘ghosts’ at all in the sense that these are ‘supernatural entities’.

To put it simply, ‘ghosts’ (as such) may be little more than ‘recordings’ (rather ‘recorded impressions’) from the past. Such impressions can be either audio or visual – or even ‘mental’. The latter meaning that they might be neither audio or visual but just ‘strong impressions’ that can be picked up by some witnesses without themselves even being aware what these are.

You will probably say ‘that is a claim’ or ‘prove it’. I cannot ‘prove it’, simply because no reliable scientific knowledge exists that is capable of measuring or recording invisible impressions. But that does not mean that such ‘impressions’ do not exist (and even survive human existence), only that, these are beyond our present understanding in human terms. A strong emotion, for example, can remain in a building (or elsewhere) for decades – even centuries. But there may be nothing ‘supernatural’ about this; rather that it can be termed ‘supernatural’ by those not understanding this.

So, the answer to these two questions is that I accept the potential of telekinesis and electronic voice phenomenon. Although only as qualified above.

David Farrant

[Paul]

This really comes back to my previous answer. Personally, I do not find it so strange that if the human mind is capable of moving our hands (or any other parts of the body), it should not be incapable of having an effect on some object outside of itself.There is no relationship there: The brain uses the nervous system to send electrical signals via the ulnar and median nerves to the muscles in the hand, causing the appropriate contractions. This is all entirely internal and non-mystical, what would lead you to make the leap to manipulating inanimate objects?


The latter need not be classed ‘supernatural’ or ‘unusual’ when certain frequencies within the mind itself are known to have an effect on objects.Please expand on this assertion.


A trained singer raising the voice to a very high octave, is known to be capable of shattering a glass.That’s not supernatural, it’s science; it is possible, though not easy, to set up a vibration within the glass which can cause it to break, especially if it is already weakened in some way.


I do not find it so incredible that a similar frequency could also effect a glass (or any other object for that matter), without the audio sound.If you set up a vibration at the natural resonance then the glass could be affected, however, without sound waves this is obviously different to a human using their voice.


There are surely many unused levels in the mind;Why surely, do you have any reason to believe this is so?


the main difference, maybe, is that such potential is not normally released (at least, under ‘normal’ or everyday circumstances).There is no reason to assume this potential exists, let alone that it requires extraordinary circumstances to manifest itself.


So yes, I can accept the possibility of telekinesis without putting this down to anything preternatural about it.Your assumptions require the supernatural.


The only ‘preternatural’ thing about it, if anything, is that we (at this stage in evolution anyway) do not yet understand it.
We do not require evolution to understand genuine phenomena; we require evidence for their existence, research to quantify them and science to study them.

[CLD]

I cannot ‘prove it’, simply because no reliable scientific knowledge exists that is capable of measuring or recording invisible impressions. But that does not mean that such ‘impressions’ do not exist (and even survive human existence), only that, these are beyond our present understanding in human terms.


Have you ever heard of Sagan's Dragon? (http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html)

[DavidFarrant]

For Paul,

Without going through all the points again, my main observation to the points in your reply might be summarised by saying that (you are saying) all origin of life in the human body (including movement, etc) can be put down to activity in the brain.

I am not a neurologist (thank goodness!) and I am not saying that the points you make are not biologically accurate. But that really is as far as we can go.

The brain of itself is just a mass of pulpy substance; and even your own physical science can establish that.

But one thing science will never be able to do is to locate life in the brain, and put this in a test tube to test it.

The brain may well have the reactions you say it has, but without an intelligence (life force) to act upon it, it would be just so much dead matter. You might be able to measure electrical impulses inside it, but the Life behind these impulses or influences, will always remain elusive. That is all I am referring to. The life-force or Intelligence that acts upon the brain that actually gives it the power to think’.

That is really the essential contention between us – nothing more!

David Farrant

[Cuddles]

If I mention ‘blood-sucking vampires’ (which I have done widely here and elsewhere) it is to demonstrate that I simply do not accept the existence of these. It may be more pertinent to do so as my name has come to be synonymous with this type of ‘vampire’ thanks to a certain person spreading this false association widely across the Internet.

There is a HUGE difference, Cuddles. I have already stated that I DO NOT accept the existence of this type of vampire, so there is really nothing to compare it to.

My god, you really are dense, aren't you. Did you even read my post? I don't care what you call these things. I thought I made that quite clear. Talk about vampires, succubi, whatever you feel like. Once again :

I have come to accept that there are indeed some ‘outside presence’s’ or ‘non-worldly’ (i.e. non-physical) forces that can ‘drain people’ mentally.

This is what we are talking about. I don't care what you call it. No-one cares what you call it. You believe in non-human things that can drain people's mental energy. Now can you remove your head from wherever you currently have it stuck and actually answer a simple question? Why do you believe in whatever the hell you believe in when exactly the same reasons that lead you to reject faries should lead you to reject whatever it is you claim to believe in?

You say, if I believe in vampires, then that means I must also believe in faries, and that there is no difference.

You’ll be saying next that just because I’m reporting and commenting on alleged Incubus and Succubus visitations (which reports are wide-spread and have been for centuries) then THAT must mean I believe in faries!

Well yes. Why so you think there is a difference between vampires and succubi? Why do you think there is a difference between either of these and faries? They have all been reported for pretty much as long as we have had language. Why do you think demons are any more valid than faries or a slightly different demo? You reject faries because there is no evidence and no sensible reason to believe they exist. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for the crap you believe in. In fact, there is actually less. At least we have had photos of faries.

[DavidFarrant]

For CLD,

I will have to get back to you on this, CLD. The answer at the moment is 'no', I have not heard of it. But I will try and find out and no doubt then I can comment.

But I hope it doesn't turn out to be another 'blue fairies example', as the title certainly suggests it!

For the moment,

David Farrant

[Paul]

Without going through all the points again, my main observation to the points in your reply might be summarised by saying that (you are saying) all origin of life in the human body (including movement, etc) can be put down to activity in the brain.In humans, yes; although as can be seen from sponges, for example, a brain is not a prerequisite for life.


I am not a neurologist (thank goodness!) and I am not saying that the points you make are not biologically accurate. But that really is as far as we can go.Why can we go no further?


The brain of itself is just a mass of pulpy substance; and even your own physical science can establish that.In as much as the eye is just a watery globe and the heart is a meaty bag.


But one thing science will never be able to do is to locate life in the brain, and put this in a test tube to test it.Because life isn’t in the brain, if you mean consciousness, that’s a more philosophical discussion.


The brain may well have the reactions you say it has, but without an intelligence (life force) to act upon it, it would be just so much dead matter.Intelligence stems from the brain and exists because the body is alive; the body is not alive because of intelligence or some ethereal notion of life force.


You might be able to measure electrical impulses inside it, but the Life behind these impulses or influences, will always remain elusive.Are you looking for life in a scientific sense, or a philosophical one?


That is all I am referring to. The life-force or Intelligence that acts upon the brain that actually gives it the power to think’.The power to think currently comes from a brain in a living organism.


That is really the essential contention between us – nothing more!Well, it does seem a rather large difference of opinion. ;)

[Minarvia]

Have you ever heard of Sagan's Dragon? (http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html)

I don't mean to intrude on this discussion, but I had never heard of it, either. Thanks! That is quite interesting. It gives me some ammunition against wooism. :)

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

We seem to be talking at cross purposes – as usual. I do not want to go into it all again now, as if you would have read what I said properly about the Incubus and Succubus back on pages 1 and 2, you would not be jumping to these conclusions.

I was not saying that I accepted the existence (rather metaphysical existence) of these supposed entities. I WAS saying that their supposed ‘existence’ was ‘real’ in the sense that these are even listed in dictionaries.

I was referring mainly to ‘sleep paralysis’ and that in this state it was possible people suffering from it could explain it away by attributing this to ‘visiting entities’. I was trying to point out (sorry, but you seem to have missed this) that the situation (sleep paralysis) might be the other way around. That is, that this state might be caused by unconscious levels in the human mind when the body is asleep (or in a state of very light sleep) and that it is these unconscious states that cause this; not ‘visiting spirits or demons’.

How you compare this to a ‘belief in fairies’ is frankly beyond me! I would say that there is really no comparison.

Can I ask you this? Are you in fact denying that cases of sleep paralysis exist? If not, what gave you the idea, that I said that such a state must be the work of ‘outside forces’. I did not say this. If you read back you can see that this is a statement – not just another of your assumed ‘claims’ (at least, as you use the word when you seem unable to understand or properly evaluate anything).

I am also slightly confused how you can compare this to a belief in farires. You said there exist numerous photographs of alleged fairies (presumably which could be argued or disputed). To be honest with you, I am not aware of any. There were the famous 1920 ‘snapshots’ taken by two young girls (then) but these were later proved to be a hoax.

Maybe, I have missed the others you refer to. But please enlighten me as to the source of reference (and we are talking about real ‘photographic images’, I hope, not just artistic drawings or impressions).

So, I look forward to seeing your reference/s.

For now,

David Farrant

[Cuddles]

I refer you once again to your previous posts :

I realised then that it ws no human being and that I was under psychic attack. I mentally recited a cabalistic incantation (which I'd previously been taught through my involvement in Wicca and spiritualism) and the entity promptly vanished and the temperature returned to normal.

Yes. I have come to accept that there are indeed some ‘outside presence’s’ or ‘non-worldly’ (i.e. non-physical) forces that can ‘drain people’ mentally.

You believe in non-human, non-physical beings who can drain people's "mental energy" psychically. You are not talking about sleep-paralysis or any other rational explanation for these events. In the event you describe you were very much awake and wandeing around a cemetary. Now will you please stop lying and answer the question. Why do you believe in these beings and not faries?

[DavidFarrant]

For CLD

Re: ‘Hagan’s Dragon’

I really haven’t got too far with this. I don’t know who ‘Hagan’ is (or was) except he apparently claimed to keep an ‘invisible dragon’. I gather this is some mythical story.

If this is correct, you really cannot ask me to speculate on the existence of ‘invisible dragons’, surely!? There would be no difference in speculating on the existence of ‘blue fairies’ who live on the other side of the moon!

Whilst I can comment on some physical effects (albeit not understood)
that seem to have some invisible cause, I can only do so as these are reported and take any investigative process from there.

Some physical effects have an invisible cause, of course (you only have to take radio waves as just one obvious example), yet I have yet to see an ‘invisible dragon’ projecting itself into reality!

David Farrant

[Miss Whiplash]

David,

I've tried to stay out of this as I've felt bad about the mad bishop following me here and attempting to wreck havoc.

CLD never said "Hagan." He said "Sagan" who is Carl Sagan, one of the most brilliant scientific minds of the late 20th Century.

Please click the link CLD gave: "The Dragon in My Garage" is a famous essay by Carl Sagan. In a nutshell, it is an example of stating wild claims with nothing to back them up.

I applaud you staying here as long as you have, David, but you are answering many questions with invisible dragons.

Carl Sagan's Invisible Dragon Parable (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm)
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit (http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html)

[DavidFarrant]

For The Vampire,

Please don't feel bad on my behalf; I am more than used to it wher he's concerned. Before he discovered the Internet, he was doing the same thing by post (must have cost hin a fortune in postage!), sending individual people and organizations reams of self-typed A4 sheets all 'attacking' myself (all from 3rd parties as usual). The man is absolutely obsessed with me, but I will say no more than that here. Except please don't 'feel bad'.

I am sorry I got the name wrong. It was not deliberate, I'm just not too good at names.

I will read the link properly a little later and if necessary tell you what I think.

Cuddles should have really come first. But you radiate much more beauty in contrast to her cold remarks, so she will just have to wait!

For now,

David

[Miss Whiplash]

David,

Thanks and all, but I am a skeptic just like Cuddles. You have shared your anecdotes and hung around longer than most paranormal investigators. That is very commendable. However, after 6 pages, we are not any closer to having concrete proof of ghost, et al. than we were at the beginning of the thread.

To clarify the point, let's use radio waves. You say this is evidence of things existing but are unseen. It is true we cannot see radio waves. However, we know they are there because we can test they are there. We have devices that will receive radio waves. We know what part of the electro-magnetic spectrum they exist. We can test this time after time and get the same results time after time. That is concrete proof.

With the paranormal we have nothing but stories. We have no proof. We have nothing to test. Until someone comes up with a ghost in bottle that can be analyzed in the lab, we have nothing on which we can base a definitive conclusion.

I've enjoyed reading your experiences and I'm sure you are very sincere. However, we cannot take anecdotes as proof positive.

[Big Les]

If it helps to clarify the "blue fairies" and Sagan's Dragon examples David, these essentially remind us that no matter how reasonable an untestable claim seems (i.e. ESP vs blue fairies - the one seems more believable to most people), they actually aren't...

Common sense might tell us that there's more likely to be some unknown mechanism for psychic attacks (or whatever) than it is that blue fairies live on the moon, but as common sense is completely subjective, and if neither of these can actually be tested, they are in fact equally as fantastic. And so it gets us nowhere to speculate about them.

The thing is, many of us are of the opinion that both blue moon fairies AND psychic powers ought to exert SOME influence on the world (as the anecdotes suggest), and given that many, many people have tried to obtain evidence for them over the last 100 years and have failed, it seems reasonable to discount such claims until such time as some real evidence is presented. You obviously feel differently, and many people carry on looking for evidence/investigating the subject. That's entirely your prerogative, but here, we're interested in evidence, and in the veracity of claims about the paranormal. Nothing you've said so far furthers knowledge of the area; either because:

a) the phenomena you mention cannot be detected, in which case how can they affect "our" world?
b) the phenomena you mention do not, in fact, occur.

In either case, sceptics figure "why worry"?

[CLD]

Thanks David,

You've been quite gracious sticking around and answering questions about your beliefs, but it's clear that we cannot have a meaningful dialogue since we seem to be speaking two different languages. I think what did it for me was your use of the (measurable) frequencies of sound waves as a basis to theorize that (unmeasurable) telekinetic frequencies can be projected by humans. Or maybe it was your theory that water, rock and stone can act as a kind of combination holographic recorder/projector. Or perhaps it was the endless stream of vagaries, hand-waving, and anecdotal tales in response to specific questions. Magical thinking can be argued with, but it's seldom fruitful, which is why I now bid you adieu and good luck.

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

Your quote was (from myself):

I realised then that it was no human being and that I was under psychic attack. I mentally recited a cabalistic incantation (which I'd previously been taught through my involvement in Wicca and spiritualism) and the entity promptly vanished and the temperature returned to normal.
And . . .

Yes. I have come to accept that there are indeed some ‘outside presence’s’ or ‘non-worldly’ (i.e. non-physical) forces that can ‘drain people’ mentally.
And you said: You believe in non-human, non-physical beings who can drain people's "mental energy" psychically. You are not talking about sleep-paralysis or any other rational explanation for these events. In the event you describe you were very much awake and wandeing around a cemetary. Now will you please stop lying and answer the question. Why do you believe in these beings and not faries?

Firstly, Cuddles, if you have cause to quote myself (first paragraph), could you at least acknowledge where your selected quote is from. In this instance, you are quoting from my book “Beyond the Highgate Vampire” first published in 1991.

Secondly, I really think it is very ‘unlady-like’ to go around calling people ‘liars’ at random, especially, when I suspect that you have not even read the book!

So, as you keep persisting with this accusation of lying, please allow me to enlighten you a little . . .
I was not ‘inside a cemetery’ as you originally posted. I was walking by the top gate of Highgate Cemetery (in the lane) and the year was 1969. I had gone there to try and find some logical explanation for a ‘ghostly figure’ seen in that location and that had already been reported and witnessed by a number of other people.

My first impressions of what I saw, are thus described in the book. However, as you have almost certainly not read this, you have missed the part where I later qualified this sighting.

I do not want to get into the habit of quoting from any of my books here, but I feel that these two paragraphs are important (and, after all, you started it!).

I say later on (referring to this apparition and the fact Highgate Cemetery is situated on a ley line) . . . “It is an interesting point that in recent years many cases of hauntings and other unexplained occurrences of a psychic nature have come to be associated with ley lines. Indeed, it has come to be appreciated that the lines themselves may well be instrumental in explaining many preternatural occurrences; or rather, that many ‘hauntings’ can be directly attributed to their location on a ley line”.

And:

Perhaps, however, it is not surprising that any connection between ghosts and ley lines has never really passed the stage of guarded theory when the possible existence of either is not even acknowledged by any known scientific theory, and when Science itself, is slow to take account of any phenomena that cannot first be tested and proved by those laws that are seen to relate to everyday understanding.
But it may be, on the other hand, that there exists a form of energy connected with ley lines which, under certain conditions – such as planetary alignments, atmospheric conditions or the receptivity of given witnesses, for example – can be ‘replayed’ resulting in what are usually termed ‘ghosts’ or ghostly images, when in reality such phenomena may be as natural in their occurrence as those laws governing the existence of magnetic fields, radio waves, laser-beams and electricity”. [BTHV Pg.35]

Obviously not have read the full account, Cuddles, you could not expected to be in a position to really go any further than the initial passage that you quoted. I have only taken it a little further now because you seem to be so persistently clinging to the first part of this narrative without being aware of the rest of it.

So do you think that now perhaps we could get onto something else?! Or we might run the risk of boring people!

For the moment again,

David Farrant

[Paul]

Firstly, Cuddles, if you have cause to quote myself (first paragraph), could you at least acknowledge where your selected quote is from. In this instance, you are quoting from my book “Beyond the Highgate Vampire” first published in 1991.If I were you David, I would be careful to check my own posts before making unsubstantiated complaints. Both quotes in Cuddles' post are by you and from this thread, as indicated by the linking arrows next to your name in the quote box.

[DavidFarrant]

For Paul,

I was not ‘complaining’, as you put it Paul. That particular quote has appeared widely all over the Internet and if I used it (I have not checked back, but have no reason to doubt your word), I was only using it earlier as a point of reference. I think the issue is, that Cuddles kept repeating just this, without being aware of its proper context.

Maybe this was my fault, as I did not want to advertise passages from my books – or in this instance, ‘book’. But now Cuddles (as indeed others) have been made aware of the full context of the quote, perhaps she (or others) might like to comment on this in its full (basic) entirety. (I say ‘basic’ in relevance to the original quote, as obviously you could not expect me to ‘argue’ the whole book here).

I did qualify this experience (‘sighting’) back in 1991. But it seems that, somehow, it has been taken out of its original context, that’s all.

David Farrant

[Cuddles]

As Paul said, you posted it here. I am not going to read you're books or look anywhere else to try to find out what you think you mean or think you are saying. This thread was created specifically to discuss your beliefs. You have posted things about your beliefs here, including the parts I have quoted in which you state your belief in ghosts, energy draining vampires and psychic attacks. If you didn't want to say that you believed in these things you should not have said that you do. If you wanted to qualify these statements in any way, you should have done so instead of expecting us to hunt down boring books on the nonexistent and providing you with money. If these statements are taken out of context that is entirely your own fault for making them on this thread

In addition, calling you a liar is a plain fact for all to see, ladylike or not. You said you believe in certain things and then later denied that you believed them, or even that you had claimed you did. Anyone reading this thread can see that for themselves, and I am not the only one who has remarked on it. Stating that you are a liar is not an insult or in any way uncalled for, it is a simple statement of fact. I keep saying it because you still have not managed to answer a single direct question that has been put to you about your beliefs.

If you like, let's start all over again. David, in your books and statements in other places you have stated a belief in various phenomena that are not accepted by science and appear to have no evidence for them. This includes ghosts, vampires and ley lines. Why do you believe in these things and what evidence do you have for their existence?

[jaynebeal]

For David Farant. I have been plagued by poltergeist effects for 17 years, in7 seperate dwellings and am in the process of getting a 16 channel webcam system going to catch it on film. I think that skeptisism is sometimes thwarted by experience. I don't believe that my experiences, some witnessed by friends and strangers are down to a spirit of the dead at all.......I think that they are down to my mind ....I have certain bouts of amnesia for many experiences over that 17 year period and I think that maybe these effects are soley due to those locked up memories trying to surface outwardly as they cannot be accessed inwardly. It's almost like a part of me shouting out that it's there. I do have one photo, a polaroid, verified by a photographer that the captured image is not smoke, reflection or anything else explicable. I would be happy to send it to you. Although I am loathe to send it to a skeptic........I get that vision of the dwarves in "the Last Battle" denighing that there is a feast on offer even though it was there in front of them.....although that said, I myself am a healthy open minded skeptic on other matters. Anyway Mr Farant...it is here if you want to see it......and although I have lost contact with 5 other witnesses due to nothing more than the passage of time and people moving away....I do still have one witness.

Jayne Beal

[DavidFarrant]

For Jayne Beal,

Thank you for that, Jayne. You raise some interesting points and I will get back to you tomorrow. If you have one remaining witness to your stated experience/s; that might indeed prove relevant.

For now,

David Farrant

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

You are now asking me again the same questions that I hoped I had already explained, and (with the exception of ley lines) we have just come back to the beginning.

I posted my article "So What Are Ghosts?" up here to try and cover some of these basic questions. You obviously have not read it - or at least, read it properly.

I have already explained that I do not accept the existence of vampires in the supernatural sense. So there is nothing else to really answer there.

Ley lines? Well, I don't think we should get onto those. That is a very complex subject and you would only do your usual dismissal of anything presented 'as a claim'!

So, I have already answered your first basic questions about 'ghosts' and 'vampires'. It is not my fault if you have not understood what I've said!

For now,

David Farrant

[Big Les]

David, surely you can see that you have been saying, or implying, that there exist certain phenomenon apparently unknown to science and counter to the laws of physics? Those are the "claims" that Cuddles and others are referring to. You say you think something might be the case, you are making a claim. Every time you suggest some form of "life energy", "psychic attack", or whatever, you are making a claim, by definition! If you were simply claiming that you (say) once met Tony Blair, this would be unusual and noteworthy, but there would be little reason to demand evidence of it, as it is perfectly plausible. If you claimed you met a visitor from another planet however, the implications of this are, needless to say, earth-shattering. As such, we would ask for hard evidence of this. Because the things you've mentioned defy our current handle on how the universe works, we likewise ask you for evidence.

To sceptics, any extraordinary claim must be backed by evidence, otherwise it is worthless (because there are any number of mundane explanations that are more likely to apply).

I realise you arrived here because of the whole Manchester to-do, but it was you that You can't be surprised that a board full of sceptics are asking for;

a) Clarification of what you believe.
b) Why you believe these things.
c) What evidence you have for these beliefs.

You may be used to simply throwing out your perceptions and idle theories, but if you don't want to be called on them, don't do this in front of people that try to apply critical thought to such things. I don't know what else to say to try to illucidate the situation for you.

Another analogy might be buying a second-hand car; you would not take the owner's impressive claims about full service history, one owner, 3 miles on the clock etc at face value, because you run the risk of buying a lemon and being out of pocket. The consequences of going on trust are significant. To us, the consequences of your thoughts on the paranormal are that there might in fact be something to it, despite 100+ years of fruitless research. So if you could satisfactorily answer the questions, the stakes would be high; Nobel prizes all round. As it is, what's come out in this thread has carried no more weight than the bloke down the pub who claims that dogs can't look up...

[DavidFarrant]

For Big Les,

Thank you for that observation. Firstly, let me say sorry for not getting back to a couple of your earlier points. I meant to, but other things kept coming up in-between, and somehow I thought I’d answered your points anyway.

I am not disputing what you have just stated. In fact, I agree that this all makes perfect sense. But I must add that, although it all (what you say) makes perfect logical sense, I like to think that I have only been trying to convey that sometimes ‘logic cannot be entirely trusted. It can in the material or physical world (or the universe as this is currently understood) of course, but ‘logic’ as applied to the ‘unknown’, might not always be so reliable.

After all, ‘logic’ can only be evaluated by reference to the material senses - and without these, ‘materialists’ would really have no point of reference for any argument. I really feel that materialists are strictly ‘blinded’ by their own materialism sometimes. I was just trying to point out the possibility of (maybe) something beyond material beliefs.

You see, Big Les, another problem that seems to arise, is that a few people here seem to be taking the above personally i.e. that the things I may have had cause to refer to (‘non- material’ explanations) are my personal interpretations, when indeed, general references to the ‘unknown’, or ‘ghosts’, or the paranormal really have nothing to do with myself personally. I was merely referring to the subject in general, and all its aspects, as this has been passed down and recorded for centuries since the dawn of recorded history.

You will probably say, ‘show us proof’; which of course would be impossible because many of such reports about ghosts and the paranormal occurred before ‘scientific investigation’ or ‘scientific explanation’ was even a feasible possibility. But forgetting the time element involved, the problem surely remains the same… You are demanding ‘proof’ or ‘material evidence’ for things that are seemingly ‘un - provable’.

The question is, does that prove (by your reasoning) that aspects of the paranormal simply cannot exist merely because they cannot be proven as such?

For now,

David

[wombatwal]

I think David is "yanking our chain".
He is probably having a big chuckle everytime someone posts.

[DavidFarrant]

For Jayne,

Sorry for the slight delay in getting back. But yes, I would certainly like to see the Polaroid picture you think might represent poltergeist activity.

I can really offer no comment at this stage not knowing the precise details, but I would nevertheless like to see the photograph. Could you perhaps send me a PM and we could arrange a way for the photo to be forwarded.

You say the events in question have been going on for seventeen years, but you mention that you had several different addresses during this period. It could well be – as you seem to suggest – that this was not due to the properties themselves but that the events were somehow connected with yourself (albeit that these occurred unintentionally).

I really don’t know at this stage, but I would certainly like to see your photograph.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you,

Yours,

David (Farrant)

[Big Les]

[B][COLOR="Navy"]For Big Les,

Thank you for that observation. Firstly, let me say sorry for not getting back to a couple of your earlier points. I meant to, but other things kept coming up in-between, and somehow I thought I’d answered your points anyway.

I am not disputing what you have just stated. In fact, I agree that this all makes perfect sense. But I must add that, although it all (what you say) makes perfect logical sense, I like to think that I have only been trying to convey that sometimes ‘logic cannot be entirely trusted. It can in the material or physical world (or the universe as this is currently understood) of course, but ‘logic’ as applied to the ‘unknown’, might not always be so reliable.

Why should one need to abandon logic and reason at any point? It appears to have served mankind rather well in the last 200 years (and in different forms, for a lot longer than that). What circumstances do you think might dictate that one should?

After all, ‘logic’ can only be evaluated by reference to the material senses - and without these, ‘materialists’ would really have no point of reference for any argument. I really feel that materialists are strictly ‘blinded’ by their own materialism sometimes. I was just trying to point out the possibility of (maybe) something beyond material beliefs.

Ah, "there is no spoon". Bit of a cop-out, isn't it? You can't prove any of it, a willing volunteer cannot experience any of it, but because it's impossible to prove a negative, you're free to speculate? Fair enough, but you should also expect to be asked for evidence. Especially on a board full of self-styled sceptics!

You see, Big Les, another problem that seems to arise, is that a few people here seem to be taking the above personally i.e. that the things I may have had cause to refer to (‘non- material’ explanations) are my personal interpretations, when indeed, general references to the ‘unknown’, or ‘ghosts’, or the paranormal really have nothing to do with myself personally. I was merely referring to the subject in general, and all its aspects, as this has been passed down and recorded for centuries since the dawn of recorded history.

If anything's been taken personally David, it's your evasion of certain questions. I don't think you mean to do so; in fact the nature of the subject seems to dictate that a propopent cannot be pinned down on anything they say. This can be frustrating for us materialists!

You will probably say, ‘show us proof’; which of course would be impossible because many of such reports about ghosts and the paranormal occurred before ‘scientific investigation’ or ‘scientific explanation’ was even a feasible possibility. But forgetting the time element involved, the problem surely remains the same… You are demanding ‘proof’ or ‘material evidence’ for things that are seemingly ‘un - provable’.

If it's "un-provable", what's the point? If none of this exerts any recordable or perceptible influence upon the physical world, surely it may as well not exist?

The question is, does that prove (by your reasoning) that aspects of the paranormal simply cannot exist merely because they cannot be proven as such?

Of course not. You cannot prove a negative. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Unfortunately though, for any incident of potential paranormal significance, there are any number of mundane explanations that are, in the opinion of sceptics, rather more likely to apply than that of "ghosts" or "psychic powers". Sometimes specific events are disproven beyond reasonable doubt, but often these anecdotes and other unverifiable pieces of evidence are beyond the reach of empirical study. However, this should not constitute a "get out of jail free card" for believers (and in the absence of evidence, that is all you have). When claims are made regarding things outside our existing knowledge, the onus is on the claimant to prove them. Simply because the stakes are high; if it's real, science and the material world would change forever. If it's not, at the very least it's a waste of everyone's time. You're quite correct to say that reports stretch back hundreds of years, and that these are therefore unreachable by science. Many of those occurring in modern times of course are not, and many people have tried very hard to capture meaningful data on such matters, with precisely zero results in at least 100 years of trying.

So, we've established that for whatever reason, despite being wholly adequate to provide models and theories for the rest of existence, science is completely useless when it comes to "the paranormal". Therefore to accept such phenomena as "real" in any way, it comes down to belief. My counter questions to you would therefore be;

1) What reason do I have to believe in the kinds of things you have discussed here?

2) Why should I be any less sceptical of your claims than of those made by (for example) a car salesman, a Jehovah's witness, Uri Geller, an email chain letter, or a bloke down the pub who says dogs can't look up (http://imdb.com/title/tt0365748/quotes)?

3) If as you seem to be saying, there can be no evidence for the paranormal, how can one claim to investigate it?

[jaynebeal]

Dear Mr Farant,
I would love to send you a copy of the polaroid. All I need is an email address and I shall send it straight away. I can't send you the origianal as I am loathe to let it out of my sight as it's all I have regards to proof that something is going on. Witnesses are one thing and are sometimes subject to wanting something to be true or otherwise whereas the polaroid as far as I know cannot be tampered with. I think that that is why it showed up on that perticular photo and no others. The most recent little outburst was last Saturday when a tv ariel managed to jump off of the telly and into the sink which was suprising but after seventeen years not scary at all. I have a comprehensive list of all the events too which I am happy to send you also. This web cam system although expensive should catch some of this stuff which would be great. Although I am right now waiting for a house deal to go through and so am living at a b&b and can't set it up in my room which is a pain! If I do catch anything in the future though I of course will send it to you or anyone else that wishes to see it. To recap, please give me your email address and we shall get started.

Yours faithfully

Jayne Beal

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think David is "yanking our chain".
He is probably having a big chuckle everytime someone posts.
QFT

[DavidFarrant]

For Big Les,

Yes. I do understand what you say. But to answer, can I take your ‘summary’ which is:

So, we've established that for whatever reason, despite being wholly adequate to provide models and theories for the rest of existence, science is completely useless when it comes to "the paranormal". Therefore to accept such phenomena as "real" in any way, it comes down to belief. My counter questions to you would therefore be;

1) What reason do I have to believe in the kinds of things you have discussed here?

2) Why should I be any less sceptical of your claims than of those made by (for example) a car salesman, a Jehovah's witness, Uri Geller, an email chain letter, or a bloke down the pub who says dogs can't look up?

3) If as you seem to be saying, there can be no evidence for the paranormal, how can one claim to investigate it?


With regard to 1) I really cannot give you any reason except to say that it is not just ‘myself’ presenting any ‘reasons’, it is a long series of unexplained (and unrelated) events that have occurred throughout the course of history. Whether these can be dismissed, of course, as ‘flights of the human imagination’ is another story entirely. But I would say that there should be (‘should’ being the operative word) enough ‘evidence there by the very law of averages.

As to your question 2), I don’t think any of us would trust a car salesman. Their basic ‘sales techniques’ can be proved over recent years. So, there is no need for proof there.

With regard to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I would not really be able to separate these from many of the other fanatical religious Sects. And there are many more. Personally, I have been visited by them, but I could not accept what they said (or rather believed), just as I could not also accept their religious propaganda. (Having said that the people I met – from the Jehovah’s Witnesses – were genuine people in that they really believed in what they were saying, I could just not accept it, that’s all).

You mention Uri Geller, and likewise, I would demand concrete proof of his claims – and what he proclaims to be able to do really ARE just claims! (I can agree with ‘Cuddles’ in that interpretation of the word ‘claims’, but in that respect only).

‘Chain e-mails’ I would just put down to the necessity of intelligence. An ‘intelligent’ person, would not be fooled by them, surely?

The point you make about ‘dogs looking up’ (or not being able to look up), I find much more relevant..

May I explain this? For many years as a young child. I was told that dogs could only ‘see in black and white’. Being slightly naive and gullible, I came to believe this, as many children might do.

Luckily I had a sympathetic mother. She explained to me that this common belief was not the case, and that dogs – like most other animals – can see in full colour.

This idea was finally bought home to me years later when watching some Nature programme on TV:

There is a certain species of insect (of communities of insects) that will huddle together to take the form of a poisonous flower to escape being ‘eaten’ by predators. They will take the shape of the flower itself to save being detected; even to the extent of changing colours to represent the colours of the petals of the flower itself.

If tiny insects in Nature itself are able to do this, I would say that it rather destroys the argument that dogs can only see in black and white (or varying shades of black and white). So, on that premise who is really able to say that ‘dogs can’t look up’?

Would you not agree that the word ‘intelligence’ (or ‘perception’) could be used quite safely here?

Which, of course, would bring us back to the difference between ‘scientific proof’ and ordinary intuition as being entirely different factors in being able to decide where such ‘physical proof’ might be needed.

For the moment,

David

[CLD]

There is a certain species of insect (of communities of insects) that will huddle together to take the form of a poisonous flower to escape being ‘eaten’ by predators. They will take the shape of the flower itself to save being detected; even to the extent of changing colours to represent the colours of the petals of the flower itself.

If tiny insects in Nature itself are able to do this, I would say that it rather destroys the argument that dogs can only see in black and white (or varying shades of black and white).


The perception of color is determined by the presence of cone photoreceptors within the retina...not by insects ability to camouflage themselves from predators.

[Paul]

But I would say that there should be (‘should’ being the operative word) enough ‘evidence there by the very law of averages.
If there was any evidence, it could be presented and studied.

What do you understand the law of averages to be, and how does it apply to evidence of the paranormal?



As to your question 2), I don’t think any of us would trust a car salesman. Their basic ‘sales techniques’ can be proved over recent years. So, there is no need for proof there.
Car salesmen, by definition, sell cars and thus must be at least partially trusted by some people.


With regard to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I would not really be able to separate these from many of the other fanatical religious Sects. And there are many more. Personally, I have been visited by them, but I could not accept what they said (or rather believed), just as I could not also accept their religious propaganda.
You call it propaganda, but to them it is the truth and in this respect is no different from you asserting you paranormal ‘truth’ and us rejecting your supernatural ‘propaganda'.


(Having said that the people I met – from the Jehovah’s Witnesses – were genuine people in that they really believed in what they were saying, I could just not accept it, that’s all).
Do you really not see how this applies to the current situation?


You mention Uri Geller, and likewise, I would demand concrete proof of his claims – and what he proclaims to be able to do really ARE just claims! (I can agree with ‘Cuddles’ in that interpretation of the word ‘claims’, but in that respect only).
Why demand of others that which you cannot produce yourself?


If tiny insects in Nature itself are able to do this, I would say that it rather destroys the argument that dogs can only see in black and white (or varying shades of black and white).
How does an insect defence mechanism disprove the myth of dogs not seeing colour?


So, on that premise who is really able to say that ‘dogs can’t look up’?
It’s an urban myth or pub fact, the easiest people to ask if dogs can look up are dogs owners who say yes.


Would you not agree that the word ‘intelligence’ (or ‘perception’) could be used quite safely here?
While perception may be a synonym for intelligence, that doesn’t alter the fact that a capacity for understanding or reason does not seem to have any bearing on the ability to discern nonsense.



Which, of course, would bring us back to the difference between ‘scientific proof’ and ordinary intuition as being entirely different factors in being able to decide where such ‘physical proof’ might be needed
Intuition is no guide to the truth.

Many commonly held beliefs can easily be demonstrated to be false – watching a dog – while others need scientific study to discover the reality – examining dogs’ eyesight.

[DavidFarrant]

For CLD,

I hope you will forgive a fairly quick reply, but I can do it now as your observation was a brief one. You quoted myself as saying (in part):

If tiny insects in Nature itself are able to do this, I would say that it rather destroys the argument that dogs can only see in black and white (or varying shades of black and white).

To which you said:

The perception of color is determined by the presence of cone photoreceptors within the retina...not by insects ability to camouflage themselves from predators.

That might be true (chemically or physically), but as usual we tend to ‘part company’ shortly after the beginning.

I do not really want to pursue a discussion on dogs. This was given to myself as an example how some people were inclined to accept things blindly sometimes without proof.

I was merely pointing out that sometimes physical proof is not necessary when this can be obtained by simple observation. Tiny ‘bugs’ or insects obviously do not have the ability to think or reason as we can do.

But there obviously life-forms above the insects (birds, for example) that might be ‘fussy’ about their diets and that have learned not to eat poisonous plants or other things.

The point is (in the example given) that these tiny insects have the ability to imitate colour to ‘fool’ the predator into not making them into a ‘quick meal’. Surely that much is obvious even by your ‘material proof’ standards.

Is it but such a great step to assume then, that is tiny insects have some perception of natural colour, then dogs would also have it? And as a natural consequence, why should it necessarily be true that ‘dogs can’t look up’?

Doesn’t this come back to intelligence again? That sometimes just simple objective
observation, does not require physical proof (to ‘prove’ what might be being observed)?

That is all I was trying to point out.

For now,

David

[Burner]

Hello Mr. Farrant, you wrote:


In many other cases, things occurred that could not be explained by way of a normal explanation (eg distinct but unexplainable sounds or noises, drops in temperature in certain areas, unexplainable effects upon objects - often electrical equipment, and certainly direct effects upon animals either taken, or enticed, into a given location or area. And yes, we have sometimes caught unexplainable 'light manifestations, or 'images' on night vision cameras, commonly on static (left playing) LP video tape.
Is there a place on the internet where these images/recordings can be viewed?


On much rarer occasions, I have personally seen objects move or fall without ant human intervention (physical intervention, I should say) and I have witnessed people being 'pushed' - even pushed over to the ground - by some 'invisible force' at a few locations.
Probably, some of the most memorable 'watches' took place in rural North Wales. I was certainly fascinated by many inexplicable lights in the sky seen high in the clear air over the mountains. These have been seen by hundreds of independent residents over the years (and the police have many reports on file) but, before you even think it!, no, I do not accept the existence of UFO's. But something is causing these and they must remain without any apparent material explanation.
Surely you have brought a camera with you on at least one of those occasions?

[CLD]

I was merely pointing out that sometimes physical proof is not necessary when this can be obtained by simple observation. Tiny ‘bugs’ or insects obviously do not have the ability to think or reason as we can do.

But there obviously life-forms above the insects (birds, for example) that might be ‘fussy’ about their diets and that have learned not to eat poisonous plants or other things.

The point is (in the example given) that these tiny insects have the ability to imitate colour to ‘fool’ the predator into not making them into a ‘quick meal’. Surely that much is obvious even by your ‘material proof’ standards.

Is it but such a great step to assume then, that is tiny insects have some perception of natural colour, then dogs would also have it?


My point was that assumption and speculation is not needed in such cases. Simply dissect a dog's retina and establish the presence or absence of adequate cone photoreceptors. (Hopefully the dog has already died of natural causes ;) )

As an aside, I was watching a Public Television show the other night on British Invasion Bands of the 1960's (Chad & Jeremy, Gerry & The Pacemakers, Herman's Hermits, etc.) and recalled seeing a photo of your Austin Powers-esque visage on your website. Were you by any chance in a Merseyside group back then? Maybe a skiffle band? Wild, mindbending love-ins with drugs and "birds", etc.?

[Big Les]

With regard to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I would not really be able to separate these from many of the other fanatical religious Sects. And there are many more. Personally, I have been visited by them, but I could not accept what they said (or rather believed), just as I could not also accept their religious propaganda. (Having said that the people I met – from the Jehovah’s Witnesses – were genuine people in that they really believed in what they were saying, I could just not accept it, that’s all).

Just as we cannot accept what you say without evidence. Without that evidence, any claim that goes beyond what we as a species have proven, should be treated with scepticism.

You mention Uri Geller, and likewise, I would demand concrete proof of his claims – and what he proclaims to be able to do really ARE just claims! (I can agree with ‘Cuddles’ in that interpretation of the word ‘claims’, but in that respect only).

Again - most humans are sceptical. We're just more rigorous about it than apparently you are, because some things that we feel warrant scepticism are less harmful and more attractive to many, than others. e.g. healthy scepticism of those trying to sell us something is obvious, because the potential financial implications are clear and serious. To believe in those aspects of the paranormal that do not require up-front payment (psychics, Uri Geller et al) is relatively "safe". It's just that people like us see no reason not to apply critical thought to those areas too - and they have been found badly wanting.

‘Chain e-mails’ I would just put down to the necessity of intelligence. An ‘intelligent’ person, would not be fooled by them, surely?

Nothing to do with "intelligence", though there are different kinds of intelligence. Everything to do with prior experience and knowledge though - many people who never fell for an old-fashioned chain letter are finding themselves duped by electronic descendents of such, simply because the medium (email, the internet in general) is new to many and complex.

[Cuddles]

But there obviously life-forms above the insects (birds, for example) that might be ‘fussy’ about their diets and that have learned not to eat poisonous plants or other things.

What makes you think any life-form is "above" any other? They have all been evoling for exactly the same length of time.

The point is (in the example given) that these tiny insects have the ability to imitate colour to ‘fool’ the predator into not making them into a ‘quick meal’. Surely that much is obvious even by your ‘material proof’ standards.

Is it but such a great step to assume then, that is tiny insects have some perception of natural colour, then dogs would also have it? And as a natural consequence, why should it necessarily be true that ‘dogs can’t look up’?

This just demonstrates your utter lack of understanding of both evolution and science in general. The insects have no need whatsover to have any perception of colour. They don't even need visions at all. All that is neccessary is for the ones that look a bit like something poisonous to get eaten less. Natural selection does the rest. Of course, for this to happen their predators must see in colour, or it would not be selected for, but since dogs are not in any way a major predator of insects this tells us nothing whatsoever about dog's vision. In addition, vision has evolved many time independently. Mammalian vision is not related to insect vision, so whether insects can see in colour or not, this will not tell us anything about dogs. Are you really so backwards that you still believe that dogs are somehow "better" than insects, so anything an insect can do a dog must be able to as well?

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

Sorry, maybe its just me, but I have really lost you.

Maybe it would be better to leave the point about the difference between the ‘life forms’ of insects and dogs! That is actually not what I meant. There are almost certainly different forms or degrees of intelligence in Life; I would have thought that even you could have agreed with that?!

Surely, every living thing has different degrees of intelligence, according to their stage of evolution? Whether it be an insect, a plant, a fish, a bird, a ‘dog’ or a human being; all surely are the result of different ‘forms of advancement’, surely? At the other end of the scale, you could compare Life to the minutest organism in the sea (or elsewhere) and separate these from other life-forms. That is what you appear to be suggesting (forgive me if I am wrong), in which case I can only say (which I tried to point out before) that NO life form can exist without a consciousness behind it that gives it the actual power to ‘live’.

Put more simply, you could say . . . no consciousness . . . no life.

Please forget dogs and insects. Consciousness is universal and is not confined to any particular life-forms - however minute, however ‘developed’ in the scale of things.

It may be of more important to concentrate on human consciousness first, which is, after all, the particular stage we are talking from. Or I hoped we were talking from.

David (Farrant)