David Farrant- Psychic investigator.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by wombatwal

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]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

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]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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'.

Quote:

(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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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:

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

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?

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

‘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]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

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.

Quote:

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)

[Paul]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

There are almost certainly different forms or degrees of intelligence in Life; I would have thought that even you could have agreed with that?!

Yes there are different forms of intelligence, but trying to insult people because your writing makes your points incomprehensible does not lead to confidence in that proposition.

Quote:

Surely, every living thing has different degrees of intelligence, according to their stage of evolution?

You seem to have very odd ideas about evolution; intelligence isn't a simple result of evolution, I don’t see many crocodiles at Oxford.

Quote:

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?

It’s not advancement, even for your special quote dogs, evolution produces organisms which are better suited to their environment.

Quote:

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.

If an organism satisfies the definition of life being used, then it is alive, be it a minute sea creature or an elephant.

Quote:

That is what you appear to be suggesting

Where do you get this idea from?

Quote:

NO life form can exist without a consciousness behind it that gives it the actual power to ‘live’.

It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, you are still wrong, completely and utterly false, and your idea is pining for the Fjords.

Quote:

Put more simply, you could say . . . no consciousness . . . no life.

Nope, still absolute tripe.

Quote:

Please forget dogs and insects.

OK, stop making fallacious arguments and we'll stop addressing them.

Quote:

Consciousness is universal and is not confined to any particular life-forms - however minute, however ‘developed’ in the scale of things.

You still haven’t explained what you mean by this mystical consciousness; and try to do it without resorting to personal insults.

Quote:

It may be of more important to concentrate on human consciousness first, which is, after all, the particular stage we are talking from.

What is it you are trying to communicate here, the way you are using the words does not make much sense.

Quote:

Or I hoped we were talking from.

There you go again; have you considered that if a number of people come to similar conclusions about the content of you posts, and these are not as you intended, that it may be your posts which are at fault?

[DavidFarrant]

For Paul,

I was about to answer you earlier. But before we can go any further, perhaps could you just answer this . . .

You said:

Quote: Consciousness is universal and is not confined to any particular life-forms - however minute, however ‘developed’ in the scale of things.
You still haven’t explained what you mean by this mystical consciousness; and try to do it without resorting to personal insults

Before I answer anymore of your questions/statements; could you just post here in 'black and white' (sorry, maybe an inappropriate point at the moment) where I have 'insulted' anybody?

No 'clever language' is needed! Just please quote 'my' quotes where you say or imply I might have 'insulted' anyone.

It is really that simple. Please just quote me - or re-quote me - so I can be clear - and everybody else can be clear - on what you are implying. When you have clarified what I am supposed to have said, then maybe I can give you further answers to your qusstions.

I do not really think I can answer any more of your points until you clarify your assertion (I am not even asking for 'evidence'; just that you clarify what exactly you mean!).

For now,

David Farrant

[Paul]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

It is really that simple. Please just quote me - or re-quote me - so I can be clear - and everybody else can be clear - on what you are implying.

I'm not implying anything, I asked you to reply, which you have again failed to do, without any insults.

Quote:

When you have clarified what I am supposed to have said, then maybe I can give you further answers to your qusstions.

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

Is that clear enough for you Cuddles? Or would you also require ‘physical evidence’ to prove the existence of a dictionary?!?

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

It is not my fault if you have not understood what I've said!

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

I do not somehow think you would ever make an objective investigator, Paul, when you tend to 'lump things together' like this.

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

If you could all but grasp that, you might see what I have trying to be explaining here.

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

Hope that clarifies that for you Cuddles; but somehow I don't think that it will!

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

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

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

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

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

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

It seems that you cannot resist having little digs at people; these are not major insults, but cumulatively they undermine any points you may make by suggesting that you to have no intention of considering any opposing arguments.

Another example is your use of the term 'clever language' in your last post; using those words in that way implies a sarcastic attitude to the use of more precise or formal language to discuss your claims, and that is not likely to elicit serious discussion.

[Professor Yaffle]

Some insects can see UV light. Does that mean that I can too?

[Burner]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Some insects can see UV light. Does that mean that I can too?

Don't be ridiculous.


*spreads his hindwings and buzzes off to another flower*

[DavidFarrant]

For Paul,

I do not really want to digress into discussing my answers to other people. They are there all there, and people can read them in their entirity if they wish. I can see nothing 'insulting' in the nine or so examples you quote; in fact, I would have thought my remarks were very restrained considering they were mostly addressed to only one person who was simply not reading my original answers, and who then persistly accused me of having not answered in the first place and, on top of this, kept calling me a 'liar'!

If I was to publicly call you a 'liar', Paul (and I have not - indeed, I have respected your points by answering them), then THAT would be a direct insult. I am really surprised you have not managed to pick up on that i.e. that I was only responding to the rudeness of just one person, and any 'insults' were being thrown in my direction just because she did not have the ability - or capability - to read what I was saying. I cannot see how pointing that out is 'insulting'. Maybe you do; then I am afraid we will just have to differ!

For now,

David (Farrant)

[Paul]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

I do not really want to digress into discussing my answers to other people.

Then you shouldn’t have used the word anybody in the original request.

Quote:

I can see nothing 'insulting' in the nine or so examples you quote;

I explained the context at the bottom of the post.

Quote:

in fact, I would have thought my remarks were very restrained considering they were mostly addressed to only one person who was simply not reading my original answers, and who then persistly accused me of having not answered in the first place and, on top of this, kept calling me a 'liar'!

You’re doing it again!

You are implying that it is fine to be rude to others simply because they disagree with you; Cuddles was entirely justified in pressing you for clarification and explained, satisfactorily I believe, the reason for calling you a liar.

Quote:

If I was to publicly call you a 'liar', Paul (and I have not - indeed, I have respected your points by answering them), then THAT would be a direct insult.

Only if it were not true.

Quote:

I am really surprised you have not managed to pick up on that i.e. that I was only responding to the rudeness of just one person,

You’re not a child, “but Miss, she did it first” is not an excuse.

Quote:

and any 'insults' were being thrown in my direction just because she did not have the ability - or capability - to read what I was saying.

There you go again; directly insulting Cuddles’ intellectual capacity.

Quote:

I cannot see how pointing that out is 'insulting'. Maybe you do; then I am afraid we will just have to differ!

We seem to be doing a lot of that.

[DavidFarrant]

For CLD,

I really wish I'd never taken up that example about dogs! My fault too, because I introduced insects as part of an example.

You said:

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 )
The whole point is, CLD (and which I have basically saying all along) is that you cannot see, let alone disect, consciousness. THAT is what sees, or senses - not the eyes.

On your 'aside' . . . No, I was never in a 1960's rock group.

And 'no', I do not take drugs, although I do not have anything personally against people that do. I consider that to be their problem, not mine.

For now,

David

[Paul]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

The whole point is, CLD (and which I have basically saying all along) is that you cannot see, let alone disect, consciousness. THAT is what sees, or senses - not the eyes.

And that is still a steaming great pile of ludicrous foolishness and inane poppycock.

[DavidFarrant]

For CLD,

I want to send you a link to a 'rock band' connection in a PM, but I don't know how to send a PM here. Could you tell me? then I can send it.

Thanks,

David

[Professor Yaffle]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

For CLD,

I want to send you a link to a 'rock band' connection in a PM, but I don't know how to send a PM here. Could you tell me? then I can send it.

Thanks,

David

If you click on someones name beside their post, a little menu will drop down. the menu should include one to send a personal message.

[CLD]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

For CLD,

I want to send you a link to a 'rock band' connection in a PM, but I don't know how to send a PM here. Could you tell me? then I can send it.

Thanks,

David

If you click on my name beside this post, a little menu will drop down. Click on the link that says "send a personal message".

Maybe The Rolling Stones were before your time, but I'm certain you probably saw Billy Idol hanging around Highgate.

[The Overseer]

Hi folks,

A quick bit of disclosure here: I am The Overseer of Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?, an independent discussion forum relating to the Highgate Vampire Case. And no, I am not Manchester or one of his associates.

DavidFarrant would be familiar with me already.

Anyhow, I have noted that DavidFarrant has been rather adamant in saying that he has never believed in vampires, and finds the whole idea ludicrous.

Perhaps he'd like to comment on the following extracts:

Mr David Farrant, 24, who reported seeing a ghost last month, returned to the spot last weekend and discovered a dead fox. ‘Several other foxes have also been found dead in the cemetery,’ he said at his home in Priestwood Mansions, Archway Road, Highgate. ‘The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died. Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory as being the most likely answer. Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest'.

~ The Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970.

And this, from a BBC program:

Laurence Picethly: Have you ever seen this vampire?”
David Farrant: I have seen it, yes. I saw it last February, and saw it on two occasions.

~ 24 Hours, 15 October 1970.

Then, there are his actions as a "psychic investigator", as revealed here:

So we stalked. Cross in one hand to ward off the evil spirits, stake in the other, held at the ready. Farrant stalked among the vaults, past the graves, in the bushes and by the walls. When we had finished he started stalking all over again.

~ Barrie Simmons, (London) Evening News, 16 October 1970.

Oh, and there's also this, from a much more recent source:

Mr Farrant said: "The sighting of a tall, black figure in April on Swains Lane makes me think the vampire is active again.

~ Marc Mullen, "Highgate Vampire at it again!", Pentacle Magazine, Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:58 AM.

Farrant has also previously been photographed holding stakes and crosses, traditional anti-vampire equipment on the grounds of Highgate Cemetery, on several occasions.

I should also mention that Farrant was arrested on the grounds of Highgate Cemetery for being in an "enclosed area for unlawful purposes" (if I recall the circumstances correctly). Among his possessions, was...a wooden stake. Or, at least, that is what the police claimed.

So, I postulate the following questions:

1) Were these news stories fabricated? Were the words and actions attributed to Mr. Farrant completely made-up by the journalists involved?

2) If so, has Mr. Farrant ever sued the above-mentioned papers for these articles (and the makers of the televised BBC program), of false attribution?

3) If Mr. Farrant is so caustic towards the vampire associations made with the "psychic entity" he claims haunted Highgate Cemetery, then why did he co-operate with media sources propagating the vampire link?

Feel free to answer, sir and then back to your discussions of consciousness and the paranormal.

[Cuddles]

David, I think Paul has answered you at least as well as I could, so I won't bother. I believe you will find that everything I have said has been entirely factual and in no way insulting, so your cries of "Miss, he started it" will not work here. And no matter how many times you repeat it, your claim (notice that word again?) that life would not exist without conciousness is not correct and never will be. No matter how much you try to imply that I do not understand what you are saying, I understand all too well. It is clear that it is you that does not understand, since you replied to my post explaining exactly where you were going wrong by just repeating the same nonsense.

Overseer, thanks for that. It is clear that David is not going to answer any questions and will continue to deny believing in the paranormal, but it will be interesting for the rest of us to see how he tries to wriggle out of yet more of his own statements.

[DavidFarrant]

For Cuddles,

Thanks for that Cuddles. I really did not feel like going through these same points again but, as you say, Paul has answered them.

I think it basically all comes down to one thing which we remain ‘miles apart’ on. That is the matter of an ‘independent consciousness’ as opposed to there not being one. I will never avoid this issue, but for the moment, lets leave it for a little while as it seems that we just cannot agree on it.

I am not avoiding the Overseeers points either (which you seem to be encouraging). I just do not want to confuse the two issues as they really are completely separate. I will answer these tomorrow, but there is no need to post a separate reply as he will certainly be reading this. I just want to get posts and questions in order of importance.

And by the way, it was not me who said “Please Miss, she did it first”. That was Paul’s quote, not mine!

So until tomorrow,

For now,

David (Farrant)

[The Overseer]

No worries, DavidFarrant.

I know you have a hectic lifestyle, what with answering forum posts, only to state you will actually answer them properly at a later time...

Looking forward to seeing your responses, all the same!

Good luck!

Oh, forgot to add a question:

4) Why do you keep saying that you were arrested for "vampire hunting"? What kind of copper would put you under arrest for "vampire hunting", anyway? More importantly, what evidence did they have that this was even your intention?

[DavidFarrant]

For The Overseer,

The questions you pose, are not yours. They are repeats of 'pasted propaganda' posted widely by one individual (and one individual only) on whose Message Boards you were a member. You could have no knowledge of the facts behind these postings as you were not even around at the time - if even born when the original events took place. (Maybe, you might have been born by then - I don't know - but I think it is safe to say that you are in no position to remember!). You are really asking me erroneous questions in the first place, Overseer; questions that you have gleaned from carefully selcted statements put out over the Internet by one individual - and one individual only.

I am NOT avoiding your four manufactured questions; but I just feel if you were intelligent enough to discern the real facts, you would have not deemed it necessary to have postulated these infantile questions (sorry, but your questions really amount to that) in the first place. In other words, you are just asking me to justify another man's propaganda, without even having the courtesy to ask me if its true in the first place!

What a world we seem to live in! Sorry. But when I see people being 'duped' in such a manner, it is hard to state otherwise.

OK. You want the basic story to things you are now questioning me about?

Then read it as I originally explained it some three years ago as a result of popular demand.

Come back to it afterwards if you want. But at least please read it properly first (and you Cuddles!).

The link is:

http://highgatevampiresoc.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/

There you have the basic facts about that incident. As I said, at least please read it first before you insist upon asking me superflous questions.

I didn't really want to give links about that here. But as you have apparently been so persistent! . . .

David Farrant

[bruto]

Originally Posted by The Overseer

Why do you keep saying that you were arrested for "vampire hunting"? What kind of copper would put you under arrest for "vampire hunting", anyway? More importantly, what evidence did they have that this was even your intention?

Permit expired?fudd.jpg

[DavidFarrant]

For Bruto,

The police had no evidence of 'vampire hunting' whatsoever, Bruto, that's one of the main points!

The police only described myself as a 'vampire hunter' because of erroneous statements another person had previously made on the television about myself. It was this 'other person' that originally described myself as a 'vampire hunter' - it was not myself! It was this that incited the police to refer to myself as a 'vampire hunter' in Court when I was originally arrested there in 1970 for 'hunting vampires'. I denied referring to myself as a 'vampire hunter' in Court, and I won the case after satisifying the Court that the police statemnts (about what I was allegedly doing in Highgate Cemetery) had been deliberately fabricated.

That is only one small aspect of that case. One which is certainly almost not realised by some people posting here.

David Farrant

[bruto]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

For Bruto,

The police had no evidence of 'vampire hunting' whatsoever, Bruto, that's one of the main points!

The police only described myself as a 'vampire hunter' because of erroneous statements another person had previously made on the television about myself. It was this 'other person' that originally described myself as a 'vampire hunter' - it was not myself! It was this that incited the police to refer to myself as a 'vampire hunter' in Court when I was originally arrested there in 1970 for 'hunting vampires'. I denied referring to myself as a 'vampire hunter' in Court, and I won the case after satisifying the Court that the police statemnts (about what I was allegedly doing in Highgate Cemetery) had been deliberately fabricated.

That is only one small aspect of that case. One which is certainly almost not realised by some people posting here.

David Farrant

I know. 'Twas a joke. I actually did look at your link, but couldn't find a reference to the actual arrest, except a note in the timeline, so I started wondering why they'd arrest you for vampire hunting in the first place. I mean, it's not as if they're a protected species.

[DavidFarrant]

Thank you Bruto,

I did not really want to go into my ‘vampire hunting’ arrest of 37 years ago here; I was hoping I had ‘moved on’ to more important things. But you are right, I did not detail this on that Website, probably for exactly the same reason.

You haven’t asked me for details. Thank you for that; I respect maturity as opposed to unqualified claims and misguided assumptions. (A common application in certain other directions). Let me tell you about this anyway (this arrest) then I could perhaps move on to more important issues.

I will put this in ‘bullet form’ though as I’m not writing another book here. (I have described all this in one of my books anyway).

In August 1970, a few other investigators and myself entered Highgate Cemetery one night with the intention of conducting a ‘magical séance’ to ‘make contact’ with a frequently reported unexplained phenomenon seen in the cemetery and n the surrounding vicinity. For this purpose, we had with us a psychic medium who intended to ‘communicate’ with this entity. We intended to inscribe two circles on the ground; one for ‘protection’ purposes (or what is known as a ‘protective vortex’) and one where the psychic energy could be contained. For the purposes of this proposed séance, we all carried small Celtic crosses and had charcoal, incense, candles and chalk – among other things. I also had a small portable tape recorder with me and a camera.

The police turned up unexpectedly. We all ‘split up’ (there were five of us in all) but I was arrested trying to climb over a back wall of the cemetery. I was taken to Hornsey Road Police Station and ‘interrogated’. I refused to name the other people or to give my correct name or address in Highgate.

While at the police station, I noticed that my tape recorder and camera, along with some incense, candles and a cross I had been carrying were all lined up on a desk. I also had on me a sharpened piece of wood to which was attached a long piece of white cord. (The purpose of the latter was to inscribe the circles on the ground by using the cord and chalk).

While at the police station, I was asked numerous questions about ‘vampires’ and the like. The reason for this was, it had been widely reported in the Press and on the television that the reported phenomenon was not just a ‘ghost’ but a real ‘living vampire’. (The ‘King Vampire of the Undead’ as this particular person had described it to the media).

Now, against this background, it is important to recall that at this time, Highgate Cemetery had been subjected to very serious acts of vandalism. When I say ‘serious,, I am talking about coffins being smashed open and the bodies removed. In that month of August 1970, the 100-year-old skeleton had been found on a main path impaled with a wooden stake (obviously by gullible youths taking literally the advice of the person referred to above, who had produced such a stake on the television and advised people how to ‘stake vampires’).

To cut it short, I was kept in custody overnight as I still refused to give the police my correct name or my address.

The case came before the Court the next morning but was to adjourned.

When first introducing the case, however, the police produced the wooden stake (still with the cord attached to it, and the wooden cross I had been carrying). The other items had ‘mysteriously disappeared’ and I never was to see these again.

The police also attributed a statement to myself which I had not made.

It was to the effect: “I intended to search for the King vampire, opening coffins if necessary. When I had found ‘him’, I intended to drive the wooden stake through its heart and then ‘run away’!” (Exclamation mark my own) Now, because this statement was read out in open Court, it was covered by ‘Absolute Privilege’ – meaning that the Press could report it without any fear of libel. The police also told the magistrate that there had been serious desecration of corpses in Highgate Cemetery and they implied that I was one of the people responsible. The charge was: “Being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose”. The gravity of the charge (according to the police) lay in the actual motivation; i.e. that I intended to open coffins to ‘stake corpses’.

This was blatantly untrue, but as the police statements were reported world-wide by the Press I became branded as the “vampire hunter”.

When I became aware of the police tactics, I gave the police my real name and decided to face the charge ‘head on’.

When the case eventually came back to Court in September after another adjournment (as a matter of some amusement, perhaps the name of one of the presiding magistrates was “Christopher Lea”!) I fought the case. I said that the whole thing was part of a serious investigation being conducted by the British Psychic and Occult Society into an unexplained phenomenon that had been widely reported at Highgate Cemetery. I denied ever having made this ‘confession’ to the police (which was really the only ‘evidence’) and I added that, in any event, it was just as akin to ‘hunt vampires’ (as the police said I had been doing) as it was for some groups to spend vast sums of money trying to locate the Loch Ness Monster I was acquitted.

Having explained this in some detail, Bruto, I hope you can now perhaps see how these past events have been deliberately twisted in the present by people with their own vindictive agenda. This propaganda is lapped up by a few gullible people whose intelligence might be compared to that of an ant!

Perhaps now we could leave this matter. I do not really want to continue rguing the nonsense that I was forced to do on the other thread.

David Farrant

.

[jezzedout]

Originally Posted by CLD

"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.

Long time lurker, first time (I think) poster. This is a very entertaining thread, and I'm in admiration of the wonderful rational arguments set forth by the science-minded posters, as well as by David, who has shown incredible patience and creativity in finding so many different ways to repeatedly restate the same fluff. That said, the above post by CLD (from a few pages back) just cracked me up and possibly made my day. Just had to say that.
Cheers, Jezz

[The Overseer]

Re: Reply #267

I am not avoiding the Overseeers points either (which you seem to be encouraging). I just do not want to confuse the two issues as they really are completely separate. I will answer these tomorrow, but there is no need to post a separate reply as he will certainly be reading this. I just want to get posts and questions in order of importance.

~ DavidFarrant, #265, Yesterday, 9:20 AM

Wow, DavidFarrant, you've certainly changed your tune since that post.

If the questions I posed are not mine, then whose are they?

Would you care to cite the source I took them from, if I am incapable of forming them using my own thought process and access to publicly available information, i.e. media items you consciously attributed to?

Otherwise, you make a fairly baseless accusation.

As to me not being "around at the time" of your involvement in the Highgate Vampire Case (no, I wasn't born then, to set the record straight), well, then perhaps you can tell me this: how many people within your Highgate Vampire Society were around at the time these "facts" occured? Otherwise, I don't really see how this is relevant.

And sure, I might not have been around then...but the authors of the articles were. So were you.

I find it odd that you'd call my questions "erroneous", as you do not specify their errors.

Let's look back at them again, shall we?

1) Were these news stories fabricated? Were the words and actions attributed to Mr. Farrant completely made-up by the journalists involved?

I don't quite see asking about the validity of the sources I cited as "erroneous". It's your call to say if they were made up or not. Unless you are going to accuse me of making up the articles as well.

2) If so, has Mr. Farrant ever sued the above-mentioned papers for these articles (and the makers of the televised BBC program), of false attribution?

Here's a sort of hypothetical. If you deny the accuracy of the content of the articles quoted from (see question 1), then have you sued the authors involved for slandering your good name? Yes or no.

3) If Mr. Farrant is so caustic towards the vampire associations made with the "psychic entity" he claims haunted Highgate Cemetery, then why did he co-operate with media sources propagating the vampire link?

Do you deny that you were involved with media bodies who wished to popularise a vampire association with the alleged supernatural phenomena at Highgate Cemetery? Have you not posed with anti-vampire paraphrenalia, for instance, in articles on the subject of the Highgate Vampire?

4) Why do you keep saying that you were arrested for "vampire hunting"? What kind of copper would put you under arrest for "vampire hunting", anyway? More importantly, what evidence did they have that this was even your intention?

Do you deny that you have claimed that you were arrested for "vampire hunting", despite this technically not being a crime by name? In fact, the website you linked me to even reaffirms this claim, thusly:

David Farrant being taken to Court (he appeared before Magistrate Mr. Christopher Lea) charged with being in Highgate Cemetery one night with the intention of ‘hunting down’ a vampire!

~ "The Beginning", The Highgate Vampire Society

This is my point about the police officers who arrested you on Highgate Cemetery grounds. Why would they arrest you for "vampire hunting", if it isn't technicaly a crime by name? And if they did indeed arrest you on that account, then what would have led them to think you were attempting to do so? Did you have any anti-vampire paraphrenalia on your person, for instance? Like a stake, for example?

Edit note: Ok, I can see, from your claim, that you refute this association due to police tampering with evidence and falsifying statements about vampire-hunting. Unfortunately, it is pretty much your word against theirs on this matter.

Also, it's interesting that you note the arrest occuring in August 1970 and tie the alleged falsified statements by police on your behalf, to quotes in the Press appearing thereafter about you and your romps with the undead. It's interesting, because the Press was also quoting you as making a vampire connection before August 1970 as well.

I hope you now get the gist of the questions I was asking.

If you label my questions as being "propaganda", then surely that could only be so if the sources I cited were inherrently falsified, surely? This would be an especially serious matter, considering that they directly quote you.

See question 1 again.

I do not recall asking for a "basic story", either. Only answers to the questions I postulated.

As you can tell, I've read through your website. You don't actually seem to deny the statements attributed to you, just that the Press itself made the "apparation" out to be a "fully-fledged vampire".

That's not really a "fact", that's just you saying that the Press made it up, seemingly without your help. Despite you offering no evidence to prove this. It still leaves the riddle of the direct quotes attributed to you, open.

Go back to Reply #263 and try again, please.

To quote from your own website again (the "Beginnings" page):

After all, the case of the so-called Highgate phenomenon is not really a private issue or one that can be affected by personal views or interpretations. It is a matter of public record and should thus be open to continued input and debate, and not one that should not be allowed to become clouded or influenced by any who have no knowledge of events (which they certainly do not ‘own’) as these actually occurred or happened.

[DavidFarrant]

Not sure how to take that! But it doesn't matter, at least aren't asking the same questions over again!

David Farrant

[The Overseer]

Indeed. And they're still waiting to be answered, too!

[jezzedout]

Originally Posted by DavidFarrant

Not sure how to take that! But it doesn't matter, at least aren't asking the same questions over again!

David Farrant

No way would I enter this argument. I'm a novice compared to the likes of CLD, Paul, Bruto and others, whose views I share, but who are far more skilled in the art of rational, scientific debate than I. I will leave it to the pros, as I think you have your hands full already.

CLD, you're my hero!!

Cheers,
Jezz

[DavidFarrant]

I was not suggesting you enter the debate Jezzedout, I was just pleased actually that you introduced some humour into it.

I do not happen to agree with all that CLD, Paul, Bruto and others say but I can respect their views as these are presented logically and generally do not relate to sensational newspaper accounts of over 30 years ago. I think to argue those (when a few of these people admit that they were not even born then), is really trivial and childish - not to say meaningless as relevant to the present scheme of things.

So, I will continue to answer things of a serious nature should anybody ask here.

If I ignore triviality (such as questions about interpretations of 'vampires, for example), it is simply because I regard them as that . . . trivial.

I mean, who really cares if I went on television some 37 years ago to illustrate some 'in vogue' vampire film? As I have pointed out here (and elsewhere) before, if the late Peter Cusing appeared in 'vampire films' with Christopher Lee, would this prove that he really believed that Lee was a vampire in real life? I think not. But this is exactly the 'reasoning' that some people vainly attempt to 'prove' in relation to myself in the present day! Its really quite pathetic if you think about it!

Surely it is of far more importance to understand life in the present, than try to argue about 'dead past' that no longer has any life or substance.

Sorry. Not trying to involve you - just to explain. Anyway, I would stay where you are, its far more peaceful!

For now,

David (Farrant)

[CLD]

I find the arguing about who-said-what-in-1970 pointless and boring. And the "wall of words" posts are extremely annoying. They have little actual substance for something that takes up so much space.

[The Overseer]

Hi DavidFarrant,

You still haven't answered the questions, perhaps unsurprisingly. You have still not validated (on invalidated) their content, especially considering they directly attribute quotes to yourself.

Still waiting.

Instead, you used the example of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee to defend your involvement in television programs that represent you as both witnessing and having an intent to hunt vampires: something you presently, and vigorously deny having any intention of doing.

But allow me to explain the difference to you: Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee were paid actors. Their job was to enact a deliberately fictional scenario (what people in the trade refer to as "movies").

The programs you went on, did not fit this category. They interviewed you on your supernatural claims and you partook in a re-enactment of events alleged to have occured.

I don't find the past, in this case, as "dead" as you like to make out, for without it, you would most likely be an unknown. Your website even notes how relevant the Highgate Vampire Case was, in establishing your fame.

And CLD, the "arguing" pretty much consists of this: me asking DavidFarrant basic questions about sources that make use of his own words and contrasting them with his present claims. And DavidFarrant skipping over them, as well as offering thinly veiled attacks on my intelligence.

I checked out a source he asked me to look at, addressed its content, and still no direct answers are forthcoming.

[DavidFarrant]

Hi DavidFarrant,

You still haven't answered the questions, perhaps unsurprisingly. You have still not validated (on invalidated) their content, especially considering they directly attribute quotes to yourself.

Then you'll just have to keep waiting!

David Farrant