Tuesday, June 16, 2009

In Defence of Blinking

"Demonologist" recently posted a response in Net Curtains Lurkers' "Crazed Sean on YouTube" post concerning my "What's in a Blink?" blog entry.

Indeed, his response made it almost seem as if...he was there!: defence
He was facing strong sunlight when interviewed which might make anyone blink rapidly when dazzled by the sun for a duration, but, due to his eye condition, Keith Maclean frequently blinks rapidly whether he is listening, speaking or viewing.
Uncanny.

When he was asked this by "American Psycho":
Ok, Mr. "Demonologist", one might equally ask if you are also an aquaintance of Keith McLean's, if you are so familiar with his eye-blinking habit..?
He said:
I happen to be acquainted with Keith Maclean, not that it is any business of yours, sufficient to be aware of his impairment.
It's amazing how many "acquaintances" this man has! Including, of course, Sean Manchester:
I am personally acquainted with Bishop Seán Manchester and have been for some considerable time.
However, one must regard it as a bit strange that a mere "acquaintance" would also be given the task of "writing" the VRS's copy-n-paste blog. (See his profile).

And it's no mere unofficial fan site. After all, the VRS includes it as a link on their "Highgate Vampire Domain" page.

Oh, and Sean Manchester, himself, happens to be one of its followers...

2 comments:

time said...

Interesting. Playing devils advocate (ho ho), but perhaps the blinks are because Keith is not comfortable saying this sort of stuff, he appears nervous, and indeed if you listen to his testimony on the original text, it sounds like he is reading a prepared statement (self written?). Maybe the fact that what he is saying on the video is so incredible makes him self conscious?

Anthony Hogg said...

Hi there time,

I wouldn't call it playing the devil's advocate, as I don't take any side in this thing! :D

Both sides are open to scrutiny as far as I'm concerned.

Now, as to the whole blinking thang, I thought it'd be an interesting bit to add. I certainly wasn't rendering it as conclusive proof that Keith's lying. However, I, personally, don't dismiss that possibility, either.

It does sound he's reading off a text, much in the same way that Manchester's grasping for effusive verbiage during his own narration of the case!

And that whole "I speak for traditional Christians everywhere". Oh really?

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails