In a recent comment, "Demonologist" (TFO) disputed some items I wrote concerning the Bishop's investigation into the Kirklees Vampire.
I stated that the Bishop had trespassed on private property to carry out his "vigil". I also said that Manchester himself, admitted this.
TFO's response was, "Where? Please provide the source reference with a verbatim quote."
Let's turn to "The Kirklees Vampire", an article by Sean Manchester that appeared in The Unexplained 38 (1992), p. [761].
The alleged scene of this vampire haunt was a "dense woodland not far from an old, almost forgotten priory gatehouse in the precincts of Kirklees Hall Estate", says the article. However, as this land was in private ownership, Manchester had to obtain permission to conduct his investigation.
In Manchester's own words, here's what happened:
Especially when just a couple of paragraphs later, Manchester says:
You see, TFO also previously disputed that it was Manchester's intention to hold a vampire-hunting vigil:
I also stated that Manchester had "anti-vampire gear" on his person. Demonologist's response was: "What "anti-vampire gear"?"
Let's refer back to the article again:
That anti-vampire gear.
I stated that the Bishop had trespassed on private property to carry out his "vigil". I also said that Manchester himself, admitted this.
TFO's response was, "Where? Please provide the source reference with a verbatim quote."
Let's turn to "The Kirklees Vampire", an article by Sean Manchester that appeared in The Unexplained 38 (1992), p. [761].
The alleged scene of this vampire haunt was a "dense woodland not far from an old, almost forgotten priory gatehouse in the precincts of Kirklees Hall Estate", says the article. However, as this land was in private ownership, Manchester had to obtain permission to conduct his investigation.
In Manchester's own words, here's what happened:
I approached the landowner, Lady Margerete Armytage, and requested permission to hold a vigil and carry out a number of experiments near the tomb. Unfortunately this was not granted.Take note of the admittance, "this was not granted."
Especially when just a couple of paragraphs later, Manchester says:
It was now time to organise an unofficial vampire hunt, which finally went ahead on the evening of Sunday, 22 April 1990.This sentence helps kill two birds with one stone.
You see, TFO also previously disputed that it was Manchester's intention to hold a vampire-hunting vigil:
Except that Seán Manchester's vigil was not a "vampire-hunting vigil." It was a vigil to determine what the nature of the disturbances might be.There's not much room to determine what the "nature" of a "disturbance" might be, if one blatantly admits to holding "an unofficial vampire hunt", is there?
I also stated that Manchester had "anti-vampire gear" on his person. Demonologist's response was: "What "anti-vampire gear"?"
Let's refer back to the article again:
I unfastened my large bag of accoutrements and removed an armoury of crucifixes, holy water, garlic, candles and all known vampire-repellents, before continuing.
No comments:
Post a Comment