Monday, September 14, 2009

More Clues to TFO's Identity

In "Dennisologist?", I related some clues that point to TFO's (aka Gothic aka Vampirologist aka Demonologist) identity.

Well, I've just uncovered some more, courtesy of Bloody Feather (BF), an online "community of dark adult writers."

As we've established, "Vampirologist" is one of TFO's several usernames.

As it happens, it's also the username of someone registered with BF.

A male, from England, who lists 6 VRS-related message boards and 4 links to sites on the VRS webpage as his websites.

He also describes himself as, "International Secretary of the Vampire Research Society". He reasserts his vocation in this blog entry for his BF journal.

The VRS's homepage says that Dennis Crawford fills this role.

TFO also happens to be the founder of the copy-n-paste VRS blog.

Coincidentally enough, Dennis' BF profile status lists him as an "Harasser".

20 comments:

Demonologist said...

"Coincidentally enough, [Vampirologist's] BF profile status lists him as an 'Harasser'."

Are you really that dim?

"Harasser" is the name of a level of membership which all members at that level are automatically allocated. It has nothing to do with being an actual harasser.

And what do you mean by "coincidentally"?

I do not harass people. Even so, I'd be small potatoes compared to you where 80% of your output is devoted to the harassment of any VRS members whose blogs/forums/boards you can find, including Seán Manchester, 10% to Farrant with the remaining 10% to miscellaneous posts usually about vampire novels and kindred cinema fiction etc.

John Baldry's Cat said...

On a completely different subject:

As you might have known, I feel there is no "Highgate Case". Nothing supernatural ever happened in Highgate cemetery. Just couples snogging, rabbits, stray dogs, pot smokers, dope trippers, and two ambitious young turks who gained a minor cult status with the help of inventive reporters looking to sell news papers. I also think that both Manchester and Farrant worked equally hard at spreading their silly vampire & ghost stories during the 1970s. And both "made themselves over" a few times during the ensuing years (satanist, witch, lord, wizard, Byronic heir, etc.) in an attempt to regain the spotlight. Manchester ultimately chose "Bishop", and Farrant, "psychic investigator". In these adopted identities they remain firmly planted to this day.

I don't think it can ever be "proven" (at least on the Internet) that either one is more or less dishonest than the other. I do enjoy watching the back and forth volleys however.

The Overseer said...

Deme, oops, sorry, Dennis:

And not an harasser? You gotta be kidding me. I'll add "fraud" and "joke" to your labels, also.

John Baldry's Cat:

I appreciate your somewhat neutral stance, but I wish it was given better thrift on both sides of the fence.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm sure most supporters of either side don't really believe their figurehead's claims.

Personally, I think that David doesn't mind getting "exposed" on his "views", just so long as the boot gets into Manchester.

Why else would he cite Basil Copper's The Vampire in Art, Legend and Fact as being one "first major book that appeared on the Highgate Vampire case" and it containing "a long chapter on myself and our investigation into the Highgate ‘vampire’ case, although Bonky was not even mentioned (sorry!)"...even though its coverage actually talks about him hunting for vampires?

I think there's still a place for unraveling this feudy mess.

And if it's done anything, it's shown how deceitful both sides can be, thus, undermining their claims (not that they were all too believable in the first place).

Oh, and they both thrive off it too, and earn an income out of it all.

Demonologist said...

"I appreciate your somewhat neutral stance."

That's a joke, right?

"I'm sure most supporters of either side don't really believe their figurehead's claims."

First, where are Farrant's supporters besides the usual culprits who don't add up to the fingers on one hand?

Second, where is your evidence to substantiate the claim that Seán Manchester's supporters "don't really believe their figurehead's claims"?

"It's shown how deceitful both sides can be, thus, undermining their claims."

What precisely has "shown," as you publicly allege, the "deceit" of Bishop Seán Manchester?

You talk to Farrant on blogs, exchange e-mails with him in private, refer to him as "David" and "Dave" on various blogs while at the same time having next to no contact with Bishop Seán Manchester who you frequently refer to as "Manchester."

You seem ready to question just about everyone and anyone except the one person who has the answers to most of the controversies you amplify that usually originate with Farrant.

Why?

John Baldry's Cat said...

I think I'm less neutral because David is much more likeable and less pretentious than Manchester. He is more than willing to indulge the vampire lifestylers and ghost hunters with a few tall tales, but he does not take himself all that seriously. Whereas Manchester is ALL about taking himself dead seriously and insisting that the Highgate Vampire "franchise" (what there is of it) belongs solely to him.

Demonologist said...

Re: "More Clues to Identity"


For those who wish to reveal their online identities, I'm "Daftbugger1" ...

... or, at least, I would be if I succumbed to harassment.

The Overseer said...

Dennis,

Farrant's supporters, for want of a better term, are those who "side" with him against the "feud" with Manchester.

Where's my evidence they don't really believe his claims? Simple. Ask them.

The references to deceit more dealt with yourself.

I respond to Farrant on blogs (where he posts). I have had e-mail correspondence with him (part of it comprised of my "interview" with him). Yes, I refer to him offhandedly as "Dave".

Farrant is much more approachable than Manchester. This is a point reiterated many times. Does it mean I agree with all his claims? No.

If I hadn't been "ready to question about everyone" (but not Manchester) then you need to re-read my questions to him.

John Baldry's Cat,

Despite your disenfranchisement with the whole Highgate thing, your stance isn't really all that neutral. Most of your vitriol is directed against Manchester. Obviously it appeals to certain people who have an axe to grind with him.

Due to their experience with the VRS and otherwise, I'm not all that surprised.

Demonologist said...

"Farrant's supporters, for want of a better term, are those who 'side' with him against the 'feud' with Manchester," proclaims Anthony Hogg.

Yes, and you wouldn't need more than one hand for the fingers needed to count them.

Now take a look at the number of Seán Manchester supporters. On Facebook alone it is in the region of two and a half thousand.


"Farrant is much more approachable than Manchester," claims Anthony Hogg without a shred of evidence.

All you are doing is repeating the words of Farrant cronies such as John Baldry's Cat. There is no evidence to support this claim. How many making it, for example, have ever tried to approach Seán Manchester? The one or two who say this are part of the hate campaign against Seán Manchester and it suits their agenda to make such allegations. The fact is that Farrant will talk to anyone who will give him publicity and a platform to spread his poison. That does not make him "approachable." It makes him obsessive about his vendetta. Just take a look at the content of the emails you received from Farrant and you will get my drift. I bet they are crammed with malice towards Seán Manchester.

Anthony Hogg said...

Wouldn't need more than one hand to count Farrant's supporters?

Well, they're certainly a more vocal lot than Manchester's. How many people out there (outside of VRS members and affiliates) actually uphold Manchester's claims?

If you're gonna use Facebook numbers as a measure of support, then you're also gonna have to evaluate how many of them actually believe what Manchester said.

Then, you're gonna have to ask how many of those friends were requested by Manchester himself.

Now take a look at the number of Seán Manchester supporters. On Facebook alone it is in the region of two and a half thousand.

I've got plenty of evidence that David is more approachable than Manchester. Just ask Don Ecker, among others.

Ask David's "supporters".

While I do believe David can be quite sneaky and evasive, he also has a more active online social presence.

The Bishop, on the other hand, has an International Secretary, like yourself, who constantly comes to the Bishop's "defense"...but without even the authority to do so.

You also resort to tactics like publicly revealing my name by stooping to the depths of using an e-mail I sent to the VRS complaining of Carol being abused by another member...while cowardly hiding your own.

And no wonder.

If that's the face of the VRS, then why else does Farrant have such support?

You also realise that you feed Farrant's publicity, don't you?

Your constant attacks against him only serves to galvanise the debate. And, like the Bishop said, you don't even have the authority to speak in his stead.

Why don't you try your Prez's response and pretend to "ignore" the claims, like he does?

Or, better yet, take Farrant to court over all the allegations you lay at his feet.

As to the correspondence I've received from Farrant, they're not laced with abuse towards Manchester, but they do occasionally contain some interesting items about him.

Demonologist said...

"Well, they're certainly a more vocal lot than Manchester's," says Anthony Hogg.

As are you. That doesn't make you right. It just makes you appear as if you want to be noticed. In that sense you share something in common with Farrant and his cronies. You all shout a lot, but have nothing constructive to say.

"If you're gonna use Facebook numbers as a measure of support, then you're also gonna have to evaluate how many of them actually believe what Manchester said," claims Anthony Hogg.

That isn't the point, is it? The fact is that two and a half thousand people on Facebook have shown their support and friendship for Seán Manchester. It does not mean that all of them absolutely believe in every aspect of his beliefs to the last detail, though a significant number obviously do, but all want to be associated with him. They show this be asking to become his friend and by making very sympathetic comments about him.

"Then, you're gonna have to ask how many of those friends were requested by Manchester himself," speculates (again) Anthony Hogg.

None, I would imagine. Because I happen to know he turns down a great many requests for approval (you will need to ask him why) and has little time available to spend on Facebook beyond dealing with requests for help and other queries which flood his Inbox. This much he has told me.

"I've got plenty of evidence that David [Farrant] is more approachable than Manchester. Just ask Don Ecker, among others," claims Anthony Hogg.

This is where your credibility totally evaporates: providing Ecker as evidence that Seán Manchester is unapproachable. What a joke!

Seán Manchester is extremely approachable and I have plenty of evidence. You have provided no credible evidence to the contrary.

Last night he spoke on a radio station against which he had successfully taken action some time earlier when the presenter was abusive. Last night the new presenter was very courteous towards him and it was a fascinating talk. The previous presenter on an earlier occasion (who had been primed by Farrant unbeknown to Seán Manchester) was subsequently sacked by the station for similar appalling behaviour.

Farrant "befriends" those who provide a platform for his hate campaign, eg Ecker, and anyone low enough to engage in his malice to echo his insults and abuse against Seán Manchester.

You're not there yet, but you are on the way to becoming yet another notch in Farrant's belt. Ecker already is one. The fact that anyone is duped by Farrant's stream of false and unsubstantiated allegations is a reflection on their own character and might explain why you receive no support in the form of followers on any of your blogs.

Demonologist said...

"While I do believe David [Farrant] can be quite sneaky and evasive, he also has a more active online social presence," says Anthony Hogg.

What does "active online presence" actually mean? If you mean he spends more time stalking and posting abuse wherever he can, I would agree. What else does he fill his life doing? If you mean something more constructive with a serious contribution to anything, I disgaree. Where's the evidence?

"If that's the face of the VRS, then why else does Farrant have such support?" asks Anthony Hogg.

Farrant doesn't have "such support." That is YOUR claim. It is without substance and certainly not shared by anyone other than Farrant and two or three like-minded malcontents. He has less than a handful of similarly dysfunctional elements who engage in the same mindless abuse. The fact that he has NO real support is reflected whenever he opens a forum, blog or board. Where are his members? They don't exist! They certainly don't materialise on his boards, do they?

"Why don't you try your Prez's response and pretend to 'ignore' the claims, like he does? Or, better yet, take Farrant to court over all the allegations you lay at his feet," suggests Anthony Hogg.

If it was a "pretence" there would be little point, would there? Taking Farrant to court has been discussed umpteen times before and still it hasn't yet sunk in, has it? Farrant has unpaid creditors like the Crown who are still waiting for the £20,000.00 pounds in unpaid court costs he owes them from a lost libel case. If anyone was to sue Farrant and win they could be waiting an eternity before they receive a penny. In the meantime, they would probably have to cover their own legal costs which could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Farrant has not been obliged to repay costs and damages found against him because he receives means tested state benefits and has done so since the 1970s. This (or being declared insane) is the only way he could have avoided paying the massive debt which the UK tax-payer was lumbered with.

"As to the correspondence I've received from Farrant, they're not laced with abuse towards Manchester, but they do occasionally contain some interesting items about him," claims Anthony Hogg.

If they are not "laced with abuse," Farrant is obviously treading carefully at first because he does not trust you, as he himself has indicated on various blogs. However, you are willing to receive what you describe as "interesting items" privately from Farrant while showing no interest in hearing the other side. Have you contacted Seán Manchester to ask him about the "items" of "interest"?

My money is on you not having done so. It's what's called a safe bet.

Anthony Hogg said...

Let me clarify what I mean about "active online presence".

It means that he posts under his own name when dealing with this Highgate and feud-related matter.

Unlike you, who are happy to publicly expose other people's names, under very shady circumstances.

If David doesn't spend his time doing much else...then, again, I could argue that you seem to have too much time on your hands as well.

On the other hand, he does have several publications, video, etc.

You have...?

Do you not see that your criticisms of himself can equally be applied to you?

After all, you do a good job of posting abuse, yourself. And as to stalking?

Back when I started my forum, you posted items discussing me, publicly revealing my real name courtesy of an e-mail I sent to the VRS website which happened to slip into the hands of an "independent investigator"...who was you all along.

How pathetic.

From what I've seen, Farrant has much more support than Manchester does. Sure, he may have more friends on his Facebook...but what does that count for?

How many of them actually believe what he says?

I'll even point out that a lot of Farrant's "supporters" don't believe him, either.

Oh, and a query: how would you know how many respondents or members on his forum he gets?

Keeping a close eye on him, are ya?

So, you cite, yet again, that Farrant can't go to court cos he's on Social Security and has unpaid legal bills.

So?

Your solution is to, what? Malign him continuously online?

Way to further the cause there, Dennis.

The thrust of your argument against Farrant involves legal matters. Yet, he's still a free man. He continous to distribute the "false information" you continuously rail about.

And you know very well he'll keep on a-doing it, probably till the day he karks it.

But so will you, most likely.

Why don't you guys organise a nice tea party and do something more productive like, I dunno, burying the hatchet.

It'll free up time so you can perform your important duties at the VRS headquarters. Whatever they might be.

I don't care if Farrant trusts me or not. He's shown me interesting items, regardless. But, as I've explained to him, I'm more interested in stuff that's publicly reproducible.

That's why I frequently cite my sources. And, in Youngson's case, I obtained permission from her to reprint what she said about Varma.

To say I'm not interested in hearing the other side of things is nonsense.

If it were true, your comments would have been deleted.

Regarding my contact with Manchester, I've already shown that byway of my questions to him.

If he's got anything to show me, by all means, have him send it along.

But, just as in Farrant's case, I can only reproduce it if it's something that can be publicly disclosed.

Seeing as you're his International Secretary, have him contact me if he's got something interesting to send along and we'll see if it's fit for the public, eh?

John Baldry's Cat said...

- "All you are doing is repeating the words of Farrant cronies such as John Baldry's Cat."

That means you an me are cronies, Hoggy! Huzzah!

Demonologist said...

"On the other hand, [Farrant] does have several publications, video, etc," proclaims Anthony Hogg.

Have you actually seen them?

A child of six could do better!

"From what I've seen, Farrant has much more support than Manchester does. Sure, he may have more friends on his Facebook...but what does that count for?" claims Anthony Hogg.

Then you haven't seen much, have you? Farrant has absolutely no support apart from the tiny handful of similarly disgusting miscreants who employ obscene language when not too drunk to even do that. Where is Farrant's support? Show it to me!

"How many of them actually believe what [Seán Manchester] says?" asks Anthony Hogg.

Most I would imagine, as they tend to be ultra-traditionalists with almost identical views and beliefs. You should try taking a look some time. You might be in for a rude awakening!

"And you know very well he'll keep on a-doing it, probably till the day he karks it. But so will you, most likely," states Anthony Hogg.

What has it got to do with you even were this the case?

"Why don't you guys organise a nice tea party and do something more productive like, I dunno, burying the hatchet," suggests Anthony Hogg.

Try doing some proper research for a change. Seán Manchester has invited Farrant to tea on a number of occasions, a fact which has been recorded on various forums and in local newspapers. Farrant has always poured scorn on the idea and used the opportunity to hurl more abuse at Seán Manchester.

"Regarding my contact with Manchester, I've already shown that by way of my questions to him. If Seán Manchester's got anything to show me, by all means, have him send it along," suggests Anthony Hogg.

You've asked a few questions that went nowhere and were transparently loaded. This you did on one occasion. Now you're saying that a bishop, author and, as you keep reminding everyone, public figure twice your age should come knocking at your door with his begging bowl? Are you really serious? That would reduce him to the level of Farrant; someone you get on with more and more as time goes by.

I have been shown a photograph of you without your Devil's mask. You're just a kid! And now you have the audacity to suggest that Bishop Seán Manchester should try and convince you of his innocence?

Dream on ...

Anthony Hogg said...

Have I seen Farrant's publications? Nope. My primary source concerning his writings, is what's found on the 'net.

That doesn't mean they don't exist. Even Manchester saw fit to comment on them in a recent letter/advertisement to Fortean Times.

So, where's yours? What is your involvement with the Case? Did you write a report on it? If so, I'd be happy to reproduce it here.

"Where is Farrant's support? Show it to me!" warbles Dennis Crawford.

Have a read of the comments on The Cat's Miaow, Net Curtain's Lurkers, etc., etc.

You said that "most" of Manchester's supports would believe his claims about hunting vampires and staking them.

Why? Because they're apparently "ultra-traditionalists with almost identical views and beliefs."

Which is funny, because they don't seem to be very vocal about such things.

As a member of the C&S for a few years, I didn't exactly see such a groundswell of support for his claims take place.

But, by all means, point me in the direction of his non-VRS (or affiliate) support.

Dennis Crawford wonders what the feud he helps perpetuate has "got to do with [me] even were this the case?"

Not much. But then you've got to ask why you put the blame on me for keeping it alive, even though you pretty much admit a) it would exist with or without me b) acknowledge that it seemingly has no end.

"Seán Manchester has invited Farrant to tea on a number of occasions, a fact which has been recorded on various forums and in local newspapers," harps Crawford.

A strange offer from someone who follows a blog dedicated to promoting Farrant in a negative light, as well as stealing the title of his autobiography, i.e In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire.

I wasn't asking the Bishop to come knocking at my door. I asked you, as his International Secretary, to ask him to provide me with something that would counter David's own allegations. As a Secretary, isn't that your job?

Ah, but I've seen the kind of job you do, what with your blocking access to the Bishop against folk like Don Ecker.

And now you say you've also been shown a photo of me? Isn't that funny! Especially in light of your claim about me being a stalker.

By all means, e-mail me this photo and I'll tell you whether or not it's me. And while you're at it, why don't you reveal who sent the picture to you, in the first place.

Anthony Hogg said...

John Baldry's Cat,

If it's not being "spoonfed" things by Manchester (as David has previously said about me), then it's "repeating the words of Farrant cronies such as John Baldry's Cat."

You really can't win!

Demonologist said...

"Why don't you guys organise a nice tea party and do something more productive like, I dunno, burying the hatchet," suggested Anthony Hogg, followed by these comments when I pointed out that Seán Manchester has invited Farrant to tea on a number of occasions: "A strange offer from someone who follows a blog dedicated to promoting Farrant in a negative light, as well as stealing the title of his autobiography, i.e In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire."

Neither Seán Manchester nor I write the blog "In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire" that is titled thus by Arminius, I suspect, precisely because it is the name Farrant gave to his revisionist autobiography which is just another excuse to attack and defame Seán Manchester. The blog appeared in response to Farrant's most recent batch of lies under the same title.

On Farrant's blog we find John Baldry' Cat asking the following:

"Dogmatologist [sic] wrote on another blog: (Bonky) 'has invited Farrant to tea on a number of occasions, a fact which has been recorded on various forums and in local newspapers. Farrant has always poured scorn on the idea and used the opportunity to hurl more abuse at' (Bonky). He invited you to tea????? Bloody hell!!! Why didn’t you go!???" (September 22, 2009 at 12:41 am)

To which Farrant replied:

"Missed the post, Cat, but it seems like the usual publicity-seeking nonsense. Actually, it wasn’t an invitation for ‘tea’, but to be ‘exorcised’!" (September 22, 2009 at 1:25 am)

http://davidfarrant.org/TheHumanTouch/?p=583#comments

In actual fact, the invitations were for a private meeting at Seán Manchester's residence for tea and scones. This had nothing to do with exorcisms (though offers of exorcism were made by Seán Manchester from 1973 to 1999; none of which were taken up by Farrant). These were suggestions made this century to meet privately and take tea. I believe one such offer was made through a third party on the Fortean Times' forum about five years ago. Seán Manchester said at the time that the offer remains open. He has said nothing since to revoke that position.

Farrant's response at the time was that he would have to be raving mad to accept Seán Manchester's invitation. Some felt he would have to be mad to reject it, but reject it he did.

Anthony Hogg said...

Oh, you assume "Arminius" borrowed the title of the blog both you and Manchester follow, from David's autobiography.

That motive sounds awfully similar to your using my "Overseer" username "in protest" over my use of it...even though you criticised me for its usage, cos it is similar to an ecclesiastical title?

The mind boggles with you, Dennis.

I wasn't aware of Farrant's response to JBC asking him about why he hadn't attended one of Manchester's tea parties. I've also asked David, myself, on JBC's blog.

I'll await his response, too.

Demonologist said...

"Oh, you assume Arminius borrowed the title of the blog both you and Manchester follow, from David's autobiography," proclaims Anthony Hogg.

No, I "assume" nothing. I was informed by the blogger himself.

"I wasn't aware of Farrant's response to John Balrdy's Cat asking him about why he hadn't attended one of Manchester's tea parties. I've also asked David, myself, on John Balrdry's Cat's blog. I'll await his response, too," reveals Anthony Hogg.

Don't hold your breath for a straight answer!

Incidentally, I said nothing about a "tea party." The invitations extended by Seán Manchester on various occasions this century were for him and Farrant to meet PRIVATELY at his coastal residence for tea, scones and some conversation.

Anthony Hogg said...

Let me ask you then, Dennis, why would a long-dead Hungarian scholar want to name his blog after an autobiography on Farrant?

You guys certainly have a lot in common in that regard, at least.

After all, you also pinched my "Overseer" moniker and the title of my forum and blog for your own nefarious purposes.

Is this standard VRS policy?

As to David's response, as you'd know, he did give one.

Whether you regard it as a "straight answer" or not, is a different story.

What he claims is, that the Bishop's intent was to use the tea-for-two as a publicity ruse.

I've told David to go for it, regardless, and JBC is also keen on it happening.

As I've said before, I genuinely hope they can resolve their differences, so I hope they can make it happen.

Amiably.

Of course, that'd leave you out of a job, but ah well.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails