Friday, March 5, 2010

Vampires! Vampires! Everywhere!

In a recent discussion on Arcadia forum concerning water and its association with paranormal activity, I posted up a coupla items on the Water Tape Theory.

It's similar to the Stone Tape Theory, which holds that certain elements in certain environments are able to "record" certain events from the past, and replay them in the present.

The items I shared were a further discussion concerning David's thoughts on a similar concept. Unfortunately, he didn't seem aware that he hadn't "coined" it himself:
I exchanged my views with many other psychic investigators at that time, although in 1987 I wrote an article publicly sharing this view, and citing quite a few examples. This article appeared in the paranormal magazine “The Unknown” and was fairly well received by paranormal investigators who gave me even more information. I concluded that the sheer persistency of all the reports made these far too numerous to be dismissed as coincidence.
The Water Tape Theory's been around since the early '60s, at least.

In context of discussing his riff on the Water Tape Theory, I asked if he felt it had any relevance to his most famous "investigation":
Out of curiousity, do you believe the Stone Tape Theory or Water Tape theory have any baring on the Highgate Case?
For some reason, my question invoked the undead! At least, in David's head:
And there you go again introducing the Highgate 'vampire' into my reply to Rain, when I did not even mention this. You seem to be obsessed with this!
However, as I pointed out to him, I didn't even use the word "vampire". Talk about a Freudian slip!

I also pointed out that regardless of me mentioning the Case, that he was talking on a forum thread index concerning the Highgate Vampire, so it's not like my queries were irrelevant.

Rather than admit to this slip, David of course wigged out and asked for my references concerning the Water Theory items I posted. I had to point out (for the second time) that I actually linked to my references, already. All he had to do was click on them.

Clearly, he's yet to grasp the concept of a "hyperlink".

He also asked why I even raised the Highgate Case at all, implying that I don't give straight answers to questions. It's hard to say whether or not he was taking the piss, in light of his continuous side-tracking tactics (as commented on by members of the JREF forum).

Nonetheless, I took the bait and gave him four reasons as to why I raised it as a topic of discussion:
1. I write a blog about the Case.

2. You "investigated" the Case.

3. You say the Case "has the effect of completely overshadowing" all your other investigations. You regard the Case to be an example of paranormal activity, I was asking if you found these Theories had any relevance to it.

4. The thread you're writing on falls under the "Highgate Vampire" index. Therefore, the Case is relevant to the discussion, should I choose to utilise it. If I do, I'm certainly not going "off topic".

Pretty straight forward, right? But why do I get the sinking feeling that my responses aren't clear enough for him...

No comments:


Related Posts with Thumbnails