Outfoxing the Vampire Hunter

Don't worry, Basil's still with us. (Photo: City Varieties)

Forty five years ago, Sean Manchester and David Farrant made the Hampstead & Highgate Express's front page with a question readers didn't even know they'd asked: "Why Do the Foxes Die?" (March 6, 1970).

That question will be explored further in an upcoming article for my website, Vamped, which also features an article Erin Chapman and I worked on together called: "5 Reasons Why a Wampyr Didn't Walk in Highgate" (Feb. 27, 2015).

In it, Erin and I discovered that Manchester had little to no clue about Highgate Cemetery's geography, which means he's either a grossly incompetent investigator (at the time, he was supposedly President of the British Occult Society), or a grossly incompetent fraud who couldn't get his story straight. Take your pick.

Coincidentally, the article was finished in time for the 45th anniversary of Manchester broadcasting his vampire theory through the Hampstead & Highgate Express's cover story: "Does a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?" (Feb. 27, 1970).

We can count that date as the Highgate Vampire's birthday; after all, there was no reliable record of any vampire hauntings in the cemetery prior that date. Which I guess also makes Manchester its daddy. They certainly look alike, but that might not be so coincidental.

Podcast radio host, Don Ecker, relates the following account told to him by an unidentified person, told by another unidentified person, who knew the "in's and out's" of the case, explaining how Manchester was able to create the "decomposing vampire" shots featured in his 1985 book, The Highgate Vampire and the 1991 revised edition (Ecker n.d., [20–1]):

Well David [Farrant] has maintained all along that it's Manchester himself under the make up, but he didn't know how the effect was created. This new witness explained that when he had asked Manchester back in the 70's with a lot of praise for the effect, Manchester explained how he did it. Now it's important that you realize that Manchester had a photographic studio at the time; something he brags about given the chance and a knowledge of photography.

The film is basically time lapse photography played in reverse.
Manchester had a watery flour mixture on his face and a heater & fan set up nearby.The heat source melted the mixture and the fan blew it off of his face.Once the time lapse photography was finished, the effect was played in reverse.

As the frame rate was so stilted, you wouldn't be able to see the blow off effect but simply a very basic face morph.

It is a set a 3 pictures from his home movie, that made their way into his book and on his own website.
3 very grainy pictures from someone who is supposed to be a professional photographer. The reason that they are so small, is that blowing up a cine film still, would leave too many artifacts in frame that would give the game away as to their origin.

It's also why he refuses to allow people to host these pictures and threatens them with legal action (copyright) if they do not remove them from their websites.

Chilling Effects, a website that houses online copyright notices, testifies to Manchester's proclivity for reporting people either under his own name, or the name of his vanity publisher, Gothic Press. Yet Manchester sees no double standard flagrantly stealing creative works from other people, as his penchant for plagiarism reveals.

In the meantime, can view a version of the photos from Manchester's website, which he's partially obscured with terribly distorted Photoshop effects ("Highgate Vampire Picture Gallery" n.d.).

I'd share the image itself here, but Manchester's particularly keen on suppressing criticism, as demonstrated by his recent actions against Erin Chapman's article "Seeking Vampires in London" (Nov. 16, 2014), where he contacted my website's host and forced the removal of two photos that prove he had misidentified two Highgate Cemetery locations. Erin and I have challenged Manchester's claim on "fair use" grounds (Hogg 2014).

Fair use gives you "the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords," which is considered "fair" under certain contexts "such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research" (U.S. Copyright Office n.d.)

Manchester also recently tried to force Faustian Circle, who writes a blog of the same name, to remove two posts from his site after Manchester had been rumbled by commentators for using his "B.O.S." alias and in the wake of a series of incriminating phone transcripts between Manchester and Farrant, which were posted by Farrant on the blog. Faustian Circle wrote (2015):

We have received a message from Sean Manchester requesting that we remove both articles: "THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE HUNTERS" and "THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE HUNTERS: READER'S COMMENTS - PART 2".

We replied: "Wouldn't it be better to respond to the articles and comments about yourself in the comments section of the articles, as you or your representative 'B.O.S.' (British Occult Society) have done so far? In the interests of free speech and debate we are extremely reluctant to remove the articles in question."

If the articles are removed due to a DNS action via the internet, readers of this blog will know why.

Further transcripts have followed, Sean "B.O.S." Manchester has not added any further comments, clearly crestfallen that his usual suppressive tactics have not worked this time. Score one for free speech!

References

Chapman, Erin. 2014. "Seeking Vampires in London." Vamped (blog), Nov. 16. Accessed March 6, 2015. http://vamped.org/2014/11/16/seeking-vampires-in-london/.

———. 2015. "5 Reasons Why a Wampyr Didn't Walk in Highgate." Vamped (blog), Feb. 27. Accessed March 6, 2015. http://vamped.org/2015/02/27/5-reasons-why-a-wampyr-didnt-walk-in-highgate-cemetery/.

Ecker, Don. n.d. "My Inquiry into the Highgate Vampire Case." The Paracast. Accessed March 6, 2015. http://www.theparacast.com/darkmatters/borisdocument.pdf.

Faustian Circle. 2015. Comment on "The Highgate Vampire Hunters: Reader's Comments - Part 2," by Faustian Circle, February 17, 2015 at 13:53. The Faustian Circle, Feb. 4. Accessed March 6, 2015. http://faustiancircle.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/the-highgate-vampire-hunters-readers.html?showComment=1424210004133#c5870166592858357355.

"Highgate Vampire Picture Gallery." n.d. English Gothic. Accessed March 6, 2015. http://www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/Highgate%20Vampire%20Picture.htm.

Hogg, Anthony. 2014. "'Vampire Hunter' Hammers Stake Through Article." Vamped (blog), Nov. 27. Accessed March 6, 2015. http://vamped.org/2014/11/27/vampire-hunter-hammers-stake-through-article/.

U.S. Copyright Office. n.d. "Fair Use." Copyright.gov, reviewed June 2012. Accessed March 6, 2015. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html.

Suspended from Posting to Facebook for Three Days

I've just received an announcement from Facebook telling me I'm barred from posting for three days, due to an intellectual property claim issued against me.

A few days ago, I initiated a thread in my Facebook group discussing the recent death of Sylvia Browne, comparing my plight with the one Robert S. Lancaster faced running his Stop Sylvia Browne website:

Not directly related to the Highgate Vampire, but Robert Lancaster is a man I admire and whose delvings into the claims of a paranormalist touches on things I've encountered, myself while writing about the case - the threats to dig up dirt, actual attempts, attempts at discrediting my work through negative rhetoric (Lancaster's website is called "nasty", whereas I am referred to as a "troll" and someone who doesn't ask "genuine questions", etc.) and so on. It's guys like him that inspire me.

And in case you think I'm being tasteless by posting this in the immediate aftermath of Browne's death, it also serves to highlight why we shouldn't glorify the dead who were dodgy in life. Case in point: "And she said, as she says in some of her books, that she will live until she is eighty-eight years old, which is sixteen years from now [2008]." Browne was 77.

Right beneath that post, I posted a link to Hoggwatch, a blog dedicated to stalking me, to illustrate the kind of despicable tactics used to attack me and my research. The blog's byline was formerly credited to "Vebjørn Hästehufvud", who changed his account name to "B .O.S." in the immediate aftermath of my exposé of his dodgy behaviour (which includes using a variety of sockpuppets and stealing the Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society's name).

Overlooking the irony of his action, the true author of the blog opted to report me for posting a link to Hoggwatch—not content from the link, mind you, just the link itself—and in doing so, revealed the actual person behind the sockpuppets:

That's right—Bishop Sean Manchester reported me to Facebook for posting a link to a blog he created, dedicated to stalking me. Ladies and gentlemen, I present the man whose jurisdiction English Old Catholics have placed themselves under. At least, in his own imagination.

I have also taken the liberty of e-mailing Manchester, in accordance with Facebook's request:

Dear Manchester,

Re: you reporting me to Facebook on account of me posting a link to your blog

I am writing in to ask you to restore the content to my Facebook group, i.e. a link to your blog, "Hoggwatch" accompanied by the caption "An example of an attempt at silencing my work". Facebook requests that you email them with your consent, along with the reference number.

I can not fathom why you would report my post for hosting the link, unless you desired to incriminate yourself as its author—in which case, you've succeeded. Well done.

Regards,

Anthony Hogg

I've done my part. Time for Manchester to do his. I look forward to his reply.

Downfall

This blog has been dormant because I decided to concentrate my writings to a WordPress blog, also called Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?. Unfortunately, that won't be happening any more.

While I was on a trip to Adelaide between 5–12 Janaury, I tried accessing my blog, only to be greeted with this:

Let's say, I wasn't pleased by this turn of events. Nonetheless, I was touched by words of support from my readers. One SMSed me (07-Jan-13 12:34am):

Hi Bud, is everything ok, I see the blogs gone.....was it the potty prelate?

To which I replied (07-Jan-13 8:02am):

I'm looking into that but yes it was him

The reader wrote back (07-Jan-13 9:40am),

What a wanker , can you put it back up somewhere else?

I replied (07-Jan-13 9:50am),

I have to count on it being backed up by wordpress or I have to start from scratch 

The reader added (07-Jan-13 1:40pm),

Hope it is mate...the bloke really is a total cock, I honestly dont know how he can be such a blatant hypocrite!

I'm not going to disclose the identity of this 'potty prelate', 'wanker', 'total cock' and 'blatant hypocrite'. On an unrelated note, in the lead up to my blog's closure, I was subjected to repeated DMCA takedown notices issued by Sean Manchester.

It began when I critiqued Manchester's 'Tamás Ország' entry for his blog, Bishop † Seán † Manchester:  questions & answers (21 December 2012). Manchester's entry discussed candidates for the identity of the Highgate Vampire. One of them was 'a Russian immigrant shoemaker/leather worker called Mikhail Oleg Ostrog'.

My critique, 'Jack the Vampire?' (22 December 2012), exposed several anomalies in Manchester's entry: firstly, it had been plagiarised from ProBoards group, The Highgate Vampire. Second, 'Mikhail Oleg Ostrog' is actually Michael Ostrog: a Jack the Ripper suspect; something Manchester hadn't realised. Third, the Ostrog timeline was at odds with the 18th century date Manchester has suggested for his vampire's origins. Fourth, Ostrog's appearance didn't match his vampire, either.

To illustrate the latter point, I contrasted a photograph included in Manchester's book, The Highgate Vampire (1991)¹ with contemporary pictures of Ostrog. As the reproduction was smaller than the picture's original resolution, and it was being used for critical purposes, I thought I'd be automatically safe on Fair Use principles. Nonetheless, that picture's inclusion triggered Manchester's initial takedown notice against me (DMCA #1414831).

Shortly after receiving the claim, I noticed some substantial–and undisclosed–revisions had taken place on Manchester's 'Tamás Ország' blog entry. Not only did he now dispute the likelihood of Ostrog's connection to the Highgate Vampire, but he also included the same source (Casebook: Jack the Ripper) and primary image I did in my post, to refute their association! In other words, Manchester was content with not only forcing me to remove and image off my blog–he also stole my findings!

I didn't mince words with my follow-up entry, 'Bishop reports me for copyright violation; then steals my findings' (27 December 2012). To illustrate the difference between Manchester's original entry and the post-DMCA takedown notice version, I posted screencaps of the original and updated notice.

Soon afterward, I received another DMCA takedown notice (#1418569), demanding the two screencaps be removed. Manchester had reported me. Again.

Evidentially, the final straw for WordPress.com came when I included a photograph of Manchester in my 3 January 2013 post, 'Lie detector developments'. The picture was sent to me by Manchester's former friend, Kevin Chesham. It showed Manchester, in a cowboy hat, on his 63rd birthday. Chesham assured me the picture was his copyright.

Despite clearly captioning the photo with relevant copyright info, Manchester issued another DMCA takedown notice against me–which was evidentially one too many for WordPress.com, who promptly suspended my blog.

I should mention that I did try challenging these notices, but I was repeatedly placed a very difficult position: in order to file a DMCA counter-notice, one is required to forward their personal details along (home address, etc.), which is then passed onto the claimant. As much as I know Manchester would love having my details because I'm sure he wouldn't abuse them, I declined. Purely on those grounds, not because I didn't feel I had a right to reproduce any of the imagery discussed.

In the first two instances, I wound up removing the pictures. I also (literally) blacked out the screencaps. Each was overlaid with an explanatory message explaining the reason for removal of the originals.

There wasn't anything I could do with the latest claim, because by that point, my blog was no longer publicly accessible. Even providing Chesham's details in lieu of mine–which he said was ok–wasn't good enough for them.

I suggested handing my details over to a third party (WordPress.com). They didn't go for it. How about removing the Cowboy Manchester pic and refraining from publishing potentially DMCA-violating images in future? No dice.

And that's where we're at: my WordPress blog–dawwih.wordpress.com–which had been active since 2009, is dead. Long live the blog!

My primary concern throughout all this, however, was preserving my content. It's not like I could go back and save the pages, as I do for the items I link to. I really should've done that, in hindsight.

Anyway, through the darkness, a saving grace emerged. It turns out WordPress.com allows a special file to be saved in the event of blog closures. A special file that preserves text (but not pictures unfortunately), should the owner of the blog want their writing hosted elsewhere...

That's why my WordPress blog lives, breathes and jumps again.You can read 'Jack the Vampire?' and 'Bishop reports me for copyright violation; then steals my findings' over there. 'Lie detector developments' is there, too–albeit with no picture. For now.

So, nice try Sean–but you can't suppress the truth. It always finds a way.

---

^{1. Photo captioned, 'Pictures showing the vampire in stages of rapid decomposition which were televised in 1990. Only after exorcism was capture on film possible', S Manchester, The Highgate vampire: the infernal world of the undead unearthed at London’s Highgate Cemetery and environs, rev. edn, Gothic Press, London, 1991, p. 144.↩}

Awaiting Moderation and Other Escapades

Captain Free Speech is at it again. Two of my comments are "awaiting moderation", yet, they've still managed to elicit one-sided replies.

I responded to Barbara's claims that I'd been "trashing" her and invited her to cite examples. I also extended an offer to her: would she be up for an interview for this blog? Y'know, so she could have her say on the Highgate hijinks and such. My comment is still pending publication, but here's her inadvertent (?) reply:


Firstly, it's nice to know she reads my blog (hi Barbara!). Second, the "reply" she's referring to is probably my "Tunnel Vision" post, in which I questioned her selective reading of my blog's content. That is, focusing on my criticisms of Manchester, while neglecting what I've uncovered about David's dodgy output. As you can see, she's gone and done it again ("manchestermalarky"). Nonetheless, my offer of an interview (if Barbara really feels like she's being misrepresented) still stands.

After Barbara's "social list" rant, Dave offers her comfort to her; suggesting that I should be ignored. It's not the first time he's tried to "silence" his associates.

To be honest, I used to think "[h]ardly anybody" read my blog, too. The lack of feedback made me think I was just pissing in the wind. That is, until I installed Feedjit. Now, it's become very apparent that I do have readers and funnily enough, most of 'em come from the UK. Just like Dave. Sure, they don't post on here. But they don't need to, either. Point is, they're reading the thing and that's what counts.

But wait, how does David know that people rarely comment on here? Why, that could only mean he reads my blog! Hi Dave! Who needs tonnes of readers when I have an "esteemed" (ahem) psychic investigator reading my blog?

And what's this about doing myself "far more harm with [my] false assumptions and conclusions, than [he and Barb] do by not answering"? Surely, making generic, unsubstantiated claims about me without directly addressing what I say, only makes them look dodgy? As Dave points out, I put my name to my blog. That's my accountability. I frequently cite their writings. I link to 'em. If I say so-and-so is up to no good, then I'll give my reasons why. I'll show you. I trust the readers to make up their own minds from the conclusions they draw. Unfortunately, Dave doesn't share this ethic, as we'll see from his response to my other "awaiting moderation" comment.


Talk about killing two birds with one stone. Not only did Dave quote from an unmoderated comment, but he even deleted the link I posted. In case you're wondering, it was this one.

It's pretty odd that Dave claims I'm introducing my "personal views and arguements [sic]", when I was directly addressing one of his claims. Basically, he told me (via his blog) that the person who sent him "my" home address, was an Arcadia forum member named "George". I asked him for proof. It's true that he never said he received the info by e-mail. But, as Dave and himself were/are both members of the same forum, it's a logical conclusion. I mean, what's the alternative route? They met up in a pub? George sent him a letter? How else would he have passed along the info to him? Dave's noticeably hesitant in revealing just how the stalker acquired "my" info. And why? Simply because I asked him for proof of his claim.

If Dave's that concerned about the stalker's privacy, why would Dave publicly reveal that he had my home address in the first place? Why would he subsequently reveal this mystery chap, to be a member of the Arcadia forum? What's to lose in sending me the e-mail (or other means) by which he received info about myself?

Let's find out, shall we? Here's my follow-up reply. It's presently "awaiting moderation":

Cat's Outta the Bag

David continues his shameless deception and hucksterism. Also, the recent stalking escapades he's condoned, have inspired a new blurb for this blog.

Yes, the great proponent of free speech has been (unsurprisingly) selective in publishing my comments on his blog. My response to one of his latest deceptive tirades is still "awaiting moderation."


Meanwhile, he's allowed comments by regular commentator, "John Baldry's Cat" (JBC) concerning purchasing his latest book. Yes, despite saying "I do not use this Blog to advertise my books". Whatevs! As a result, JBC was left without context for what I actually wrote, instead relying on David's rhetoric.


I followed it up with a comment that David actually allowed, amazingly enough (maybe because of the coverage I've been giving the matter on my blog?), in which I set JBC straight. Yet, he still managed to censor it.


The missing name? Manchester. David frequently alludes to him, but clearly doesn't like using his actual name. So much for "naming names" and backing up his claims. Funnily enough, the Manchester crew likes hiding David's name on occasion, too. Note the reference to "The Devil's Fool" in this thread on The Cross and the Stake message board is actually Farrant. Yet another similarity of the opposing sides.

Now, back to the comments. Next up, Dave tries to dissuade JBC ordering a copy of the book on my behalf, encouraging me to buy my own copy. Yes, yet another sales pitch. He also discusses my lack of awareness of the book's contents:


There's a pretty obvious reason why I don't know what's in the book. It'll become readily apparent. But first up, JBC's response:


Well, I'm gonna take his word on that one. He might be pesky, but I don't think he's that nutty. So it was a longshot. But it still leaves open the mystery of who my stalker was. Notice how conveniently that was brushed aside by Dave? Typical. Anyway, now it's time to reveal why my knowledge of the book is somewhat limited. Strap yourselves in, folks!


Yes, amazingly enough, in all the time Dave's been sales-pitching, he's refused to discuss what the damn thing's about! Do you buy books online without knowing anything about their contents? As I've pointed out before, the damn thing doesn't even have a product description on Amazon. Do authors usually spend this much time dodging questions concerning basic information covered in their book? Worst. Salesman. Ever.

*****************************

Lastly, I come to this blog's new blurb. In light of all the stalkyness that's been going on, I've been concerned that my readers might find themselves exposed to it, considering the nuttiness of the stalker in question. So, I've composed a new blurb for this blog, which'll hopefully give readers (the sane ones) a heads-up on what they might be getting into:


Felt like I needed something a bit more direct than my "Public Service Announcement". If you're a newbie, or never really paid attention, and you wanna see what the old blurb said, then you'll find it here.

The Long and Winding Road

Dave's latest response on the stalker saga invokes vampires, Manchester and censorious activity, despite previous claims that he encourages free speech. Despite this potpourri, he still manages to sidestep the major issues at hand.

Sometimes, discussing things with David is like walking down a long and winding road that inevitably leads back to the place. This time, it began with me trying to get some very basic information on his latest book. It's lead to one of his "sympathisers" stalking me, handing over my personal details to him. He's also started deploying his usual vampire rhetoric and digs at his nemesis, Sean Manchester. What makes this instance particularly bizarre, is that I hadn't even been discussing them in the thread. Anyway, here's his response:

FOR ANTHONY HOGG,

I have not allowed your post, Anthony, simply because it is merely a duplicate one of what you have posted on your Blog. I do not want your silly arguments about the Highgate ‘vampire’ case to be carried on here. Stay on your own Blog and do it, if you really feel the obsessive need. I would remind you that this is precisely why you gat a life ban from Arcadia recently i.e. posting up Private Messages from their Board without permission to do so.
All this stuff about people ‘stalking’ you just because someone told me your private address, is just childish and proves, if anything, you are just paranoid. I do not know if anybody has ‘stalked you’ in the past. But I can tell you that I certainly haven’t (as can be evidenced by the fact I always signing my own name when having to answer your childish allegations), and the person who gave me your address certainly has not.

If you attack persistently attack public figures, Anthony, with your distorted notions about ‘ghosts’ and ‘vampires’, it is inevitable that you are putting yourself in the public arena with such allegations, so you should hardly be surprised at that!

In any event, I am not going to allow you to pursue your nonsense on here. I have told you time and time again that I simply do not accept the existence of ‘blood-sucking vampires’. You cannot seem to accept this, and keep trying to persuade people that I do. There is another person who admits publicly, that he does believe in vampires and ‘giant vampire spiders’. It must be noticeable to people, that you always choose to remain deadly silent (excuse the pun!) about this issue.
When I asked you on Arcadia for your definition of ‘ghosts’ and ‘vampires’, your reply was that you believed ‘ghosts’ were really the manifestation of demons sent by the devil to fool the people into believing they were really the spirits of departed loved ones that were trying to deceive the living!

Well, everybody to their own beliefs, Anthony! But that does not change the fact that I do not believe in literal ‘vampires’, and never will!

You can believe what you want about myself, Anthony, and I really don’t care. But please don’t expect me to allow you to discuss all this nonsense here.

Have a G’day sport!

David Farrant

The thing that concerns me most about his reply, apart from the glaring contradictions, distortions and fabrications, is his refusal to condemn the actions of his stalker pal. In not doing so, he's essentially justified stalking as a perfectly reasonable action in public discussions on the Highgate Vampire Case. Even by people who don't openly engage in discussions on it in the first place. Here's what I wrote back:

Hi David,

Thanks for firstly admitting that 1) you read my blog and 2) proving my point about your mis-representative ways. It’s fortunate that I posted my actual response on my blog, so people could see what you’re trying to cover up.

Your references to “silly” discussions about the Highgate Vampire is incredibly vague. You also say you don’t want discussions of the Highgate Vampire carried over here, but as I’ve pointed out multiple times, you discuss it here as well. Including mentioning upcoming TV interviews, publicising the promotion of your book, etc.

I was banned from Arcadia because I published the correspondence of the forum’s owner on my blog. The initial ruling was a 6 week suspension if I took the correspondence down. I refused to do so, as I felt the public needed to know about the double standards taking place over there. Clarmonde has also noticed their censorious nature and has complained about it, here on your blog.

I don’t think it’s childish to discuss stalking in collusion with you having my home address. You chose to mention that you had it. Publicly. But I never gave it to you. Nor have I given it to anyone you know and I certainly haven’t posted it online. I’m not sure what kind of alternative universe you live in, but that, my friend, constitutes as stalking.

But it’s ok in that regard, Dave. Cos I now have your address. Rest assured, I’ll keep it quiet as a gesture of good faith. So, if my address gets distributed/misused by you or your anonymous crony, then I’ll know the source and will duly notify the relevant authorities.

As to attacking “public figures” with “distorted notions about ‘ghosts’ and ‘vampires’”, that’s quite frankly ludicrous. Anyone can see that my so-called “distortions” are straight from the horse’s mouth, thanks to the linking and citing I do on my blog. Try not to rely on scattershot criticisms like that, especially when people can read your own stuff online for themselves.

I haven’t mentioned vampires on this thread. So, trying to trick people into thinking that I’m accusing you of believing in them is quite ludicrous. All they have to do is scroll through this thread and see for themselves.

The “other person” you’re referring to is Sean Manchester, who openly believes in vampires (or, at least, perpetuates the idea that he does). Obviously, you’re trying to lump my writings in with your vendetta against him. Again, such jingoism won’t work when they can simply read the rest of the thread here and see that it’s you bringing up vampires and Manchester. Not me.

Yes, you asked for my definition of ghosts and whether or not I believed in vampires. Regarding ghosts, I answered from a primarily Protestant/Scriptural viewpoint. As to vampires, I said I didn’t believe in them. So what’s your point? Are you saying your Wiccan view of spirits is more authoritative that my Protestant one?

Anyway, I know the semantics you use. That’s why you keep emphasising “literal” or “bloodsucking” vampires. That is, ones derived from folklore, literature and movies. It’s to mask the fact that you believe in “vampire-like” (yes, you’ve used that term) psychic entities that suck out people’s psychic energy. You should tell more people about that angle instead of continuously attacking Manchester’s vampire beliefs.

Lastly, suppressing my comments on here (and wildly distorting what I have said) proves you aren’t the man of “free speech” you pretend to be.

Here's some CliffsNotes for certain things mentioned in my reply. Firstly, you can read about my Arcadia ban is covered here. Clarmonde is a member of that forum, who also switched me onto another one.

And yes, I now have David's address. Did a little digging for it while this stalker saga's been taking place. Let's call it "insurance". I even know that it's a 5 minute drive, or a 27 minute walk, from his place to his cash cow, Highgate Cemetery. Didn't realise he lives that close to it. Quite convenient.

The other "person" he mentions who believes in vampires and that "giant spider" thing? As I said, a clear dig at his mortal enemy, Sean Manchester. I've even read about the giant spider's possible source.

How about his sly dig at my personal, religious views on ghosts? That has its origins in a discussion on Arcadia. Funny thing is, his vampire rhetoric made appearances there, too, as well as his wild distortions/interpretations of what I write, byway of response.

Lastly, I touched on the semantics David uses when discussing vampires. Or, specifically, the bloodsucking kind. He does so for three main reasons: 1) to represent himself as more "rational" than his opponent, 2) to continue making digs at his opponent, hence the conjunctive references to "giant spiders" and 3) to take focus off the fact that he, too, believes in vampires. Just not in the same kind Manchester does.

See, despite the common bloodsucking corpse interpretation of the term, it can actually be applied to different vampire "types". That's why I had to be extra careful in the wording of possible responses to a poll I recently initiated. It's also why David tends to be specific in dismissing the traditional bloodsucking variety. Don't believe me? Here's a snippet from an interview he conducted with Bite Me magazine:

... it is true that I do not believe in vampires in their commercialised sense i.e. the sort of vampire that has stepped straight out of a Hammer film, sleeps in its coffin by day and goes around sucking people's blood by night and which can only be destroyed by being 'staked through the heart'. I have frequently said in the past that this sort of vampire is pure fiction. But this does not mean, however, there there do not exist psychic entities that take on vampire-like characteristics in that they remain 'earthbound' and posses the capability to attack unsuspecting victims, psychically leading some people to believe they have become 'possessed'.

In case there's any possible further doubt that I'm taking him out of context, you'll notice that the interview's hosted on his own website.

Addendum to the Previous Post

The assessment of the Highgate Vampire Case by an "outsider" got me thinking about other instances which uncannily seemed to fit his theory. I discuss a few of 'em here.

I've revealed Bishop Manchester's propensity towards plagiarism and censorship on multiple occasions. The mysterious disappearance of his St. Bonaventure post was just the latest example. Most disturbingly, I've even caught him out revising historical events. So why do I raise this topic in context? Because the Bishop also tends to cry "copyright violation!" when he sees fit.

This very blog was born from the ashes of such charges. It's also one of several hypocricies [sic] the Bishop evinces concerning the Highgate Vampire Case. He used the charge to remove a damning report from Scribd. But on a lighter note, the deployment of such accusations also reveals that the Bishop monitors his "opponents" more closely than he lets on.

Gadget Busts the Bish

Sure, the Bishop can pretend his plagiarised St. Bonaventure post never existed, but how can he account for its lingering presence on a Blogger "gadget"?

On the righthand side of this blog, you'll see a "Reading List". It's a collection of blogs I've collected that relate to the Highgate Vampire Case and/or the personages associated with it. It's connected to an RSS feed, which relays the latest blog entries they've posted.

Blogger has many "gadgets", that is, applications that can be added to your blog to jazz it up a bit. The "Reading List" in question, was formulated using one called "Blog List". Anyone with a Blogger account can add it to their own blog.

Funny thing is, the Bishop obviously wasn't counting on it confirming the presence of a plagiarised post he tried to hide after I caught him red-handed. You see, even if you delete a post, the gadget still marks its presence until you write a new one. Now, because the Bishop hasn't written anything new on The Truth Shall Set You Free (ironic title) since the Bonaventure post, there's still presently a record of its existence. Nice try, Bish!

Farewell Arcadia!

Signed into my Hotmail account today and noticed a lovely little e-mail from the Mod of the Arcadia forum ("Suspension from Arcadia Forum‏", Sunday, 16 May 2010 10:36:16 PM):

We have noticed that you have published private messages arising out of the Arcadia forum on your blog. Not only is this against the Arcadia house rules, but we consider this to be disrespectful and unethical. You will therefore be suspended from the Arcadia forum for a period of 6 weeks.
Your account has been deactivated and will be reactivated on 27 June, but only should you delete the messages immediately from your blog (within 24 hours); otherwise consider your ban to be permanent.

The "private messages" he refers to are featured here. It wouldn't surprise me if someone dobbed me in. Otherwise, it means Mr. Mod "checks up" on me, which is cool in itself.

Anyway, I was left with a tough decision, especially in light of the brief timeframe ("24 hours"). I was caught between a rock and a hard place (plus, I've got a busy night ahead). Do I censor myself and ride out the six week suspension or do I make a stand against this hypocrite? After some careful consideration, here's what I wrote back ("RE: Suspension from Arcadia Forum‏", Monday, 17 May 2010 4:05:25 PM):

Let me tell you what's unethical: exhibiting double standards in carrying out your censorship policy against forum members.

You repeatedly censored and warned me about "personal attacks", but allowed David and co. to do the same unhindered (until very recently). You've even been ok with him advertising his merchandise on the forum, even though this is against the board's "spam" policy.

After I reported another member ("Archangel Michael") for posting personal details and such, did you punish them? No, of course not. You slapped me with a two week suspension.

Did you check out the IP of this member against another harasser ("George")? Buggered if I know. And wouldn't you know it? Now clarmonde's been complaining about getting harassed by another member on there. Great "police" work there, Mod!

What choice did I have? You do display double standards in upholding your rules. Slapping me with a six week suspension is an absolute joke. For what? Telling the truth?

So, you know what? Perm ban me. I'm not going to succumb to your threats. Or your double standards.

Have a good one.

Well, it was a good run while it lasted. So, to fellow forum members, no, I haven't chickened out or gotten bored with Arcadia. It's still a lively place for discussion. But there's only so much of this kinda crap I can take. After all, I had to found my own forum to escape this kinda wonky censorship.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Mod starts deleting my posts in a hissyfit or reporting me to "higher authorities". Welcome to the Highgate Madness, folks!

But hey, why not seize a golden opportunity? Here's a follow-up message I've sent to the Mod ("RE: Suspension from Arcadia Forum", Monday, 17 May 2010 4:20:54 PM):

Oh, by the way, would you like to do an interview for my blog? I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Highgate biz, since you've had to filter so much of it via discussions on the forum.

Let me know, ok?

Reckon he'll get back to me? I bloody hope so.

Easing Up on Double Standards

Looks like the Mod of the Arcadia forum has eased up on the double standards previously evinced (see: "Double Standards Elsewhere" and "Zero Tolerance?").

As Gareth J. Medway reports:

David may or may not agree that the 'tulpa' theory could explain sightings of 'ghosts', or even the 'Highgate Vampire', but you will have to wait a while to hear his opinion, since a Moderator, who to judge from his photograph is a French priest who died in 1917, has for whatever reason suspended him from this board for two weeks.

Justice served. And the best part? I didn't have anything to do with it. Dave hoist himself with his own petard by carrying on with his personal attacks against other forum members and so forth.

Incidentally, the reference to "a French priest who died in 1917" concerns the Moderator's cribbed profile pic:

The bloke in the photograph is François Bérenger Saunière (1852–1917), best known for his association with conspiracy theories concerning Rennes-le-Château.

Zero Tolerance?

I uncovered the double standards held by the Arcadia forum Moderator in the previous post.

Recently, Andrew himself posted up a stern warning the participants in the Highgate Vampire thread:

I would like to start by thanking everyone for their contribution on this part of the forum.

At the same time, I have asked the moderator to manage this thread differently than the others, with zero tolerance for bickering and personal attacks.

I don’t care who started it – end it now please or you will be banned.

Thank you.

In light of the somewhat shady and incredibly selective interpretation of "personal attacks" by the Moderator (despite the Forum's clear "House Rules") I'm somewhat apprehensive about Andrew's post. That's one reason why I decided to share the content of this post and the previous one: quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if I wind up banned from the forum.

Not for "personal attacks", mind you. I try and avoid those as much as possible. But for the Moderator's tunnel vision. For instance, why was Barbara allowed to get away with calling "Venator" a "ladyboy"?

Why was David arrogantly, hypocritically and deceptively allowed to insist that I and "Venator" are the only people "making personal insults" against other members, and then (ironically) follow it up with attacks on intelligence?

Sure, Andrew's post hadn't been posted then. But jeez, what about the damn House Rules? You know, the same ones the bloody Moderator wrote!

So, in the aftermath of Andrew's post, it's gonna be very interesting seeing how the Mod handles these two.

Double Standards Elsewhere

I previously reported on the double standards shown by the Healthypages forum.

Unfortunately, this principle exists elsewhere, namely on Andrew Gough's Arcadia forum.

When I cautioned a fellow member of the forum, clarmonde, about certain other members (in light of recently being stalked by them), I was sent this message by the board's Moderator ("Re: is everything connected to Highgate supposed to b sinister?.", 07 Apr 2010 9:45 pm):

I have had to delete part of your recent post, which was a personal attack. This is your second warning. Should you be warned again, you will be suspended from the forum. Please read the House Rules.

Here's what I wrote back ("Re: is everything connected to Highgate supposed to b sinister?.", 07 Apr 2010 10:05 pm):

Firstly, how would advising clarmonde to be "wary" of Caled and George be a "personal attack". George was suspended, but you seem to have allowed him back on again. Meanwhile, Caled has been harassing claremonde in PM, going by her own post.

I requested that you check the IPs of George and Caled, as they are possibly the same person. Instead, you seem to have ignored this.

Now, you're singling me out for "personal attacks"? This is after the numerous personal attacks against me, like David referring to me as an "idiot" for certain Protestant beliefs I have?

Are you kidding me?

To which they replied ("Re: is everything connected to Highgate supposed to b sinister?.", 07 Apr 2010 10:32 pm):

Advising someone to be wary of someone else is a personal attack.

Your request was not ignored. I replied to you about this, indicating that I was not able to reveal identities of forum members.

You are not being 'singled out', as you say. Other forum members are contacted frequently, but I am not able to let you know who has been warned and when.

Here's what I wrote back, minus the quotes from that reply ("Re: is everything connected to Highgate supposed to b sinister?.", 09 Apr 2010 12:48 am):

As opposed to the multitude of personal attacks against myself, and others that are allowed to take place on the forum?

Also note that if I'm making a personal attack by telling clarmonde to be "wary" she's the one telling Caledfwlch to leave her alone on the forum, and also making reference to private convos. Here's her latest.

And nor was I asking you to. As I said, it was only a matter of confirming whether or not they were the same person. I also noticed you allowed George back on, despite his stalking my home address and picture, which he proudly admits to doing.

Yeah, except the difference is, you've threatened to suspend me if I post anymore "personal attacks" (even something telling other forum members to be wary), meanwhile, it's clear that folk like damiana, David, Sheila, etc. are allowed to carry on unhindered.

That's a hell of a double standard.

This reply went unanswered. Later on, I was being harassed by another forum member, "Archangel Michael", so I reported him to the Mod ("See What I Mean?", 18 Apr 2010 5:48 pm):

Hi there Mod,

Archangel Michael has posted the same picture George sent me via PM. Except this time, he's published it on the forum itself:

viewtopic.php?p=60133&sid=efd3f0664f678b2bc8c6b75efe80a811#p60133

I suspect they're the same person, too.

I should note that the picture won't appear in that link because Archy edited it out after I raised a complaint about it on the forum. Should've just reported him, first.

So, what was the Mod's course of action for this stalker/harasser? Simple: suspend me, instead ("Suspension from the Arcadia Forum", 19 Apr 2010 9:07 pm):

Parts of your recent posts have been removed, as they constituted personal attacks and were potentially defamatory.

This is your third warning and therefore, in accordance with the House Rules, your account will be suspended for 14 days.

Your account will be reactivated on 3 May 2010.

Talk about tunnel vision. I still had enough time to fire off this response ("Re: Suspension from the Arcadia Forum", 20 Apr 2010 1:27 am):

You have got to be kidding me.

Are you actually saying it's ok for Archangel Michael to post personal pics (I can even send you the webpage as proof)...that it's ok for David and Barbara to make continuous attacks against me but you're threatening me with suspension?

What was the "potential defamation" I was engaging in?

If you keep up these double standards, I'm gonna have to have a word to Andrew about it. You're clearly discriminating against me.

That, too, went unanswered. So, I decided to contact the forum's owner, Andrew Gough ("Discrimination", Tuesday, 20 April 2010 1:38:39 AM):

G'day Andrew,

I really do hate posting this kinda stuff to you, but I honestly feel like I'm being discriminated against on your forum.

Even though I receive multiple personal attacks from David Farrant and damiana (Barbara Green) and even had the anonymous Archangel Michael post personal pics of me...the Mod sent me a message saying I am to be suspended for posting "potentially defamaing" information on the board and for making personal attacks.

What was this stuff? Who knows. He keeps censoring it without a chance of reply.

I'm not denying I can be a lil controversial, but I can at least back-up what I say. Meanwhile, I've been stalked, had attacks made against my intelligence, my racial background, etc. All of these have passed by without mention.

I hope I can procure some assistance in this matter from yourself.

~ Anthony

And here's what he wrote back ("RE: Discrimination‏", Tuesday, 20 April 2010 2:50:31 AM):

Anthony, hi. I was disappointed to hear this, but I can confirm that while the HGV portion of the forum is overly volatile, the one thing that cannot be tolerated is accusations of others being fraudulent. While on the surface this probably appears to be no worse than much of what you have been levied with, accusing another of being fraudulent or having made things up, brings legal connotations that, historically, have almost led to my site being shut down, for good. So there is a special sort of zero tolerance for that. I suspect this is why they suspended you. But I trust it is not for long?

Thank you for your participation and sorry that it has lead to this temporary hiccup Anthony.

Best,

Andy

It was good to have his sympathetic ear, but wasn't exactly what I was after in its own right. Also, they can't get their story straight? The Mod says I was suspended for "personal attacks", now it's accusing people of fraud? Which one was it?

Anyway, here's what I wrote back ("RE: Discrimination‏", Tuesday, 20 April 2010 10:44:25 PM):

G'day Andrew,

But that's the thing, if what I say con notates fraudulence, what about the stuff levelled against me? Like how many times does it need to be alluded that I'm a liar and deceptive and so forth. The charges levied against me had nothing to do with fraud, but "personal attacks".

And even then, what claims of fraudulence? Again, I'd love to answer to the charges, but the Mod doesn't bother quoting me and selectively censors my posts.

In fact, I first messaged the Mod about Archangel Michael posting personal pics of me (one he obtained from a previously suspended member, George) and who continued to harass me on the forum. The Mod's reply? To say I had been engaging in "personal attacks" and told me I was suspended (till May 3rd)! Like, what the hell is that about?

Surely if I'm to get booted off for personal attacks, then so should Dave and Barb, etc. There's something really outta whack going on here if I'm the only one being punished while they're allowed to carry on unhindered. Clearly your Mod has blatant double standards.

~ Anthony

Andrew didn't bother replying to my message, but, sure enough, I was unsuspended on the 3rd and allowed to post again.

What disturbed me (and still does) about the suspension, more than anything, was the sheer double standards on display. David and Barbara (among others) were given virtual free reign to continue (and still continue) to publish malicious posts, meanwhile, I get suspended.

Clearly, something is rotten in Arcadia.

Bishop Allows Derogatory, Hateful Comments on His Blog, but Censors Comments about His Own Deceitful Ways

I guess we now have a postscript to this saga.

After the Bishop posted his blatantly deceptive comment on "Political Affiliation", a whole bunch of worms came out of the woodwork. Take a look at these gems.

Let's start with "Clare":

For the record (like it's at all relevant to the Case), no, I'm not gay. I'm straight.

As to this perceived homosexuality making me "anti-Catholic", I am a Protestant, but certainly not anti-Catholic in the way Clare interprets.

Citing someone for plagiarism (i.e., the Bishop) and asking them to admit to it, is hardly "anti-Catholic". But obviously, the Bishop isn't as decent as that, despite being a "man of the cloth".

Here's how Manchester replied:


No, Bishop, my "homosexual predilection" (which I don't have) isn't responsible for referring to you as a plagiarist who thieves from BNP sources (your definition of "antipathy").

I'll give you a hint as to why I bring it up, though: it relates to your credibility as a witness in this Highgate Affair. And now, as a Bishop, too.

Fail on both counts.

Unsurprisingly, he's banned me from his blog. When the goin' gets tough, the weak get censorious.

The next poster, "Anonymous", was much more, uh, succinct:


It's funny that the Bishop even allowed this comment, as it clearly violates the condition outlaid in his "?" post: ". . . sign off with your real Christian name ~ or your name in full should you prefer ~ rather than post anonymously."

But we can't let that little niggle get in the way of the Bishop's vendetta, can we?

Also, the Bishop reveals that he's a lot more thorough addressing (and supporting) derogatory comments about myself, rather than owning up to his own plagiarism, as shown in his reply (I've split the screencap in two, due to its length):


As to being "told" that I used to be the member of a forum he administered, he'd be aware of that himself, due to his responses to certain items I posted there. I'll show you in the next blog entry.

Also, in saying that he is kept informed of my writings by "One or two people" is pretty risible for two reasons 1) it's pretending that he doesn't read my writings, which he does and 2) even if it was true, that he's merely "informed" of what I write, it shows that he's not open-minded enough to check out allegations himself.

Also, if the Bishop really wasn't interested in what I had to say (even if he grossly distorts it), then why would he go to the trouble of giving me such wonderful coverage on his blog?


The questions he refers to "a little while back", was a sort of informal interview I conducted with him. It probably won't surprise you to know that I found several "anomalies" in his responses (see here and here).

The Bishop's post also brings the total of homosexual references to myself (". . . how he would reconcile his Christian faith with his homosexuality . . .") to three.

Way to drive your point in there, Bish!

He might try and play the victim (". . . I have done nothing to provoke . . .") but the facts speak for themselves. Instead, he's launched a subversive counter-attack against myself, by deploying schoolyard taunts that are the equivalent of "You're gay!" In this case, being used to undermine my evidence against him.

And speaking of stalkers and harassers, the next comment comes from our old chum "Vampirologist" aka "Gothic" aka "Demonologist", that is, his International Secretary for the Vampire Research Society, Dennis Crawford.

Presuming, of course, that this isn't merely a guise used by the Bishop himself:


Ah, plagiarists of a feather stick together (see here and here).

The "veiled threat" Dennis refers to is this statement I wrote, concerning the Bishop's deceptive ways: "No matter, though. If he really is a man of Christ, then he's well-aware of the spiritual consequences of his deceptive actions."

How can "spiritual consequences" be taken as a threat? In regards to the Bishop's alleged Christianity, he'd know I what I was referring to. If it's not clear enough, it's an allusion to what the Bible says about liars.

Interesting that Dennis countered my so-called "threat" by saying "This is a dangerous game to play and one which he can only lose." Ooh, what are you hinting at there, Dennis?

It's also funny that Dennis whinges about me being allowed to comment on the Bishop's blog, when he was the one who complained when I blocked comments coming in from one of his usernames.

Hypocrite, much?

And finally, the Bishop wraps up with this malarkey:


See how he tries to make it sound like he was doing me a favour?

At this point, I have to refrain from using multiple cursewords. Certainly not out of respect to his Title (which I'm really doubting at this point!) or dignity (which he clearly lacks), but so I won't stoop to his level. I know what game he's playing here. It's pretty obvious.

But coming from a "Bishop"? Ugh.

I'll finish this post with a couple of funny items in his comment, which I covered in "Making a Difference".

Firstly, he said, "Frankly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with individuals who crave attention for themselves and patently have an unhealthy obsession with me."

Then why go to the trouble of answering all the comments he allowed on his blog entry?

Second, he also mentioned that "Mr Hogg's offensive remarks, all of which I have naturally edited and removed, were starting to gather momentum. For example, there have been several in the last twenty-four hours."

Going by the timestamps of the comments I've dealt with here, did you notice that they were spaced about an hour apart? That's not even counting the ones he claims to have deleted.

Hilarious!

But, the fact remains. The primary reason why people sought to malign me on his blog entry (which he allowed them to do), was because the Bishop deliberately misrepresented what I wrote to him, and painted me to be something I'm not, i.e., a homosexual stalker.

I think it's safe to say that the subsequent, uh, "feedback" was exactly what the Bishop wanted. Presuming, of course, that he didn't orchestrate the comments, himself.

After the chicanery he's displayed so far, that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest!

Uh-Oh! Censorship Alert!

I just noticed that a post I wrote on Arcadia, concerning the Bishop being a plagiarist, has been removed!

I asked why this happened and am eagerly awaiting the moderators' reply.

Freedom of Speech and the Highgate Vampire

David claims strong principles when it comes to discussing the Highgate Vampire Case or publishing copyright-violating satirical comics, that target his "enemies" (i.e., people critical of his claims):

That comic ‘satirized’ myself as much as everyone else. But I was not responsible for its original publication;; including, I might add, depicting you as a ‘water hogg’ (or whatever it was) who had joined forces with the ‘other camp’. Why did I re-publish it? (and its on Amazon incidentally). Because I happen to believe in freedom of speech, providing this happens to be honest and fair and does not set out to injure, libel or abuse other people.

Even in dealing with the insane ramblings of Carol, he reveals, once again, an integral ethic in discussing the Case:

But my policy has always been to answer any questions about anything I may have said relating to the paranormal. And I have often gone into this question of time before. To ignore her question would otherwise be to somehow betray this basic principle.

That's why it's a shame he's wildly inconsistent and can't stick to his own principles. His blog entry, "I Don't Know Why I Bother Really" was written as a response to me concerning David's various claims about the Highgate Vampire and his repeated use of the term, "vampire" despite claiming not to believe in them. Here's a snippet:

Thought I better do a Blog tonight, as Gareth is coming over tomorrow and might not get a chance then. I have already promised my “friend” The Overseer (from ‘down under’) that I answer something for him and that I’d do it on Friday. I don’t know why I bother really concerning myself with old history concerning non-existent ‘vampires’ but I have always tried to answer questions where these concern matters which are in the public domain.

In response, I wrote the following comment:


Which is why it was slightly bewildering that he followed it with this:


I made no bones about this blatant contradiction:


He then offered to talk about this Case "in the public domain" by e-mail.

It goes without saying that David's claim of not wishing "to discuss Highgate, ‘vampires’ or ‘him’ [Sean Manchester -ed.] on here" is directly contradicted by multiple posts covering those topics. Indeed, his latest blog entry makes reference to being contacted by a TV company, for whom he'll be participating in "another interview on the Highgate case very soon."

Maybe he's delusional?

After all, when a member of the Arcadia forum, Caledfwlch, made very clear references and citations of David's own vampire-hunting activity (even providing photographs)...

I am not asking you to discuss "other vampire hunters" here, or "other people". I am asking you to discuss yourself and nobody else. You did, after all, once describe yourself to the media and the general public as a vampire hunter.

....David not only revealed a hole in his answer-all-questions policy, but refused to even acknowledge that the person Caledfwlch was very obviously describing, was Dave himself:

To remind you again, I am NOT prepared to discuss the activities of other ‘vampires hunters’ here – or the activities of any other people for that matter.

"By "other vampire hunters" you presumably mean other than yourself?" (says yourself)

My answer to you still stands, “Caldefwich” and I am NOT going to discuss ‘other vampire hunters’ – or rather people who claimed to be ‘vampire hunters’ and/or gave televised advice on how to destroy vampires.

So, David's either nuttier than a fruitcake or incredibly deceptive like his old chum, the Bishop.

Or maybe both.