Presenting the amazing...paranormal escalator!

Props goes to fellow forum member, Cú Chulainn, for sharing a fascinating article on the way (alleged) paranormal phenomena can morph from witness to media.

Maurice Townsend's 'The paranormal escalator' illustrates the need to pay close attention to an eyewitness's original testimony. Go back to the source. It's easy for an original account to morph into something else, especially when overlaid with paranormal assumptions and interpretations on the alleged sightings in question. Benjamin Radford depicts this scenario in Scientific paranormal investigation: how to solve unexplained mysteries (Coralles, N.M.: Rhombus Publishing Company, 2010):

"I saw a Bigfoot."
"How do you know it was a Bigfoot?"
"It was large and dark and hairy and standing on two legs."
"Okay, so you saw something large, dark, hairy, and standing on two legs. But no one knows for certain what a Bigfoot is. So how can you positively identify what you saw as a Bigfoot?" (p. 21)

This supernatural presumption is a hallmark of paranormal investigation. The 'answer' is often pre-determined, despite the use of scientific equipment to make the investigation seem 'legit'. Radford discusses the 'logic' behind this and why it's inherently faulty:

Some people believe that paranormal phenomena are inherently unknowable . . . I have encountered the same position elsewhere; during a haunted house investigation in California for a TV show, I had a friendly discussion with a member of a ghost hunting group. I asked him why the evidence for ghosts never seemed to get any better, and he replied that ghosts were scientifically unprovable. I pointed out that his team . . . had brought with them a huge van full of thousands of dollars' worth of cameras, EMF detectors, and ghost hunting gadgets of all descriptions. What was the point of all that, I asked him? If he was certain that ghosts existed—and he was equally certain that their presence could not be scientifically measured—then all the high tech equipment they used was by definition worthless (pp. 53—4).

In other words, be wary of 'scientific evidence' of the paranormal and those who claim to have it! Especially when 'magical' elements rear their head during supposedly 'serious' investigations:

There are certain methods I can't really talk about. But the Society get together to form a psychic chain and direct the psychic energy towards the person in question., a bit like an exorcism. We very rarely do this unless its a very serious case, and this was a very serious case.

Though, when you think about it, if the paranormal can be examined through scientific means, then is it truly paranormal? Is it really supernatural? After all, if such phenomena can be 'measured' and demonstrated, consistently, doesn't that just make it natural phenomena yet to be verified with sufficient evidence? But if the evidence thus far isn't sufficient - at least, by scientific standards - then what exactly is being measured in the first place? Round and round we go.

Don't get me wrong. I'm far from discouraging attempts to verify the existence of the supernatural via scientific means. On the contrary: knock yourself out! However, the paranormal, by its very nature, is an 'extraordinary claim' that requires extraordinary evidence. The evidence, itself, must withstand rigorous - but fair and reasoned scrutiny - to justify itself as valid 'evidence'. Every alternate solution should be exhausted before a paranormal explanation is put forth.

When it comes to Highgate, how exactly do we prove that the cemetery was haunted by a vampire, ghost or 'psychic entity'? What is the evidence? To that effect, we are dependent on eyewitness testimony. But, as the 'paranormal escalator' shows, this, in itself, is not sufficient. Therefore, we have to examine the building blocks of which the case is composed. That's one reason I was asking about certain Victorian era sightings.

Essentially, these sightings were being used to 'prove' that the cemetery had been 'latently' haunted and its descriptions paralleled contemporary sightings. If so, let's look at the source. Let's see if they do match or whether the claim was pulled out of thin air or, perhaps clumsily shoehorned into something that didn't quite fit. You can see how that went down.

Therefore, the best approach I advise when examining the vampire/ghost/psychic entity is to examine the way the cases have been composed. What was the evidence the main protagonists used to arrive at their supernatural claims? Does it withstand scrutiny? Have all rational explanations been eliminated? Have the investigators displayed sufficient expertise - or deferred to it - to eliminate rational explanations? Are their accounts consistent? Are their investigative techniques sound? Are they prone to lying and misrepresentation? And so on.

In the meantime, I highly recommend scoring a copy of Radford's book. It's also on Kindle, if you're so inclined.

Handling innuendo bluntly

Innuendo is a passive-aggressive trait David Farrant revels in. Here's the latest example from his blog concerning a certain someone from 'down under'.

That'd be me. Most likely. According to Farrant, he's 'been getting a lot of unsolicited "nuisance value" emails from a certain person who lives "down under".' While it's true Farrant and I have engaged in a recent bout of e-mail correspondence, it certainly wasn't initiated by me. In terms of 'unsolicited', my e-mails have actually been replies to the stuff he's been sending me. That fact is omitted from the rest of his commentary:

I only wish he’d post the bloody things by land mail as at least then they’d take a week or 2 to arrive from his home by a nearby billabong. But no! He has to email them and they keep filling up my inbox so I am really forced to read them for amusement value. You know, the guy should really have been a comedian: I mean, talk about giving me potential ideas or scripts for the forthcoming film! You think I’m joking? Just you wait and see!

I am not going to name the character here – as he has used my name enough already to further his own attempts at self promotion. I suppose it must just keep him happy – just trotting around the bush with nothing else apparently more useful to do!

Firstly, the correspondence started after he began spamming me. I received an e-mail from him out of the blue ('New book list', Wednesday, 22 June 2011 12:09:07 AM) which opened with 'Dear friend', so it was obviously a group-send. It came attached with a pdf document called 'British Psychic & Occult Society publications list June 2011', which included an order form. I replied ('RE: New Book List‏', Thursday, 23 June 2011 5:05:01 PM):

Hi friend,

Is there a reason you're spamming me with your book list?

As you can see, my so-called 'unsolicited' e-mails actually began with his unsolicited e-mail to me. Apart from muddying and misrepresenting the facts in his patent style, one could argue that he suffers from a tendency to psychologically project his own attributes to others, as I've shown before. That'd explain why he also 'blames' me for his own writings on the Highgate case.

However, there's a distinct possibility that the person he's referring to is actually someone who's been dabbling in a bit of identity theft. I recall an e-mail Farrant sent me ('From David Farrant‏', Saturday, 9 July 2011 11:04:21 AM) asking if I was the person who'd sent him a Microsoft Word document which had some very nasty things to say about Manchester. I explained that I wasn't. I asked him to forward me the original e-mail, but he went silent on the issue. Since that time, I actually found out who did write it. Someone quite close to David, in fact. I only withhold their name until I get certain permissions to reproduce correspondence identifying them. That's implied in my response to his blog entry:


Onto the other comments in Farrant's blog entry. The 'upcoming film' Farrant refers to, is derived from his Bishop Bonky publications. It operates under the guise of satire, but is noticeably lenient on one of its 'targets': namely, Farrant, himself. That'd probably be because he published it through his BPOS imprint under the false pretext of 'free speech' (even though it was in violation of StripGenerator's copyright), served a consultant in its creation (this obviously throws the impartiality of the creator out the window—and what a dodgy mofo he turned out to be) and promotes related merchandise.

Apart from these issues, there's a rather unfortunate streak of xenophobia present in his writings. The references to 'billabongs', our postage, etc. are obvious digs at my Australian background. The question is, how is such pathetic stereotyping remotely relevant to discussions on the case? What if I was another nationality, say, Indian for example. Would he take digs at my cultural background then? Either way, it's hardly coincidental that his snide postings have followed in the wake of my exposés on his inability to provide sources for his own claims. A clear sign of desperation.

Presuming my comment gets published, I can already anticipate the response. The 'down under' character referred to wasn't actually me, but 'someone else'. Some other person who he 'coincidentally' refers to in the same derogatory manner as he does myself. Sad.

As to 'land mail', is that really an advisable form of communication with someone who will openly boast about having your address...even when it's not willingly provided?

It's a shame Farrant can't be more honest and openly admit that the Bonky stuff is simply another manifestation of his vendetta against Manchester as well as Farrant's critics (like me). Speaking of Manchester, his book From Satan to Christ: a story of salvation (London: Holy Grail, 1988) gives us a taste of just how vindictive and petty Farrant can be.

According to Manchester, he received a letter from Farrant dated 21 December 1986, which challenged him to a duel in northern France, due to 'deliberate public lies' Manchester had published about him. A meeting was arranged at Highgate Wood instead and took place on 24 January 1987. Manchester said he was 'obliged to ask several times what he considered to be "public lies" and there was clearly some difficulty in finding an answer' (p. 74).*

The source of Farrant's 'grievance'? 'In due course it became evident that all he wanted was some text added to a caption beneath a highly controversial photograph in an earlier book which mentioned his trial at the Old Bailey. He admitted to being exceptionally sensitive about anything concerning this trial' (ibid). Manchester even 'agreed to amend the caption in further editions so that this fine point about a photograph used in evidence was clarified' (ibid).

* I can certainly relate to that. Farrant has an annoying tendency to repeatedly avoid answering basic questions about his own claims and, when he does, it is in the most roundabout fashion and often not even directly related to the question being asked.

Sigh. Another impersonator

Considering the timing, looks like someone's been getting a little touchy with my recent querying.

Some pathetic wanker - using my Blogger profile, no less - left the following comment on Jamie's blog:


Yes, I cite my sources and ask for proof. Yes, I am a pendant with an attention to detail. I thought that was obvious from the content of my blog! Big surprise, there. But if that's the best sly 'criticism' they can hurl my way, I'll happily grin and bear it. Interestingly, the 'OCD-incited ramblings' are eerily similar to what I recently covered in former critic, Gerard de Saxo's, comments. So much for originality.

Here's another example of their 'wit'. 'I' (the character is named 'Cousin Hoggy', 'Manchester's Australian cousin') am shown as ascending to Heaven after being butchered for a Farrant-Manchester Christmas dinner (a nod to the aborted Christmas dinner proposition). See how they've ingeniously literalised my surname to depict me as an actual pig. Bravo!


It began in 2007. Initial strips were published on JREFF like a shiny new bauble, to distract fellow forum members' criticism of his Farrant's spurious claims. Its creator was a forum member named 'CLD'. The same guy who warped the content of a private exchange I had with him, to publicly proclaim that I was actually Manchester in disguise. A pretty good 'disguise' on my part, considering I live on the other side of the world and have never even met the guy. Hell, I've never even been to England.

The worst part, however, was that CLD didn't tell me he'd written that article. I found out about it from the shadiest sources imaginable: FoBSM. If they hadn't e-mailed me about it, I would've had no knowledge of CLD's 'campaign' against me.*

Despite that CLD's subsequent ban for violating StripGenerator's copyright (karma, bitch!), Farrant went onto publish the a 12 page collation of the comics that same year, through his vanity press, British Psychic and Occult Society under the false pretext of 'free speech'. I say 'false pretext' because free speech is not something he adheres to. The ludicrous 'preserving free speech' justification was easily dismantled on the very same forum he originally used to promote the comics.

His latest anti-Manchester franchise (after publications such as Man, Myth and Manchester, also through BPOS) was just another manifestation of his vendetta with Manchester - with intent to cash in. I'm not kidding about that. Farrant's paraded about in a 'Bonky' t-shirt, promoted and discussed his involvement with 'Bonky' spin-offs ('I have some say in its production as I am really one of the main stars in it'**) and teamed up with 'John Baldry's Cat' to sell 'Bonky' mugs. Despite these efforts, he doesn't seem to be raising much cash off it, otherwise, surely, he'd be able to afford a comb, shampoo and maybe a haircut by now. Seems he's just happy to fuel the 'hate'.

Clearly, due to my criticism, I've become a 'target'. But aligning me with Manchester is both pathetic and stupid, considering that I also criticise his claims and dodgy practices, too. Surely, they should pay better attention to the 'house divided against itself, can not stand' analogy. I'm also on FoBSM's 'hit list', and Manchester, himself, has previously launched a copyright claim against me, when not saying - and encouraging - some vicious commentary about my good self.

Even as far back as 2006, attempts were made to shut down my forum. When that didn't work, they later went after my Windows Live Spaces blog (succeeding, to an extent), which is the main reason I started this blog, in the first place. They even had my website shut down. Yes, I actually used to have a website.

Despite knowing this stuff, they still think - somehow - that I'm one of Manchester's cronies. Talk about desperate.

I guess these are the 'OCD-incited ramblings' fake Anthony was talking about, eh? Ha! That said, my readers certainly like coming back for more, so I'm cool with that.

Anyway, I'm happy for them to have a go at me for 'OCD' habits, because it means they can't devalue the content of my criticism. They can't dismiss the issues I raise. Can't rebut them. That works in my favour, if anything.

What I do find objectionable, however, is the hijacking of my name. Using my Blogger profile to post stuff on 'my' behalf? That's pretty fucked up. Weirdly enough, Farrant also e-mailed me recently asking whether I'd written the content of an MS Word document, that had apparently been sent to him by 'me'.*** How are such acts any different from what this knobend was doing? At least, in his case, he was trying to mark himself out as a different person, even to the point of delusion. You know, a guy playing for the 'opposite' team.

But how 'opposite' are they, really, if they employ the same kind of tactics against me? As Nietzsche said: 'When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.'

* Incidentally, same goes for the later comics depicting me. My attention were drawn to them by 'Vampire Researcher' (a VRS affiliate - or Manchester, himself, depending who you ask - on The supernatural world forum), who showed me the comics and revealed nasty depictions of myself on Farrant's Facebook page (which Farrant had blocked me from viewing). Talk about 'friends in low places'!

** Since when were the 'targets' of 'satirists' meant to be directly involved in the satire? Lolz. But by that logic, it's kinda strange I wasn't invited as an 'adviser', considering that I'm one of its 'star's, too: 'You should hear the voice given to Hoggy and the ‘Bonky one’. Hilarious is not the word for it!' On that point, we can probably agree.

** * D Farrant, 'From David Farrant', Saturday, 9 July 2011 11:04:21 AM.

The Victorian era sources saga

My quest to get David Farrant to answer a simple question about sources used in his own writings has come to an end.

Or maybe a standstill. We'll see. For clarification, the sources are alluded to in this extract from his 'Invoking the vampire', New Witchcraft, vol. 1, no. 4 (1975):

Some interesting facts came to light. Firstly, it became apparent that stories of an apparition in Highgate cemetery had by no means begun with the then current sightings. Indeed, similar tales dated from the Victorian Era and interestingly enough more of them had "vampiristic" connections. One of the common tales of that time told of a "tall man dressed in black" who used to disappear mysteriously through the cemetery wall (p. 34).

I have been trying, for several weeks, to get him to simply state what they were. If Farrant is recounted these 'facts' firsthand, that'd mean he's over 140 years old. Despite his decades dabbling with the occult, I find that prospect highly unlikely. I'm sure you do, too. Therefore, we're clearly dealing with some contemporary sources here, whether they be contemporary to Victorian times or contemporary with the time he wrote his article.

It is a 'fact' he has regurgitated in other publications, too. For instance, he wrote the following in Beyond the Highgate vampire: a true case of supernatural occurrences and "vampirism" that centred around London's Highgate Cemetery, 2nd rev. edn (London: British Psychic and Occult Society, 1992):

When the investigation began in January 1970, I undertook the task of checking the cemetery's history. Some interesting things came to light. First, it became apparent that stories of an apparition at Highgate Cemetery had by no means began with the current sightings. Indeed, similar tales dated back to the Victorian era and, interestingly enough, many of them had "vampiristic" connotations (p. 8).

Is 1992 too far away for you? How about his online article 'abridged from the 4th edition [2002] of the author's book'?

When the investigation proper began in January 1970, I undertook the task of checking the cemetery's history. Some interesting things came to light ... First, it became apparent that stories of an apparition at Highgate Cemetery had by no means begun with the current sightings. Indeed, similar tales dated back to the Victorian era and, interestingly enough, many of them had 'vampiristic' connotations.

Apart from the relatively minor alterations, it's clear that Farrant considers these stories to be 'evidence' for his case, to which I say: prove that this information is valid via documentation, i.e. what's the source(s)? My query has been met with evasiveness, ad hominem attacks, fake deals, etc. I've compiled a narrative of my efforts into this handy, bite-sized list:

1. 'What's been going on and upcoming books on vampire 3'
2. 'Victorian era vampire or modern-day sham?'
3. 'Persistence (sort of) pays off'
4. 'Stonewalled'
5. 'The stonewalled amendment'

In the meantime, I encourage other readers to try and find out the source for themselves. Here's his blog which is open for comments and queries. See how you do. Good luck!

You'll need it.

And the votes are in...

Last year, I set up a poll asking readers whether or not they believed in the Highgate Vampire and if they thought Sean Manchester or David Farrant were credible witnesses. It closed on 19 July 2011, 11.59pm. Here's the results.

After years of delving into this thing, I started wondering what other folk thought about the case. That intent also kicked off my postings on The supernatural world forum. Still going strong.

I should clarify that this ain't science; it was born of genuine curiousity. It's good to take a look outside the box, sometimes. I don't know who voted and I don't know how many times they did, so the results can only speak for themselves. I can say that they couldn't select multiple answers, though.

The first question, 'Do you believe the Highgate vampire was real?', giving voters the option of 'Yes', 'No', 'Maybe' and 'Undecided'. It received 37 votes. Let's break 'em down into delicious Microsoft Excel pie chart form:


That's one undecided (3%), four maybes (11%), nine yeses (24%) and, overwhelmingly, 23 nos (62%). 'No' wins this round. To be honest, I can't say I find that too surprising.

Let's take a look at the second poll. I asked, 'Who is a more credible witness?', namely, whose testimony do you find more reliable. I stuck to the main players, so the options were 'Sean Manchester', 'David Farrant', 'Neither' and 'Undecided'. This one scored more votes (47), perhaps because it was less ambiguous than the first.


One undecided (2%), eight for Manchester (17%), 13 for Farrant (28%) and 25 neithers (53%). That means slightly more voters believed in Farrant's version of events than Manchester's, but the majority thought neither of them were credible. I'm not overly surprised by that outcome, either.

Thanks to all who voted! It's certainly interesting getting 'outside' feedback and we, at least, know it wasn't overridden by supporters of Farrant and Manchester as I anticipated it might've been.