Thursday, March 11, 2010

Gross Distortions for Personal Gain

Dave, much like his "pal", engages in deliberate, distorted censorious tactics for deleting my commentary on the Case.

The latest is a real corker.

After the messages left behind on the HVS Facebook group wall, he decided to go ahead and take 'em up a notch. Here's his non-sequitur reply to a previous message:
Which mostly have their basis in 40-year old newspaper reports about the so-called Highgate 'vampire', as you well know - or more precisely your misinterpretation of such reports. I have already made my position quite clear, both on my Blog, Arcadia, here and elsewhere that I do not accept the existence of ' vampires'. Your one ambition in life seems to be in trying to convince people that I do. THAT is what I'm not willing to waste time discussing with you. The case itself is, of course, open to discussion here; just not your distorted conceptions of it. That's all.
Which he followed up with this:
I have had to delete another of your posts Anthony. I told you very clearly on Arcadia that I did not want elements of your repetitive 'feud arguments' carried over here. You seem trapped in a meaningless 'jig-saw' of words about 'vampires' and unable to fit these into their proper context or place. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, ... See Morewhether I happen to agree or not. That is partly what this group is for. But that is not what you are trying to do. You have turned the whole Highgate 'vampire' case into a personal obsession, and are making personal allegations about other people and myself in the process That is what I cannot allow. Discuss your belief that ghosts and vampires are really demons sent by the devil to deceive the living that they are really 'spirits of the dead', if you want to, as that would fall under the agenda here. Personal allegations about living people will simply not be tolerated. I cannot put it clearer than that.
In other words, discuss the case if you want, but not your personal interpretation of the motivations of the people involved in it.
That is common policy across most Forums. You will not be made an exception here.
What David failed to disclose, however, was what the deleted post was actually about.

In it, I wrote that I know he doesn't believe in vampires (of the blood-sucking variety, anyway). I also mentioned that the content I quoted him on, were references found in his blog and website. Something along those lines.

In fact, I was only made aware of his censorious Facebook activity, after he quoted himself on Arcadia. Yes, the same guy who complains about dragging Arcadia stuff onto more than happy doing the reverse, himself.

I suspect that he's gone to these lengths after a recent drubbing of his psychical investigative approach by Wombat and the like. Typically turn the tables by attacking me and claiming that I am being repetitious in my arguments, claim that I keep reinvoking the vampire (he's been using the term much more than myself), win back some of that old "support", and keep trying to sell his own (or affiliated) merchandise (see here and here).

Hopefully, the other forum members will see through this slimy tactic.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Contradiction Man Gets Censored by...Contradiction Man!

I've been sharing the adventures of Contradiction Man (episode 1; episode 2) on Facebook, including the Highgate Vampire Society group.

However, David saw fit to delete links to it. Here's how it's gone down:

Of course, the laughs don't stop there. You see, in censoring my links, all he's done is (that's right) contradict himself. Again!

You see, David presents himself as a big advocate for "freedom of speech" concerning discussions on the Highgate Vampire Case. On top of that, here's what he has to say about the topic on the Highgate Vampire Society page:
It is a matter of public record and should thus be open to continued input and debate, and not one that should not be allowed to become clouded or influenced by any who have no knowledge of events (which they certainly do not ‘own’) as these actually occurred or happened. There are many such persons around (including sensationalistic authors and members of the Press) but their stories should really be shared in total, and not be allowed to become ‘dictorial’ in the sense that these necessarily represent the public view of things. [emphasis added -ed.]

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Arminius and the Bombardment of Insanity

I signed into my e-mail account not long ago and noticed four (count 'em four) notifications concerning wall posts to my Facebook group from the undead Hungarian, Arminius Vámbéry.

Two things surprised me about them: 1) I wasn't even aware that he joined my group, 2) all four posts were exactly the same!

Here's the stats:
  1. "Arminius Vámbéry commented on Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?'s wall post...", Sunday, 7 March 2010 8:49:42 PM.
  2. "Arminius Vámbéry commented on Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?'s wall post...", Sunday, 7 March 2010 8:50:53 PM
  3. "Arminius Vámbéry commented on Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?'s wall post...", Sunday, 7 March 2010 9:16:47 PM
  4. "Arminius Vámbéry commented on Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?'s wall post...", Sunday, 7 March 2010 9:17:19 PM
And here's what the psychopath wrote:
Anthony Hogg has definitely NOT interviewed Seán Manchester. Hogg's obsession with the "main participants" of a case closed many years ago which occurred long before he was born is unhealthy and questionable. To attempt to pour oil on troubled water in the hope of reigniting a feud is despicable. I suggest this Australian youngster be ignored.
I have to quote it here, because...the posts have mysteriously disappeared (hint: he deleted 'em). Of course, Arminius' status as a laughing stock is secured by the fact that after that bombardment, he questions my mental health. Classic stuff.

Contradiction Man Strikes Again!

Click here for the previous thrilling installment.

On Discussing the Highgate Vampire

David Farrant, Arcadia forum, 01 Feb 2010 2:11 pm:
As to your quip . . . “Without the Highgate vampire case they wouldn’t be talking here at all”, etc, I rather think that relates more to yourself Anthony! You seem unable to talk about little else; notwithstanding its 40-year old history! It is YOURSELF who keeps incessantly referring to this case Anthony – almost like you’ve got some sort of obsession with it!

I am really not interested in that particular case anymore, Anthony, It is DEAD (excuse the pun!) there are far more many genuine cases of psychic phenomena to be investigated apart from that one!
David Farrant, "Mundane Things Like That", The Human Touch, Thursday, February 4th, 2010 at 2:47 am:
Had a call earlier from a certain TV company again. Doing another interview on the Highgate case very soon. Will give more details a little later, although you’ll probably see it anyway.
"The Highgate Vampire Society" page and David Farrant, Arcadia forum, 06 Mar 2010 2:36 pm:
After all, the case of the so-called Highgate phenomenon is not really a private issue or one that can be affected by personal views or interpretations. It is a matter of public record and should thus be open to continued input and debate, and not be allowed to become clouded or influenced by those who have no knowledge of events as these actually occurred.

Friday, March 5, 2010

Residue Reviews from Bygone Days

Once upon a time ago, Catherine Fearnley used to be on David's side.

She was not only elevated to the rank of his then-girlfriend, but simultaneously served as the Secretary of both his Highgate Vampire Society and British Psychic and Occult Society.

Today, I came across an Amazon review for the second edition of Farrant's Beyond the Highgate Vampire: A True Case of Supernatural Occurrences and "Vampirism" That Centred Around London's Highgate Cemetery (1994).

The reviewer is one "Ms. C. E. Fearnley". Amazingly, the author's Secretary/girlfriend of the time, gives the 43 page book a whopping five stars. Indeed, it's the only review she contributed under that username. Here's what she has to say about the book(let):

The 'reviews' of my book "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" by "a reader" and "Robin Crisp" are really advertizing Mr. Sean Manchester's own book "The Highgate Vampire" and it does not take too much intelligence to realise who the real author is.

Obviously it is 'somebody' who is fanatically opposed to my own book "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" - which contains full-plate photographs (many of Highgate Cemetery) and has a colour cover, incidentally.

Contrary to the mistaken statement by Amazon above (well, they can't always get it right' bless 'em') "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" IS still available; in fact, not so long ago, it came out as a 4th revised edition.

There are NO 'stolen copyright photographs' in the book as alleged by the above 'reviewer'(although there are a couple of exclusive pictures of the person who really wrote these 'reviews',) and the book (along with many other of my books on 'ghosts' and the paranormal)is available from: The British Psychic and Occult Society (BPOS) PO Box 1112, London N10 3XE so please just write for details.

Or alternatively, contact Amazon who will now be informed of their oversight.

Just to set the record straight,
Apart from the obvious hypocricy of complaining about other reviewers advertising their items - only to go ahead and do it, also - what's most amusing about this review is the sign-off name used within the account:
David Farrant, Author (of) "Beyond the Highgate Vampire"
Yeah, that's right. It looks like David's taken to dressing in drag. Oh, and giving his own books unreasonably high ratings.

Paranormal Tidbits

Came across a coupla interesting items over at

The first is "Interview with David Farrant, Paranormal Investigator" and the second's a brief overview of the Highgate Case.

The Amazing Adventures of Contradiction Man

Concerning Vampires

David Farrant, Arcadia forum, 25 Jan 2010 9:30 am:
I may have said, that the entity I saw at Highgate Cemetery back in 1969 had -or reflected - 'red eyes', Rain, but I neverr stated that this was a 'vampire', that is the difference!

Not sure what it was actually; but sure it wasn't a 'vampire'!
David Farrant, Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970:
Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory being the most likely answer. Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest.'
David Farrant, Hampstead and Highgate Express, 2 September 2005:
The sighting of a tall, black figure in April on Swains Lane makes me think the vampire is active again.
Concerning Red Eyes

Although the Arcadia post indicates he's unsure as to whether he's referred to the "vampire" (as he is sometimes want to call it) having red eyes, he clearly has, in different levels of intensity:

"The Mysteries of the Highgate Vampire", Great Unsolved Mysteries:
This figure according to Farrant had two red glowing circles where a human‘s eyes would be. Farrant did not conclusively state that what he had seen was a vampire and changed his terminology during different interviews. He would sometimes state that it was a ghost, specter or other unexplainable phenomenon. He did at times speak of it as possibly being amongst the vampires that were wandering the earth.
David Farrant, "Interview with the Real Vampire Hunter":
I'm not sure exactly what it was, except that the surrounding area turned icy cold and I saw a tall dark figure with 'hypnotic red eyes' that seemed to exude an impression of intense evil.
Stay tuned for more thrilling adventures!

In the meantime, you can read a blog entry by Dennis, which shows that Dave can't even keep track of how many times he saw the "vampire".

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...

Poor Diddums

Here's an interesting Facebook update I stumbled across:

And here's the group's description:
Life is sh1t sometimes. And we all know it! Send us your photos to prove it. Let us share in the mundanity, the horror and the pointlessless of it all.


No porn, violence, sex or cruelty, please.

Every now and then we'll group the images into a small photobook, which will be available to order on demand on a non-profit basis.

The books will be available at cost direct from a different website. Personally we don't give a stuff if no-one buys them, but they would make great Xmas/Birthday/Break-up presents for that special person.

What we like: shopping bags in trees, litter, stalking, drunks, ugly partners, daft friends, broken technology and loads of lovely drizzle.

What we don't like: kittens, puppies, beautiful landscapes and uplifting poetry. Unless they're intrinsically dismal.

Oh, and we'll probably include any of your downbeat comments, chats in the photobooks too.

So, all there is left to say is: pick up your cameras, and your phones. Its a terrible world out there. Let's see it!
Has David been an emo all along? I guess it'd fit in with his constant wailing about vampires and the Press out to get him.

Cheer up Davey!

Healthypages Double Standards

Wow! Now this one took me by surprise.

I got a notification from Healthypages, ("New Private Message at Healthypages", Friday, 5 March 2010 2:59:29 AM), a forum I recently joined to discuss the advertorial practices that took place there, concerning the Highgate Case. Here's the e-mail:

Dear Anthony Hogg,

You have received a new private message at Healthypages from Infractor, entitled "You have received an infraction at Healthypages".

To read the original version, respond to, or delete this message, you must log in here:

This is the message that was sent:
Dear Anthony Hogg,

You have received an infraction at Healthypages.

Reason: Ban User for Good


This infraction is worth 100 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

All the best,

Again, please do not reply to this email. You must go to the following page to reply to this private message:

All the best,
I signed in to check what this private message was, and it was a doozy alright:

The severe (double standard) actions taken by Healthypages are quite a contrast to the blatant advertorial practices by Barbara Green over at the Arcadia forum.

I mean, essentially, they banned me for posting a thread in which I linked to one of my blog entries, showing that certain Highgate "investigators" had used one of their threads for advertorial practices. The thread was allowed, but my exposure of it wasn't? What the hell?

For the curious, here's the offending blog entry I posted.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Opinions are Just a Google Search Away

Looks like the Bishop's been relying on Google to beef up the "opinions" on his blog. Again.

The latest one ("Civil Partnership Ceremonies") discusses his "thoughts" on gay marriage. In light of his maligning me as an anti-Catholic homosexual (of which I am neither), I think it'd be pretty obvious what he thought about the subject.

So, once again, he makes use of cut-n-paste to plagiarise portions of other articles. This time, it's largely derived from Martin Beckford and Heidi Blake's "Clergy could be sued if they refuse to carry out ‘gay marriages’, traditionalists fear" and snippets from "Bishop of Winchester slams gay marriage in church 'fudge'".

Kitty Put to Sleep

Jeez, another Highgate-related blog's going down. This time, John Baldry Cat's The Cat's Miaow is kicking the bucket. Here's its latest post:
Hard hit by the Manchester-Farrant Feud recession, it's inevitable that some blogs have downsized or closed their doors. After more than 150 rollicking posts, we shall follow suit. I don't have to tell you that our rapid rise in advert sales put us over the top for a time. Fat with profits from sponsor deals, we bought a shiny new Jaguar XJ, leased a posh Hyde Park mansion, and purchased Tiffany bracelets for each of our mistresses. And then, the bubble burst. Solicitors from Bournemouth arrived at our door bearing claims of intellectual property theft. Sponsors were harassed. Cash flow dwindled, then ceased. Well, no sense miaowing over spilt milk, eh? Some say The Cat's Miaow represents a rich repository of satire, artwork, and, more importantly -- actual dialogue between the two camps -- that some Feud scholars would give their right arm to study. So the usual exhortations apply: archive any material you wish to save before it eventually, over time, disappears. But what won't disappear is our marvelous cast of humourous characters: David, Bonky, Puddin', Barbara, Gareth, Hoggy, Craig...and of course, the Highgate Vampire. I have a funny feeling you'll be seeing them all again.
Nice to get a mention, there!

Somewhat bittersweet, I guess. Cat had some good stuff on there. Still, I'm sure he'll be making the usual snide remarks on David's blog and dropping an occasional forum post elsewhere.

All the best with your future endeavors, Cat!

Monday, March 1, 2010

When a News Update Isn't a News Update

In "Turning the Wheels of Self-Publicity", I covered the use of (undisclosed) advertorials on matters relating to the Highgate Vampire and/or affiliated items.

The latest example has been taking place in a thread on the Arcadia forum, called "New Book--the Robin Hood/Highgate Conspiracy".

The mysterious damiana (Barbara Green) initiated the topic:
A new book written by a conspiracy theory expert will be out in around two weeks, in which a chapter is devoted to this subject. Right up to the Red Monkey film team pulling out after they had been interviewed by Lady Armytage and her flunkeys, and the recent information that a local councillor was involved.
This provoked some interest among other members. However, I saw through this ruse and called her out on it.

Her response? Here:
It was just a news update--is that a problem? I havent seen the FT- they seemed scared off the Kirklees story some years ago, I do know that! When I get my freebie copy of the new book I will send you more info--is that a problem, or don't you want to be known to be interested in a very interesting story because the Powers that Be, both in this world and no longer in it, can still do their stuff, wouldnt be surprised if it was the funny handshake lot. If the story of Robin Hoods Grave upsets you do by all means, keep off it instead of moaning that you dont like it,
This resulted in some cross-promotion from David:
Yes I'd like to know more about this book, Barbara - so could you tell me in a PM. Not a word would pass my lips without your prior authorization! After all, I am the Patron of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society, let it be remembered!
Fortunately, another member (DVB) picked up on something slightly amiss:
Hi Damiana.
Could you clarify? In your first post in this thread you said there was a chapter on this subject in A new book written by a conspiracy theory expert. In your most recent post you say it's actually what I wrote but it has been edited.
Is it your book, copy-edited by someone else; or is it a book edited by someone else in which you have a chapter?
And can you say who the conspiracy theory expert is? :)
She was noticeably unwilling to disclose their identity in her response.

In my follow-up reply, I had to explain the difference between a "news update" and an advertorial. For those not-in-the-know, an advertorial is
an advertisement written in the form of an objective article, and presented in a printed publication—usually designed to look like a legitimate and independent news story.
They're a pretty shady form of "journalism". In fact, in Barbara's own United Kingdom, the "UK's Advertising Standards Authority requires advertorials to be clearly marked as such."

In light of the obvious nature of this "news update", I speculated that the book's author is Barbara herself (it's pretty obvious, from her slip-up) and "it's probably going to be published by the BPOS or an affiliated publisher".

Whether this'll be the case, remains to be seen.

Facebook Follies

Been having a good time on Facebook lately. It certainly makes conversations and such on this Highgate business more fluid and dynamic.

Here's a recent topic I posted on David's Highgate Vampire Society group:

I wonder if it'll elicit a response...


Related Posts with Thumbnails