It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


vampire? vampyre? wampyre? pleh

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 07:05 AM
I figured if there could be a post on were wolves, then why not vampires? i've actually been emailing one for a bit now. she's really nice, i wont give her name out (obviously) but ive wondering stuff but i dont want to ask her cos she might get offended. im sure we all know that real vampires arent the buffy type

first off, do they really need blood- or do they just think they need it or do it for 'shock' value? and how do they know when they 'become' a vampire?
she also thought that she was part of a coven that were immortal- this i thought a bit iffy, no one can live forever- can they?
and whats with the different spelling?
well, later- i got exams-wahh!

posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 12:54 PM
No they don't need it. There is a rare blood disease that has symptoms like vampire's behavior. It is like being gay; one day you simply decide you're gay, or in this case a vampire.

posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 05:46 PM
Not quite so fast troy, dont jusmp to conclusions. There are several different forms of vampirism. I would suggest you go to for info an real vampires. And Kim, most real vampires are happy to answer questions as long as your not asking to be 'changed' or anything. That is extremely rude in most cases.

Fixed link

[edit on 25/11/06 by masqua]

posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 05:53 PM
i heard the grand vampire (not sure what their title is)... puts drugs in the blood before they drink it, so they would want more.

[Edited on 11-23-2002 by echelon]

posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 06:13 PM
Not so fast, truth is there are alot of different types of vampires. I would suggest checking out ,its a good site for info and talking to ppl.Also Kim, most real vampires are happy to answer reasonable questions. As long as you don't ask to be "awakened" or "changed", that is consided very rude by most.
Fixed linky again

[edit on 25/11/06 by masqua]

posted on Nov, 23 2002 @ 12:19 AM
link should ask her if ingesting large amounts of drugs is part of her being a vamp...coz she's obviously a stoner...

[Edited on 23-11-2002 by alien]

posted on Nov, 23 2002 @ 12:33 AM
Just another insecure unstable individual who cannot live with themselves unless they protect their ego with a label.

Vampires don't exist, wannabe vampires who are emotionally immature teenagers or early 20's, do exist....

One day they will wake up and realise ... ooh I don't have to pretend to be something I am not, I can just be plain ordinary 'Susan' and be happy like that.

And then she will have matured...

posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 08:09 AM
so much research have *you* done on the subject. True, romanticized vampires are fiction, but all myth is based in fact.

posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 08:42 AM
A few years back I sat down and attempted to "create" a vampire using existing characteristics we find in nature to check how feasible such a creature would be.

vampires have pointed teath.
cats have pointed teath.
a creature with pointed teath is plausable.
vampires drink blood.
vampire bats drink blood.
humans ingest blood.
blood contains enough nutrients and water to sustain a creature as its sole form of protien given supplimentary vitamins.
deficiencys in certain elements, for example iron, may make blood the most efficient way for the creature to replace them, and would lead to a natural craving.
as such, a creature that subsists soley on human blood is plausable (though would probably be wiped out)

it gets fun when you start to justify a creature that can turn into smoke.


posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 04:58 AM
now that i think about it, i heard that the whole vampire thing started from a disease where the gums shrank back giving the appearance of elongated canines. that explains the traditional 'fangs' but did these people crave blood or something? maybe it all just stemmed from this with added fiction.

posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 05:47 AM
the only way (apologies if this is too empirical, lupe
) to determine if vampires truly exist is to obtain a vampire (several preferably), chain them down and force feed them for several months. by refusing them blood, but assuring that they obtain everything that a human requires to live, we will arrive at one of two outcomes:

1) they starve to death: they were obviously vampires, and vampires do exist.

2) they live: they obviously aren't vampires (you could extend the test period to several years to be sure ...) and vampires almost certainly don't exist.

- qo.

posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 06:00 AM
call your self a scientist!
whats empirical about changing the nature of a thing in order to prove its requirements.

Your putting too many external influences into the experiment.

you don't prove a cow exists by chaining it to a field and feading it sausages to see if it dies.

posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 06:14 AM
*looks out the window into the field* um ..... i don't?

seriously, what wrong with the experiment? (ignoring moral issues) i'm not changing the 'thing' as a vampire or human is a classical thing as thus by observing it i do not change its nature. by feeding it food as opposed to blood i also do not change it nature, but merely observe how it reacts.

a vampire requires blood, not food, to survive.

a human that thinks they are a vampire does not.

- qo.

posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 06:23 AM
your working from the standpoint that it is not a vampire.

consider for a moment that it is. you have no idea about its metabolism, introducing food to it could easily alter its behaviour to produce results that proved conclusively (as far as your experiment is concerned) that it isn't a vampire.

for example.

dogs drink water.
cats drink milk.

so, I take an animal and force it to drink milk.
after several months the animal is still drinking milk proving as per your model that the animal is a cat.

which disregards the fact that dogs can easily subside on milk it simply isn't their preferance.

second point:

you cant use prior held beliefs as to the nature of a creature as demonstrable evidence of that creatures nature.

posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 06:58 AM
Is there an actual definition for vampire? everyone seems to think it's just a person who drinks blood but Lupe just made quite a good point there.....just because an animal could live off drinking milk doesn't automatically make it a cat. So if a human suddenly decided they want to live off blood does it automatically make them a vampire? or is it just an obsession?
Others say that there are also 'psychic vampires' who leach of others to emotionally (or psychically) drain them. I believe that people like this exist because I have felt emotionally drained by someone before. I'm not sure if the term 'psychic vampire quite fits them though.

posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 08:31 AM
yeah, "freeloading arseole" fits em so much better.

posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 09:16 AM
i see your point lupe, and consider it valid because i had not stated my presuposition: vampires ~require~ blood to live. that is how i would define a "traditional" vampire. psychic vampires are an entirely different prospect.

my arguement is that any being that is roughly humanoid and can demonstrate that it gains sustainance from blood and cannot survive without it can be reasonably declared a vampire. any nitwit human that likes the idea of drinking blood but could survive just as well on porridge and pot noodle is not a vampire.

- qo.

posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 11:11 AM
Hi Kim,

There are numerous mailing lists by vampyres (and yes, these are real blood drinkers), who will be more than happy to answer all of your questions. If you would like to know more, you know where you can find me

posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by kim... that explains the traditional 'fangs' but did these people crave blood or something? maybe it all just stemmed from this with added fiction.

actually, the part about craving blood originated from other incidences from the old days.
since no one did autopsies on bodies back then, they always presumed that a person was dead when they weren't responding.
so the person was buried alive.
after several days, the person would show up again.
but they would look very pale from being down there for so long without having anything to eat or drink.
and to top that, people would think that it's back from the dead... heh
since the person looked pale, they thought that they were looking for blood.
i guess all those stories were combined to give a description of the vampires we know of today.

posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 05:00 PM
Actually there IS a medical conditin where people are sensitive to light so only come out at night.
As well they need iron, or something that is best found in blood, so drinking blood helps them up their intake...

So there could be a kernal of truth to vampires as a medical condition, but mostly its just a creation by some wannabe with an eggshell personality...

[Edited on 30-11-2002 by Netchicken]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in