It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Classicals and Inheritors (Vampires)

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Ok so I've done some research. And I have a couple questions. It is known that classicals are transformed by some source of body fluid (blood, saliva, venom, etc.) and in heritors are born with the virus. Would a female classical be able to bear a child who would then be an inheritor? Fact or fiction- do they have a heart beat? need oxygen? or sleep?
And if they do not have a heartbeat, would the child then have a heart beat since they were born a natural birth and stop aging much later in life?

Mod Edit: Added "vampires" to the title.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Gemwolf]




posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I'm sorry, what?

this is a second line/



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
As Bart Simpson would say:"Just what in the hell are you talking about, man?"



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I'm talking about vampires and if you can't read it don't try to answer the questions because you wouldn't know



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   
And how would we know it was about vampires? We can't read your mind. And now that I know what you were talking about, I think you've just been reading too much Stephanie Meyer.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by AquilaCat]



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Is this one of those 'if you're too ignorant/stupid/close-minded to understand what I'm talking about, then just don't bother reading or replying' threads?

I've been interested in the occult and the paranormal for a long time, possibly around 25 years, and it's funny but the take on vampires that so many people seem to have now - those that are adamant that they 'walk amongst us' and so on, all seem very, very dependent on pop culture influences that have arisen in the last 15-20 years.

I'd be very interested if anyone can show me how much of this 'modern mythos' that surround vampires actually predates the film version of 'Interview With a Vampire'. I think the film version of the book really was the cultural springboard that started all of this and the other books, games, films, TV series followed and somehow added to this, or took it as a template and tried to 'correct' it - "well, Anne was right about that part but what we really do is this...".

Can anyone do this for me? Preferably someone who doesn't claim to be a 'vampire' or 'vampire hunter' themselves.

Also, for the record, I hate the use of the '...al' suffix when used like this. What's wrong with the word 'classic' for this context? A classic vampire? I see this used so many times for things like 'graphical' &c and it just seems so redundant to me. Is this correct American usage or something?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
when classic is used as describing something, u add an "al" to the end of it. but yes it is a classic vampire. there are different classes of vampires. and to the guy who said something about stephenie meyer, yes i've read them but that's not why i'm asking and if u read them, u would know that renesmee is not a vampire! Merri- I cannot give u proof of anything. I am doing my own research and I do believe there are some out there. But i do not pretend to be a vampire or a hunter. especially not a hunter! I do ot agree with killing anyone who thinks they are a vampire to destroy all traces of vampires. I find that ignorrant. But I hope to some answers on here and maybe someone who doesnt think theyre a vampire (or a real one) will answer.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by AquilaCat

And how would we know it was about vampires? We can't read your mind. And now that I know what you were talking about, I think you've just been reading too much Stephanie Meyer.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by AquilaCat]


Anyone who reads the text, if they are educated at all, they would know its about vampires... i think i even mention vampires in there. I was simply saying, don't reply if u dont know what I'm talking about. And i think stephenie meyer has been the closest to describing real vampires these days than any of the other authors out there. But that's not why i'm asking these things/



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bellexista
when classic is used as describing something, u add an "al" to the end of it.


But why? You're already describing it as 'classic'. In the sense that you and others use it, it's redundant. Why say 'belonging to paradigm of classic vampires', when you could just say 'classic vampire'?

My honest opinion is that, like everything else to do with vampires and the people that perpetuate the idea of them, it's a case of 'dress-up': make something look more 'fancy' and 'grand' than it actually is in order to give something more depth than it actually has.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
I don't think I'm trying to dress them up. And I don't think alot of people are either. Jus the famous writers and directors! The rest of us believe in the secret of them. And most of believe they are different from the ones "dressed-up" on tv. But I am finding out this site is not the one i WANTED so i'm done with the discussion on here. Thnx



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Bell - no need to throw a fit about it. Your best bet, I guess, is to go to a website dedicated to the 'vampires' amongst us - one I saw advertised called Vampire Freaks - not sure if it will be of any use, but it certainly jumped out to me. Plus, you could have been talking about anything, for all I know you could have been talking Werewolves or something. It helps just to make your original point clear, that is all, as I definitely am not a mind reader and sometimes get confused easily!

Merriman, quick question! What exactly did you mean by this?

I'd be very interested if anyone can show me how much of this 'modern mythos' that surround vampires actually predates the film version of 'Interview With a Vampire'. I think the film version of the book really was the cultural springboard that started all of this and the other books, games, films, TV series followed and somehow added to this, or took it as a template and tried to 'correct' it - "well, Anne was right about that part but what we really do is this...".


Did you just mean an example of a 'Vampire' case/scenario which came before Interview with a Vampire? If so I have the perfect case for you

The Highgate Vampire is a great read, you just need to google it and there's lots of stuff
Great bedtime reading too



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
i don't like the answer so i'm not talking anymore???good riddance.

vampires are a myth, they don't exist. they were a story developed because people were sometimes found to have been buried alive and upon exhumation, given the state of distress, people told themselves they were obviously paranormally risen from the dead because they couldn't accept the horrifying alternative.

although i suppose the idea that there are a load of immortally young beings secretly walking the earth every night draining virgins of blood, listening to rubbish death metal and wearing stupid clothes is more believable.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by emmy
Bell - no need to throw a fit about it. Your best bet, I guess, is to go to a website dedicated to the 'vampires' amongst us - one I saw advertised called Vampire Freaks - not sure if it will be of any use, but it certainly jumped out to me. Plus, you could have been talking about anything, for all I know you could have been talking Werewolves or something. It helps just to make your original point clear, that is all, as I definitely am not a mind reader and sometimes get confused easily!

Merriman, quick question! What exactly did you mean by this?

I'd be very interested if anyone can show me how much of this 'modern mythos' that surround vampires actually predates the film version of 'Interview With a Vampire'. I think the film version of the book really was the cultural springboard that started all of this and the other books, games, films, TV series followed and somehow added to this, or took it as a template and tried to 'correct' it - "well, Anne was right about that part but what we really do is this...".


Did you just mean an example of a 'Vampire' case/scenario which came before Interview with a Vampire? If so I have the perfect case for you

The Highgate Vampire is a great read, you just need to google it and there's lots of stuff
Great bedtime reading too




Oh no, I'm very familiar with the Highgate Vampire. In fact, to the extant that another website I used to frequent had to implement a policy where there could be no discussion of the case on legal grounds. What many people aren't aware of - particularly vampire 'fans' - is that Farrant doesn't really adhere to the idea of a vampire like so many try to perpetuate.

If you're interested in Farrant, you might also be interested in the events leading up to the death of the late, great 60s hammond organist Graham Bond.

What I meant by the paragraph you quoted is that, having had an interest in the paranormal or the occult for relatively long time it's interesting/telling to plot claims that vampires are real &c with what appears in popular culture at any given time. For example, and to keep this on topic, where was the talk of 'classicals and inheritors' in the 1960s when the likes of Hammer films were the big purveyors of vampire-related popular culture? Where was the talk of clans and vampire wars or the V5 virus in the 1930s when Universal were making their vampire films?

It's quite telling how the vampire mythos develops and becomes more 'sophisticated' as popular culture develops the idea of vampire. I'm sure some 'hunter' or 'vampire' will have a reason as to why this is - 'disclosure', the people who make the games are vampires themselves &c - but I think it's got far more to do with impressionable people picking up on popular culture cues to solve their own identity problems.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Ok, im not saying that because i dont like the answers i'm leaving. I'm not into fictional vampires like the one from "interview with the vampire". they arent real. those are stories. And nomatter what u say, i believe in real vampires. The only thing that makes me nervous about going to "vampire freaks" is thats what alot of people r that get on there. people who want to vampires so they dress in all black wear fake fangs and partake in drinking each others blood from cups.... real vampires wear whatever color or outfit they want. not all suck blood, and not all of them have fangs. I have no interest in fakes. If i am wrong about the site, then i'm sorry for assuming. Maybe i'll check it out. thanx for the info. I'm trying to find someone to help me with the situation im in and a debate forum on whether theyre real or not is not it. not because i dont like debating this fact but because i don't have the time. I'm sorry, i dont mean to sound snoody or anything. I just need help with something, and i was hoping a real vampire might get on here and help me out. Thanx so much though!



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by emmy
Bell - no need to throw a fit about it. Your best bet, I guess, is to go to a website dedicated to the 'vampires' amongst us - one I saw advertised called Vampire Freaks - not sure if it will be of any use, but it certainly jumped out to me. Plus, you could have been talking about anything, for all I know you could have been talking Werewolves or something. It helps just to make your original point clear, that is all, as I definitely am not a mind reader and sometimes get confused easily!





I know it might have been confusing, and I tried to change my name of the thread but i didnt knowhow. so i created another one where it had vampires on it also, and people yelled at me because it wasnt allowed.... i was just trying to clear it up for people so they knew what they were clicking on before they opened it..



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir



What I meant by the paragraph you quoted is that, having had an interest in the paranormal or the occult for relatively long time it's interesting/telling to plot claims that vampires are real &c with what appears in popular culture at any given time. For example, and to keep this on topic, where was the talk of 'classicals and inheritors' in the 1960s when the likes of Hammer films were the big purveyors of vampire-related popular culture? Where was the talk of clans and vampire wars or the V5 virus in the 1930s when Universal were making their vampire films?



see again, ur talking about films. these things were not discovered then. the v5 virus was not discovered until AIDS was. Classic and Vampires were all the same then, u got bit, u died, ur lived forever. Then, they did not believe vampires can have children and the only way to become a vampire was to be "turned". This is no longer true. It has been found out that Vampires can have children! And those are called inheritors. Because they inherit the v5 virus from their parents. Alot like AIDS. It is also commutable the same way AIDS is. But they did not understand this until the 70's i think. but hollywood doesnt want to include major scientific finding in movies. they want blood, gore, action. vampires are only scary if they hunt humans. so in some books, ull find more out about real vampires because a true vampire fan would want to know more and more about the real things. Anne Rice, is very OFF from the real thing. Thats why her books make the better movies! But if u want to know about these things then do research, dont just go to the movies!



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bellexista

see again, ur talking about films. these things were not discovered then. the v5 virus was not discovered until AIDS was. Classic and Vampires were all the same then, u got bit, u died, ur lived forever. Then, they did not believe vampires can have children and the only way to become a vampire was to be "turned". This is no longer true. It has been found out that Vampires can have children! And those are called inheritors. Because they inherit the v5 virus from their parents. Alot like AIDS. It is also commutable the same way AIDS is. But they did not understand this until the 70's i think. but hollywood doesnt want to include major scientific finding in movies. they want blood, gore, action. vampires are only scary if they hunt humans. so in some books, ull find more out about real vampires because a true vampire fan would want to know more and more about the real things. Anne Rice, is very OFF from the real thing. Thats why her books make the better movies! But if u want to know about these things then do research, dont just go to the movies!


Ok, let's put this to the test. Let's do what I suggested before about plotting vampire 'fact' against popular fiction. To make it fair, let's start off with one I'm really interested in how much of genuine scientific information about V5 - not nonsense from someone who calls themselves 'Nightpoe' or similar - you can show me that predates the British screening of 'Ultraviolet'. By this I mean the scientific thinking behind this 'virus' actually used in a vampire context.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
v5 virus? wtf. gimme a link. AIDS was first described in the 80's i think, so how they could have realised "v5" had the same mechanism in the 70's is beyond me.

i can't imagine what your reasons for asking the question are but as a precaution, if you, or anyone you know, is walking around sans heartbeat, i suggest you get yourself or them to the nearest medical practitioner.

i also have some questions as to how they "found out" that vampires can have children but i am not sure you are of an age where it would be appropriate to ask you to explain it.



[edit on 17/11/08 by pieman]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bellexista
but hollywood doesnt want to include major scientific finding in movies. they want blood, gore, action.


Really? How do you account for UltraViolet and Reign In Darkness then. You, know those screen based things that are actually based on this ridiculous idea?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
v5 virus? wtf. gimme a link. AIDS was first described in the 80's i think, so how they could have realised "v5" had the same mechanism in the 70's is beyond me.


Try and wrap your mind around this.

My favourite bit is the 'oh noes! it's either a coinkydink or they know about us!' part.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join