The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

If it were possible to get federal grants to do research to obtain documented proof that vampires as well as other mythological beings exist, what sort of proof would you want? What would be enough proof to convince you?

I'm convinced and I don't really need proof, but I would like proof for everone else out there

They would have to work out what a vampire has come to mean over history.

The vampire of myth would need to prove themselves to be immortal, need to count everything, change into a bat and so on

The modern vampire is a little more difficult, you'd have to know what you proving before finding the proof

Lordie, I hope that made sense

I will need actual first-person proof, say witnessing a killing blow which wouldn't have effect, faster than eye movements... that kind of thing.
I'm hard to please ;)

I think there are several kinds of real Vampires...so it would make impossible to prove every kind of them...

Our biggest proof is our beliefs and feelings...

I would say I would just want to see a shifter or other mythological beast

Hm, maybe evidence of a body that had teeth marks and all the blood was drained out of them. And that the body was put in the morgue but was gone come morning and no one took it. I believe in it but a little proof would be nice

I agree with artemka (and yes, that amde sense (: )
However, I think that even back in the ancient times vampires were very much like they are now. The only difference is that they're not killed all the time because, well, it's against the law in most countries :)

proof.

It depends not only on who you are trying to prove it to, but also the type of vampyre to be proven.

Vampyres of a fantastical sort (ie superhumananoid) would be quite difficult, with that if you were to find such proof or even plausible information, a few things would happen. The general human mind would reject it as being too good to be true, or just too impossible. Or actions would be taken to cover up and destroy such proof, thus not making you go very far.

However if the type of vampire you were trying to prove would be a bit less....godly I think is a good word.... should be easier in theory because evidence can be found as well as people. Also it should be much easier to convince humans of a being slightly different then they are in a few ways over one that is a god in comparison (despite a few weaknesses). The problem therein lies that there is a multitude of types of this vampire both sanguine and psy, so specific proof finding would be difficult.

It may be interesting to know though, that the government of the us has a contingency plan for a vampire takeover, as well as for zombies, werewolves, and cats

To uncover truth on the mythological vampire?
There's a lot of different myths but most common to today's myths...

One would have to show the body able to survive with ingesting blood as it's only food and perhaps that you'd want to prove that it leads to a longer age than normal.

Most common to ancient myths? You'd have to find proof that a dead relative was coming back in corporeal form to 'haunt' it's family and that they were successively dying as well - drained of life. Pretty tall order really.

If you're looking for what proof would work for psy vamps? I'd say we'd first have to establish a way of proving the existence of, showing, and then measuring 'psionic energy' and then prove that one person can absorb it from someone else and use it.

Well I kinda already know but I suppose a medical deffinition i.g genetic and so on.
The thing is there are several types of Vampyres so which one(s) are we looking at?

For the traditional of blood sucker types, I’d want proof that an individual was able to life completely off the blood of humans and that they lived and died in the same capacity. I don’t think any would volunteer for the required testing though however our government would most likely offer grant money and conduct private or overseas testing for such individuals. However if an individual was such a vampire and had lived for so long I would think they be intelligent and powerful enough to be running the government in some capacity so as to not be caught or tested.

For the RPGers, Wannabes and the players, you don’t need grant money. LOL But knowing our government it’d be easy to get it, just BS a good cover letter on your proposal.

For Psi Vamps and those that transfer energy and hut others energy. That would actually be easy. I would want a test and control group of a good sampling of the local population to be used as the test subjects and then a control and test group of vampires. I would use a double blind test and want video surveillance and surveys as proof.

The Vamps would be put in a room alone or with other vamps and be told there was a room next to them filled with their test subjects. They would be instructed to feed from them. You do a lot with this type of testing and set up various scenarios, some being solo vamps and group vamps and some with or with out actual test subjects in the other room and even still some where the vamps could see and not see the test subjects through a one way mirror. The test subjects would not be told of what was happening and they would be monitored visually for symptoms of the lost of person energy like fainting spells or vertigo. And the also asked questions where in key ones liked to the study would be hidden in with other general survey questions.

The proof I would want would be the visual signs mentioned and then the key or target questions to be answered accordingly.

For the other part of the question I would need visual proof of the creature and or a volume of archeological evidence that to which was equal or grater than we have on dinosaurs.

RIP is right there where I am. There isn't a strong enough control group to do a single study like that. This would mean hundreds of grants to do hundreds of studies.

Vamprism is a funny thing .. I was woken at a very early age and have had the chance to witness alot.For one i wouldn't want proof to be found .. It would expolit us all..A&E and discovery did a special on vampyres a few months back.. If you haven't seen it try finding it on the web.They did a good job meeting us all but it also made alot of us look stupid.To grab proof of a vampyre you would havee to understand the ways of one.. No one will belive anything unless they try to belive it really exisits.. If you was to prove to the world that Jesus never did exisist you would have a total shutdown to belive.Alot of the people from the T.V shows left pretty surpised after meeting me and my house.But i still think they left not beliving i was a vampyre but someone that was living the life of one.
Some one can't understand sanguine or physic vamprism..."what do you mean you feed from someones energy.." so in all realitly there is no proving what a vampyre is to the world.

Not really, studies are done all the time with small groups. It's kind of sad and see your point. But it can still be done in small amounts. We are only looking for proof that they are real. Having even a dozen would do that.

Well alot of it first comes from the peoples beliefs yet I would love to have them get/give proof to us. withso many different ones would it even be fisable?

Again the belief part it the biggest step of proof..

You beliefs could mean nothing to me...as mines, could not mean anything to you...

We are tottally differents from each others...study every one of us....impossible...

We would need a single "specie" to be able to prove anything...

I have to agree with RIP. My beliefs and feelings are more important to me than actual "hard-core proof". What I believe to be true and what you believe to be true may be two different things. Each and everyone of us is different, so it'd be hard to please everyone.

Ah, I can't think. Too soon to think.

I don't think the intention of this thread was meant to question whether or not there is current proof to be offered for modern day vampires but more as an exercise in creative thinking...

what could prove a vampire?
what would a scientist look for to substantiate that proof?
what would a government actually be willing to pay for?

None of these are likely to happen since none of these are really necessary knowledge so a government would be unlikely to offer up a grant on this...but the questions are interesting.

In order to have a government grant to further study into 'vampirism' in any form, you'd have to establish a use for that knowledge. A way that knowledge would either further the cause of your own country or hinder the cause of an opposing country. There's seems like there could be endless forms of health benefits that could be taken from vampiric study but no government would ever likely provide funds simply to study the 'possibility'. They'd want proof of existence before a grant not as the grant.

So, Felix...are we talking about Real Vampires or Myths?

Cause...real vampires have the same metabolism as regular people...

Politicians, scientists, etc, wouldnt pay anything, cause, "regular" people are for free...

Isn't life beautifull?

In myth...it could happend...if you could study a caught living vampire...but...what for?

To create the perfect human beeing?

even if they could prove that mythological creatures existed it still is dependent on who wants to believe in them. and why waste money on something like that when that money could be used for more beneficial good (ex. food for the hungry, medicines and cures for the sick)

okay the original question:

If it were possible to get federal grants to do research to obtain documented proof that vampires as well as other mythological beings exist, what sort of proof would you want? What would be enough proof to convince you?

I would need to see concete evidence of any mythical creature. I would like to have a living specimen to study and a area of origin. for further investigation. as if there is one there might be others and if the mythical creatures you found were a danger to humankind find a way of containment other the usually human reaction of annihilation.

the kind that would convince me.

Hmmm what proof would I need? I think I would also need first-hand proof. A little bit of proof would start me believing, but deep down i would still doubt.

I dont think that any more proof needs to be discovered. I honestly think that the world has become to self centered and arrogant that it is their own personalitys and such that is keeping them from seeing the truth or that they just dont want to see the truth.

First hand proof wouldn't solve anything because who would believe you when we told them?

I honestly don't believe that there is any physical or genetic proof. I believe that what makes us who or what we are is in our soul not something that doctors or scientist can see in our dna or our blood or even our mental make up.

we know that we exist. do you really want every one else to know?

i am getting very sick of all this "proof" stuff. vampirism doent need proof, that is the whole point of it!!! it is as real as puberty and as fake as a medophor. just to understand and believe is enough proof for anyone.

i must agree with you joker. we already know we exist. why should we vampyres and lycans (because i am both) get the rest of the world involved. i spent 6 centuries being hunted and i finally dont have to worry about it any more. perhaps we dont want the world to know we are really here. perhaps we want to be just "myths". have you people ever stopped to think about that?

Proof? Bah. If seeing is believing, then I already believe. I've seen things in my short life that are not easily explainable by the laws of science, and stranger things still that seem to violate the laws of physics. Without going into too much detail, I have a friend who is a vampire in every since of the word. No convincing needed.

I too would want some evidence that mythological vampires required the blood of humans to survive.. that it was infact the only source of nourishment they had. I would also want proof of shapeshifting for those who claimed to be able to do it.

I suppose some gentic link to vampirism would also be neccessary if we are discussing the proof of modern vampires.

things to that effect would be the type of proof i would seach for.

Yeah they would but its government so you would need real proof

my guess would be to start with dna testing to find out just how old the person really is, and start a trace back from there. its a start!

The real question is; Do we really want to know the truth?

proof for vampire existance. i know that we truely exist, and if society were to find out, all the preps would have something to say, and the posers would, naturally, pose. do vampires really want their existance revealed? i say that proof that vampires exist is a good thing, but society may start to think them as a terrorist threat

I would suggest taking the main facts not produced by hollywood by artifacts and old texts and items and group them all together and then see if people did and neurologically assessed the facts accordingly.

I wouldn't need any proof! To me what I believe & know to be true is what matters! It doesn't matter what everyone else thought or believed! I'd have to agree with RIP there are to many types it would be impossible to prove!

I believe there is always some truth in mythology, people will always question what they dont know or can't prove. So just be who you are.

As nice as it would be to have some sort of test to discern the who is a real vampire and who is not, I agree with those who have said that it isn't possible because it isn't a physical or mental thing, but something in your soul. Another big problem is that there are too many different definitions of what a vampire is. There would need to be set definition accepted by all, but as I said, it is my belief that it is something in a soul that makes a vampire.

watch it

http://www.rifters.com/real/progress.htm

Sometimes believing in something, instead of knowing makes all the difference.
some things should remain unkown.
if everything was understood/& known in this world, this reality would loose its sense of magic.

Thinking on this since my last post.

If we're talking about the vampires of myth, I would accept a being who did not cast a shadow in light or a reflection in a mirror.

their will never be enought proof for meto beleave they dont already existe.

you get the government involved and then they'll want to regulate and oversee everything about the research and by the time they're finished you wouldn't have learned a d**n thing(except what they wanted you to know) best to leave the goverment out of it including any grants or funding.

why get proof at all? as long as you know in your heart that its true it shouldnt matter. even if you did humans would reject the idea & laugh it away as they do everything else already. but the govt on the other hand would try to take control & be the ones hiding it away so no one would ever know anything like they do now.

i think the proof may lie in all the religions and hidden sides of the religions for 1 example i would most likely believe if we could raid the vaults of all the locked away things in the vatican and catholic religion, as i believe they may be some alarming secrets locked up there

I'd want all these so called Vampires to under go testing. Possibly some blood tests to determine if they existed or not. I'm guessing the cell structure of a Vampires blood would differ to a normal person.
Maybe some form of historical redearch into the person, like date of brith ect.
I would reall need some hard solid evidence.

ummm I don't want there to be research.....Obviously we aren't coming out and telling everyone around us for a reason, the goverment is crazy they will cut you open and rip you out just to see if they can find something.

And personally I already believe, I don't need any proof.....

proof on a genetic or celular leval i have done research on bloodlines for years as you know sis..

good q hope em is great this year hopefullu i can break away from work to go to the spring gathering..

~Shadowdancer~

If it were possible to get federal grants to do research to obtain documented proof that vampires as well as other mythological beings exist, what sort of proof would you want? What would be enough proof to convince you?

If we are indeed speaking of a totally different species than man, then yes, there should be genetic markers with obvious variations from humanoids. I'd want to map their brain function and psi abilites. The first place to start for virtually any documented proof, is ancient texts citing these beings.

Second there would definitely have to be a dead vampire to autopsy. Various tests could be carried out on a vampire corpse: dna, brain dissection...to look for anomalies, muscle dissection...should be greater muscle mass and differences in muscle and ligament structure. Cells could be cloned and viruses introduced to see if they are really immune to human disease. The lungs and the heart could be dissected for any difference when compared to the human heart and lung tissue. There are a million different ways to prove or disprove if they are what they claim to be.

The only thing that would concern me, is if it were found to be true, then someone, somewhere, would find a way to exploit their natural abilities for their own agenda. And in order for it to stay "secret"...the government or whoever wanted control over these "beings," would more than likely exterminate those they had found after they had cooperated. To allow a study such as this public would be inviting diseaster, a modern-day witchhunt! As advanced as our civilzation has come in the last 800 to 1,000 years, we are not that enlightened. We fear that which we don't know. Consider racial hatred, think how much more radical it would be if the thing hated was of another species. A species believed to be superior to your own. The turn of events would not be good. Supernatural beings are best left to the shadows, to drag them into the harsh light of day would be as good as guaranteeing their demise.

the truth behind vampires, like the truth behind religion, should be left as it is, an unsure mistery. because if solved it could bring about choas of unimagenible proporsions. some truths are just better left unknown.

you can get grants for anything. The gov is retarted on what it spends it's money on. The prob is to figure out what your trying to prove. A blood sucker versus a pychic vampire. What is myth and what is real. You have to go for basics and show in your proposal what basics you will test. If you can prove the basics you can justify more grants to look into more advanced claims.

One day they probably will go phyco and test everyone in the world

you can get declassified documents on everything from Project Bluebook to their own version of the X~files,all you have to do is write or email and request a list,its public information

hmm i dont need the proof...but personally...i think a shapeshifter would freak the hell out of any mortal...

I do not need the proof I believe already..
some people would need proof though,which is understandable it all depends what your beliefs are..

I do believe, if I were truly seeking "proof," the proof I'd need to show me beyond any doubt whatsoever that vampires existed would be, like Xzavier stated...of the medical nature. I'd want to see if/how, genetically, they were different. Furthermore, I'd want those differences explained...the why's and how's, potential for further "mutation," possibilites for "treatment," etc. Eh. What were we talking about again? ;oP

I don't need any "proof" I have seen it with my own eyes....
I believe!

QoC - Believing does not make it real. If faith alone is good enough for you ok, to each there own but does not part of you somewhere, desire to know if it’s more than faith or belief and actually real and to what extent that realness entails?

I would like one&one proof....And in all honesty are proof is our beliefs and feeling's we have in them....

DFAo… Belief is not proof. We have proof that we exists as far as we can determine as we are hear and our own senses can detect us however I have met institutionalized folk who believed they did not exists. They 100% believed that among other obvious falsehoods.

Beliefs and feelings can not be proofs but if that is all a person needs than to each there own.

I do think that it is all a point of view... If I would say I am a vampire, would you believe me? If I say that I drink blood to sustain myself and I would drink the blood in front of you, would you believe me that I am a vampire?
I don't think that the coffins, the blood drinking or being sensible to the Sun's light is a proof...
Frankly, I am wonderning: are vampires immortal? Can you fly? What is the main way of recruiting new vampires?
I know that this are pretty awful questions, but the Hollywood perpetuated this myth and all myths start from something true...
So...those are the ways I would look...

For me, I don't really require proof.
For the gereral population, I would think some sort of genetic testing to show that they actually are distinctly different. I would also think that given the types of vampires out there you would need a large enough sample selection from a wide enough area to get accurate results. Or maybe small samples from many diffrent locations, to rule out other factors.

see i dont really need proof
ever myth comes from somewhere
so therefor the creatures had to be true at one point in time

why uncover vampires? The non-believers would never believe. Then the churches would get together and lobby the whole thing. Just my thought

there is to much to the lore of vampires...living as one I know what I experience everyday, but the "movie vampire" is another story all together

...........

Well, there are the Medical conditions that lead to the Mythos of the Vampir. Sanguine iron defciancy, photic allergies, or photic sneezing are real conditions common to Eastern Europeans (Slavics and Romanians) that are part of the supersticious make up of Vampire lore. These hereditary conditions are common to Eastern Europe and affect about 1 in 9 Americans. I know, I unfortunatly suffer from all the above. I dont run around pretending to be cool about it though. At an early age I had to give up all sugar drinks and drink lite Beer and Diet Pop to keep my weight normal because of the non stop unsatisfied thirst. Trying to take iron supplements, or eat rare beef, or at last resort drink blood are all short term fixes to the thirst. However considering how many more serious diseases are out there its a liveable condition. Apart from that Vampirism is a state which many people define differantly. As far as a real life Movie style Vampir, I personally expect to meet Bigfoot 1st but Id have to see one captured to believe it.

i don't need any proof, and some things are better kept not knowing,

I doubt there would be many vamps or mythical beings lining up to get prodded or poked by the government for any study. I don't need proof (even when I have seen it with my own eyes) I don't think anything is impossible or improbable. That may make me naive.

If "Uncovering the Truth" re: the Vampire is truly desired, would it not serve well to first research the original Slavic accounts thereof? If this is done, it will soon be discovered that the first specific usage of the term "Upir'" (Vampir) occurred in 1047 CE (800 years before Stoker!) and had nothing whatsoever to do with any blood-drinking, fang-wielding, crucifix-fearing, "undead" servant of Satan. Quite the opposite, in fact.

No... the first-ever "vampire" speciifcally mentioned in recorded history was -- as he so declared himself to be -- a bonafide Russian Orthodox CHRISTIAN Priest personally working for Vladimir II of Russia in translating religious texts from Cyrillic into Old Church Slavonic.

For those further interested in learning what the actual characteristics of the Slavic vampire were, you are welcome to review the article posted regarding such as found in my profile.

As for Hexica's remarks re: the reluctance of vampires, etc., to being "poked and prodded" for research purposes... while perhaps true in most cases, that is precisely what I had conducted at a major University by one of the world's most prolific research scientists and funded by a research grant. The purpose of which was to finally have scientifically documented the "physiologically impossible" capacity that is and always has been the only true vampiric "Dark" Gift of history.

they would need to document their ability to change shape,travel at impossible speed,perform impossible feats of strength,their need for blood,their psychic abilities,and so many other things.
as for the other mythological beings i would say their history,feeding habis,living habits,their ability to use magick,and proof of magick in general,i would say the list goes on and on and it does so it is up to everyone else to decide what to believe and what not to beleive.

There are many people so desperate to believe in real vampires that they will believe anything, so its hard to define "proof". I personally could care less either way. I enjoy the Movies, and fandom that go along with it. Apart from that If such a thing existed I wouldnt want to be anywhere close to it. The guy a few posts above who mentioned the origin of the Slavic Vampir is correct though. Im Serbian and I can attest that hes correct. The Origin of the term "Vampir" has very little in common with the Mythos started off of Stokers Dracula.

Upir,

Based on your article and your attached website, you are saying that vampires are in reality merely multi-orgasmic males? Descendants of the Raphaim and fit for kingly rule based on nothing more than sexual prowess? Whilst I agree that a sexual equality between men and women is long overdue, I'd hesitate to say that it's time to return to Sumer where as you say yourself, pedophilia was an accepted practice and a king was chosen simply through sex and not knowledge.

To bring that back into line with the question of the thread...I think that regardless of the origin of vampiric mythology, your definition of the vampire in this forum is likely a singular belief and the proof you suggest in your article would only prove the traits without in any way proving the genetic descent...and would hardly convince the world or scientific community that those traits are the bricks upon which the house of vampirism was built.

It is quite refreshing to find in Alexziq another for whom the actual history of the evolution (or rather de-evolution) of the Slavic "Vampire" is of similar interest.

Given this, please indulge me a few minutes in fleshing out a few more intriguing details re: the First-Ever "Vampire" in recorded history:

As I previously related in my earlier entry, the word "Upir'", from when came the later derivation "vampir" or "vampire," was the actual name of an 11th Century Russian Orthodox Christian Priest.

In 1047 CE, after transcribing a book of scripture for Vladimir II, this Novgorodian priest wrote in his own hand his name: "Father Upir' Likhyj". That's right: Father "Vampire."

Of course, being that he was both a living mortal man AND an orthodox Christian priest, it becomes immediately apparent that the term "upir'" did not at all mean then what it later came to mean several centuries thereafter following the campaign of slander and vilification that ensued.

So... the obvious question becomes: What might "Upir' Likhyj" have meant at the time this was written?

The best I have been able to discover is as follows:

The nationality (or rather, etymology) of the name is both Russian and Bulgarian. While at first mistakenly thought to find origin in the verb "to drink," instead its true roots are more properly founded in the Slavic verb pir, meaning "to feast", most specifically in the Old Slavonic to referring to participating in the very sex-positive, often-orgiastic Slavic "wedding feasts" of the day. This finds even more ancient precedent in the Gnostic Christian "Agape" feasts in which sexual orgies also took place, as often attested to with ironic shock by many Roman historians (look up the term "agape" online in wikipedia or other non-christian websites where more comprehensive explanations of same are permitted).

Thus, in its most accurate rendering the term "upir'" had specific reference, albeit euphemistically, to the "feasting" described in the Gnostic Christian version of the "Agape" (i.e., sexual feasting).

Hence, the original term "Upir'" originally meant: "sexual feaster."

As for the adjective, "likhyj", while today meaning "vile" or "evil" in Russian, discovering the original meaning of this term as existed in the 11th Century proved far more problematic. However, I have successfully found two other instances in the 11th and 12th Centuries where this term was also used. In both cases, the adjective would seem to have been synonymous with "intractable" or "prolonged"... or, if used sexually speaking... "insatiable."

Thus, "Father Upir' Likhyj" was in fact declaring himself to be an "insatiable (sexual) feaster."

Coincidentally, as found throughout the oldest Slavic accounts of "vampirism" from hundreds of years later, this is exactly how the historic vampire was originally described: as a highly libidinous "handsome young man" whose "insatiable", "prodigious sexual appetites" resulted in "sexual orgies" causing his lovers to "weaken and become ill with exhaustion", ultimately becoming "exhausted and emaciated" as such non-stop multiorgasmic "feasting" together continued day after day... night after night. Such symptoms would indeed have resembled the dread disease "Consumption" (Tuberculosis), from whence the name, Nosferatu ("plague carrier") originates.

This unlimited orgasmic capacity in the male was precisely the same "Dark" Gift exhibited by the "Fallen Angels" when they, also, descended to "feast" together with Human females (Genesis ch. 6) and who also began the sexual feasting that occurred in the early Christian Church, as explicitly described in the New Testament (Book of Jude and also II Peter, Ch. 2). Right there is the "smoking gun" proof that, indeed, the male descendants of the "Fallen Angels" were exhibiting their definitive "vampiric" characteristics in the original Christian Church.

If uncovering "the Truth" was truly desired here, then I hope I have offended none in accurately and unflinchingly presenting it.

(A quick reply here to FelixFelix...)

As relates to your objection to my statements re: ancient Sumer, I have simply stated historic facts. No where in my profile article do I advocate a return to monarchies, whether based on sexual equality with females or not, nor did I ever mention, much less defend, pedophilia, for pete's sake.

As for vampiric "orthodoxy," I have no more reverence for any such than I do in religious orthodoxy: where any such deviate from Truth, the choice between them should be obvious.

I would need to see first person hard proof. Other then that I really dont care. People want things to beleive in. Its nature.

Upir - your 'proof' would then be left to historical data I'm assuming since there would be no way of proving that any physical or sexual similarities, you may or may not have, are in fact the genetic lineage of half god dieties. You must at least acknowledge that.

I care little for whether legend had its origin in sexually insatiable kings or in disease and decay. I can assure you that some of the more well known features of mythological vampires were more likely based on a need to understand and anthropomorphize the diseases of the time. I agree that the church has always had need for fear as a tool but see little reason in the need to continue to hunt down what is now relatively harmless in culture (sexual apetite).

Felix -- great reply; thank you. Please have patience with me as I endeavor to explain:

In response to your first point that there is no way of using historical evidence to identify and link a possible "superhuman" trait possessed by ancient demi-gods with some modern-day equivalent thereof that might additionally be hereditary in nature... in fact, there is. And it can be quite specifically traced through the Sumerian to the Egyptian and Canaanite/Semitic cultures, to Christianity, and then directly through to Eastern Europe. Gaps in history are unavoidable, but when this specific trait re-appears in the historical record, due to and owing to its extreme rarity, it does so quite dramatically and quite specifically.

Now, to your second point: were the claimed highly singular trait merely an abnormally high degree of "sexual appetite" or perhaps a psycho-sexual abnormality such as a paraphilia (fetish) of some sort resulting in some non-stereotypical sexual response pattern or performance parameter, you would be dead-on correct to discount any such as not being particularly noteworthy much less conclusive of any ancient sexual "god"-like trait.

However, the specific male sexual trait to which I make reference bears no simiarity to any such fairly mundane sexual aberration. Instead, the trait to which I refer was considered just as "impossible" anciently as it still is by scientists today.

Masters & Johnson, the Kinsey Institute, Hartman & Fithian, etc., -- all have concluded that this one singular male trait is "physiologically impossible" for any Human male, period. Thus making its appearance at any point in history truly remarkable, indeed, and forcing us to consider whether there might be some common "denominator" to account for such an otherwise "impossible" characteristic.

That "common denominator" throughout history has been an undeniable hereditary link, in every instance, with the "Fallen Angel" myths of Sumer and Canaan where this specific trait was minutely described on repeated occasions. The trait appeared when they first did, and then disappeared with them, only to reappear in those claiming to be their descendants... and so on throughout history, regardless of culture.

And also in every instance, with two notable exceptions, this trait's appearance was met with the same response each and every time: male jealousy followed by eventual vilification and scapegoating of those possessing same until finally erupting into violence against all such.

BTW... those two "notable exceptions" were Sumer and Egypt, this planet's two longest-lasting and most glorious civilizations. Coincidence... or no? ;)

My 2 cents from a beer and pretzel perspective is this. I have no problem with the image of todays vampire or the Stoker created vampire. I just dont like to see people tangle and misinterperate my homelands mythos to justify, or validate the potential existance of the Glampire image of today. The roots of the Slavic Vampire are more akin to Zombies from Day of the Dead than Bela (God rest his Soul) Too many people throw Slavic/Romanian history around without ever really understanding it. If you really believe in Vampires you shouldnt try to use Slavic legends to back your case up, as its something differant entirely.

Should Alexziq's remarks have been directed at my reply, there was no "glampiric" reference made. You would have to go to Stoker for the origins of all that has become "glamiric" in the culture. Thus, I cannot but find it a bit ironic that while Stoker's pulp-fiction version of "glam" vampirism is acceptable to you (though Stoker wrote his fiction never having visited your homelands and devicively exploited the Vlad Tepes' history and nickname to help sell his books), yet the creature described in the earliest Roma (Gypsy) accounts from those areas describing a "highly libidinous creature" whose "prodigious sexual appetite" was "insatiable," is not acceptable.

And you are correct that, a bit later on in history, this creature's nature began to change, becoming more "zombie"-like, more the scapegoat and mischievious in character, and, eventually, asexual altogether, murderous and bloodthirsty. However, as part of my point exactly, these were later developments in the myths of the area... the vilifications and lies told to frighten the populaces and incite "vampire" hysteria.

However, if you know your homelands' history, even as late as the 1960's, men were still being arrested in Eastern Europe for pretending to be vampires and, in the guise of such given the persistence of the original legends of their sexuality, attempting to sexually seduce young recently-widowed women (no blood drinking attempted, at all).

For the actual accounts of all I have referenced, here is a small listing of the books in which they are documented (these are found ostensibly in the "non-fiction" category):

"Vampires of the Slavs" - Dr. Jan Perkowski (by far the best single tome on Roma vampire lore and history)

"The Darkling" - Dr. Jan Perkowski

"The Vampire: A Casebook" - Prof. Alan Dundes

"Vampires, Burial, and Death: Folklore and Reality" - Paul Barber (Research Associate: Fowler Museum of Cultural History, Univ. of California, L. A.)

Much of this is also summarized skillfully in J. Gordon Melton's wonderful "The Vampire Book" (btw... check therein under the extensive heading "Sexuality." I think you will be in for quite a shock of all that was attributed to the original Slavic vampire [Upir', Mullo, etc.] in the original accounts).

And finally... it was not my intention to trample on anyone's image of the vampire. The discussion topic was "Uncovering the Truth", and to that end only have I responded. That, and no more. No offense was intended nor ought any to have been taken.

No Upir, I wasnt directing that at you. I was more or less agreeing with your take. Some of the posts before mine were suggesting that the Vampire has evolved from those Mythos. I was merely suggesting that the origin of the Vampire is quite differant than the current image as you have pointed out historically. You use those examples to back up a solid case for your ideas where many could care less about the true origins of the Vampire and warp the Mythos to make a case for real Supernatural Vampires existance. My argument is only that these are apples and oranges and you cant make an argument for the Glampire based on Slavic Myth. To make an argument for the existance of a Stoker Vampire you need to look from that point forward.

Not you Upir, I meant people in general.

Thank you, Alexziq, for the great reply! My sincere apologies as I completely misunderstood your prior response.

As you had previously been complimentary of my efforts to bring in the actual accounts from the environs of your homeland, I couldn't understand why it seemed I had perhaps upset you. So I am delighted to learn that you do indeed support your homelands' actual accounts and not the stylized, fictionalized versions that have followed.

And, as I think I now better understand your meaning, I, too, have no problem with the Stoker version to the extent that it has so wonderfully fueled worldwide interest in the Slavic vampire. Where all such troubles me is in seeing the direction such interest has taken, especially among teens, in romanticizing death, asexuality, and blood as fetish.

This is so opposite and, to my view, far less exciting and fulfilling than is the actual truth... were the truth to be fully known.

I think one has to consider that whether or not the Upir is the origin behind the name vampire, almost every culture puts forward a 'demon' that lives either past death or apart from death by feeding in some form off the living. It is that cultural myth that still retains the moniker and if, mixed in with it's origin, there was some lineage of god man sex king who bore some ill history based on becoming entangled in that mythos, it is unfortunate but not altogether relative. The idea of family members rising from the grave to feed on the relatives is very much a core of a belief in almost all cultures and it was that boogeyman that seems to have adopted the name vampire whether rightly or not.

Excellent issue to raise: what of all the OTHER forms of creatures in world mythology basically synonymous with the Slavic vampire? Surely ALL vampire-like creatures cannot be factually based or derived. And you would be absolutely correct!

So why not also the Slavic vampire?

Please permit me to copy here part of an article appearing at a very prolific sanguinarian vampire website that puts it far better than I could:

"These writers, and others, established the notion that 'every culture has a form of vampire belief', that 'vampires' were a universal, even archetypal human superstition, and that they were found world- and history-wide, buried in every body of myth, hidden in every holy book, lurking behind every fairy-tale.

"And of course, they were quite wrong!!! The folklorists managed this feat by taking each separate element of the vampire metaphor and using it to qualify as a 'type of vampire' absolutely anything whatsoever that fitted even one aspect of the definition. Was it a supernatural being that drank blood? Then it's a 'type of vampire'! Was it something that came back from the grave? Then it's a 'type of vampire'! Was it an entity or revenant that was 'hungry' or that pestered the living for sex? Then it's a 'type of vampire'! Never mind that the individual cultures concerned had complex histories and belief systems to which these 'types of vampire' really belonged. They all got lumped together, and suddenly the word 'vampire' included at least half of the myths, legends, and folklore ever known on the planet. Child-killing demons, blood-drinking gods, hungry ancestor spirits, cannibalistic demons, fierce animal ghosts, night-hag entities, incubi/succubi, the restless dead, plague demons...these and many other very culture-specific beliefs, all with their own context and history, suddenly became part of the definition of 'vampire'."
-
http://www.sanguinarius.org/articles/vampdef.shtml (emphasis added)

The point abundantly made here is that the Slavic Vampire stands alone as the only creature claiming embodiment of all these traits (though, originally only its sexual nature defined it; the blood-drinking claim developed last of all).

And where the Slavic vampire is concerned, yes... the term "Upir'" predates all other vampiric references and, as a term, began first of all in the 1047 CE reference to himself made by a Russian Orthodox Priest, "Father Upir' Likhyj" of Novgorod, Russia.

A vampire standing before me, teeth and all telling me their personal story and introducing me to others... then possibly be bitten!

Again this goes back to my point of people warping myths to make a case for the existance of the modern Vampire instead of unsterstanding its true nature. Many other myths outside the Russian/Serb/Romanian peasant legends could easily being interprated as the origin of Zombies, Demons, and other monsters as easily as they could a Vampire. The Russian/Serb/Romanian peasant myths are definatly the foundations used by Stoker to create the modern vampire.

Yeppers, Alexziq... and what is, again, so telling is that the reason why Stoker's "vampire" caught fire with the world above and beyond all other myths of fantastical creatures who bore some resemblance to the Slavic vampire (though, as pointed out previously, they cannot be accurately link thereto) was Stoker's depiction of the vampire as an erotic creature using the stalking, seducing, and taking of its females for blood as blatant metaphor for sex.

How curious to realize that this same highly erotic component that Stoker so abundantly developed, despite the Victorian Age in which he lived, was not only the reason why the Slavic vampire is by far the most popular of "monsters," but is also the only aspect of the actual historic "vampire" that Stoker got right!

i would like a living being to explore the facts but alas somethinfgs like god only come from faith

I'm not sure that your response is all too clear to me. If I understand correctly, you're saying that all the cultures out there that have portions of the classic vampire in their mythos, couldn't be vampires because they are merely portions...whereas the Eurocentric vampire was the only one to have all of these traits but that those traits weren't real either based on your belief of how the vampire or upir really came to be. That doesn't really answer how those traits developed as part of the mythos.

My point was that every culture offers some form of demonology or monster to explain things like disease and decay and that Europe was no different. If the Upir or vampire was rolled up into that and used for the name, it would still follow that the traits or aspects that were now ascribed to vampires were still based on cultural ignorances that were similar throughout the world.

No, I think were just saying that certain cultural links to vampires are a bit of a stretch to call them vampires when they seem as easily interprated as zombies or other mythalogical monsters and therfore offer even less proof toward true existance of such a creature. My point was basically that all origin myths of the Vampire are so vastly differant than todays image that you almost cant use any of it as evidence of towards proving vampires exist. Bottom line is (its a vastly altered Myth)

Exactly, Alexziq... right on target.

The unfotunately fact is that lay vampirologists in their headlong enthusiasm for vampirism all too often tend to try and find "vampires" anywhere in the world that myths or legends exist of supposed demons, gods, or creatures possessing to whatever extent a characteristic reminiscent of the vampire. Thus, as the article I quote points out, any culture that believes in some supernatural being who has fangs and/or is reputed to have died and returned from the grave, and/or has sex with the living and/or drinks blood or eats flesh and/or feeds of the life force or psi-energy and/or are responsible for plagues, pestilences, ruined crops, sick or dying livestock, etc. ... MUST any and all be vampires, too.

And this is simply nonsense.

The Slavic Vampire is unique and separate from all other myths, just as all mythological creatures from all other cultures are likewise unique and defined separately by the cultures and contexts therein from whence they were created.

However, where the Slavic Vampire is concerned, here alone and separate from all other zombies, ghosties and ghouls worldwide, the historical evidence shows that the first of its kind on record was not considered a monster during his time... but instead a Christian Eastern Orthodox Priest !!!

So... the big question here is... how does the appellation "Upir'", the name of an 11th Century Christian priest (self-identified as "Father Vampire") go from being a well-respected, scholarly, pious, Christian priest to having this SAME NAME become so demonized and vilified that only a few centuries later, it has become the demonic, Satanic, crucifix-fearing, blood-drinking "Upir'" (Vampire) of Easter Europe?

And that is what my own research has been attempting to understand.

Exactly, Alexziq... right on target.

The unfotunate fact is that lay vampirologists in their headlong enthusiasm for vampirism all too often tend to try and find "vampires" anywhere in the world among any and all myths or legends of demons, gods, or creatures possessing to whatever extent a characteristic reminiscent of the vampire.

Thus, as the article I quoted points out, any culture that believes in some supernatural being who has fangs and/or is reputed to have died and returned from the grave, and/or has sex with the living and/or drinks blood or eats flesh and/or feeds off the life force or psi-energy and/or are responsible for plagues, pestilences, ruined crops, sick or dying livestock, etc. ... MUST any and all of them also be vampires, too.

And this is simply nonsense.

The Slavic Vampire is unique and separate from all other myths, just as all mythological creatures from all other cultures are likewise unique and defined separately by the cultures and contexts therein from whence they were created.

However, where the Slavic Vampire is concerned, here alone and separate from all other zombies, ghosties and ghouls worldwide, the historical evidence shows that the first of its kind on record was not considered a monster during his time... but instead a Christian Eastern Orthodox Priest !!!

So... the big question here is... how does the appellation "Upir'", the name of an 11th Century Christian priest (self-identified as "Father Vampire") go from being a well-respected, scholarly, pious, Christian priest to having this SAME NAME become so demonized and vilified that only a few centuries later, it has become the demonic, Satanic, crucifix-fearing, blood-drinking "Upir'" (Vampire) of Easter Europe?

And that is what my own research has been attempting to understand.

They do exist. The vampires I know are not immortal, for I have not seen proof of their existence, but they consume blood or consume energy. Sanguinarians or psychic vampires are what they are called sometimes. Blood-drinkers and energy consumers.On the other hand there are those who are willing to believe anything and accept anything, and not entirely know what they are getting themselves into. I truly fear for those people. It can be disasterous for not only them, but for immortals as well.

Then we move right along to those who pretend to know immortals, or to infact be immortals, and I know this from experience, they try to prove that they are who they claim that they are, and that my friends makes me feel horrible, and foolish for the mortal condition. Why should immortals makes themselves known to us when such people in this world exist. I am glad that some immortals have sense, and selectively choose worthy mortals. Though sometomes I dont even understand myself what this criteria is? Is it knowledge? Is it innocence? I am unsure at this moment.

I have no fear in death, only fear in the one who may cause it.

I have no master.

Why proof? Most are perfectly happy believing....Just as most religions do it.......Nothing is substantiated, but people die for it, regardless.......
But valid proof would be aging......If they DO live longer than us, proving their ungodly age would do it quite well.

Gentlemen, let's first make this abundantly clear...I have never tried to prove the existence of vampires as real...so I don't use the variety of vampire myths as reason to believe in their existence. My point was that the MYTH of vampires and vampire like creatures often stems from early cultures misunderstandings of disease or ignorance of causes of death in their locale. Myths that seem as varied as there are cultures to put them in.

And while we are on the subject, you both seem to be implying that the Eurocentric vampire was somehow unchanged in it's definition. The European mythos of vampires has been almost as varied in the traits they possess as they are in how to kill them. Lets remember that Europeans have said a vampire could be the result of a red headed child or the act of stepping over a grave. It could stem from excommunication or being born with a hair lip. The European vampires are not some line of myth that remained wholly separate from the myths of zombies or ghost or any other boogeyman. Early vampires were often described much the same as ghosts...wandering spirits of dead relatives coming back to feed on their kin.

I have already acknowledged that if the term Upir was the etymological origin of vampire, then perhaps there was a situation wherein the name was misappropriated. You have acknowledged yourself that the Upir origin that you promote bears no resemblance to the traits of the vampire 'monsters' mythology. But the mythos of the dead feeding on the living is a widely used and varied myth that varies even in the confines of Europe where most of the fictional traits were drawn from.

This thread has been automatically closed for length.