mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
Costas Efthimiou, a researcher at the University of Central Florida, has the very cool job of debunking pseudoscientific myths. His latest calculations showed the mathematical impossibility of vampires, in case you were concerned that they might be real (and apparently there are a frightening number of people who do believe in them).
According to a LiveScience article:
Efthimiou’s debunking logic: On Jan 1, 1600, the human population was 536,870,911. If the first vampire came into existence that day and bit one person a month, there would have been two vampires by Feb. 1, 1600. A month later there would have been four, and so on. In just two-and-a-half years the original human population would all have become vampires with nobody left to feed on.
He gets paid for logic like that.
Looking for smart gift ideas? Head over to the mental_floss store or consider a gift subscription to mental_floss magazine.
More from mental_floss…
10 Diamond-Encrusted Things You Don’t Need
*
Who Is Ponzi & What Was His Scheme?
*
Bold Business Scams That Failed Miserably
*
8 Successful People Grateful They Got Canned
*
A Brief History of Breast Implants
Comments (70)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
The flaw in his logic, of course, is that when a vampire bites a person, that person does not automatically become a vampire.
This does, however, prove that werewolves cannot exist.
posted by VenHelsing on 10-27-2006 at 8:45 am
That math would only be accurate if the vampire took only enough blood to change the other person into a vampire. If he sucked the life blood out of the person, they would then be dead and therefore not a vampire. You also have to figure in the people who killed the vampires. And I don’t get paid for my logic :)
posted by Kim on 10-27-2006 at 11:42 am
Aye, anyone who reads or watches Queen of the Damned certainly knows that vampires have the option of creating new vampires or simply drinking their blood. I think it has something to do with things in a vampire’s blood, and unless the victim drinks the vampire’s blood, there won’t be enough to turn them into a vampire. Curse you Hollywood for your blatent disregard for common vampire knowledge!
posted by Scott on 10-28-2006 at 1:48 pm
Why does this prove that werewolves don’t exist? No one ever said that they HAD to bite a person when they change, did they?
posted by Pointy-Hatted Geek on 8-27-2007 at 11:40 am
The previous comments are entirely true and Efthimiou’s research and conclusions are shoddy. What kind of name is Efthimiou? It sounds vampiric – I suspect he’s trying to throw us off his trail…
Vampires do not automatically create other vampires, and werewolves dont have to sustain themselves on people. A 10 year old with a comic book can produce a more convincing argument.
posted by Chris on 8-27-2007 at 12:23 pm
Just so I get this straight – the math and logic is being countered by citing Ann Rice and Comic Books as sources of information for the genesis and species traits of vampires … again, just checking.
posted by Ed on 8-27-2007 at 3:10 pm
OK Ed, what exactly would you consider an “acurate” source for info on vampires and werewolves?
posted by Lisa on 8-27-2007 at 4:13 pm
Given we are dealing with myths, “accurate” information is not exactly possible. My point was not that the “wrong” source was being cited. However, my point was that the analysis that was being criticized consisted of applying a simple, yet straightforward, mathematical model to the most commonly accepted (not to mention prevalent) mode of the subject myth (that a “new” vampire is created by an “old” one biting a victim), and the counter argument appeared to consist of semantics drawn from Ann Rice and Comic Books. Indeed, even given the semantics, the mathematical model still works because eventually there would be more vampires than humans – it would just be over a longer timeline.
My tongue in cheek criticism was, simply, that it appeared the application of a mathematical formula and resulting prediction (driven by a logical model based upon the core operating components of the myth) was being “debunked” through the selective application of science fiction.
Again … just trying to get it straight.
posted by Ed on 8-28-2007 at 10:22 am
Ed,
I hate to break it to you, but the most prevalent and (almost) oldest vampire myth is that of Dracula, written over a century ago. This fictional character, like most fictional vampires, can pick and choose whom to change and whom to kill outright.
Let’s not go pretending that your original post was some kind of intricately plotted and well-developed commentary on the subject matter. You were just trying to make fun of people for talking about Anne Rice and comic books.
As for the actual “mathematical,” debunking that professor Efthimiou (who is clearly a vampire) goes about, it is indeed a failure, because it disregards some of the mythology but not other parts. You said so yourself: “Given we are dealing with myths, “accurate” information is not exactly possible;” so it’s ludicrous to think that “debunking” one obscure, fantastic element of vampire mythology means that “vamipires” themselves are impossible.
Of course, anyone with half a brain already knows that vampires have been “mathematically” (and scientifically) debunked, based on the much more simple fact that human blood does not contain enough nutritional elements to sustain a man-sized living creature, nor does the human digestive system have the capabilities of processing and refining large (or even relatively small) amounts of human blood.
Is that clear enough for you? Did it help you focus that I didn’t reference vampire counter-mythology, even though it is well within reason, as the original ‘professor’ has based his definition of “vampire” off of mythology himself?
I should hope so.
Again… just trying to get it straight.
posted by EdBasher on 8-28-2007 at 12:34 pm
“Has anyone here actually read a book about vampires?”
“You mean, like a Time-Life book?”
“I take it the answer is no.”
posted by Ken on 8-28-2007 at 1:41 pm
Ha ha! Using comic books and fantasy novels for ‘accuracy.’ Clearly, the definitive work is “The Real Ghostbusters” cartoon, in which a battle between a bunch of werewolves and vampires immediately leads to a hybrid every time one bites the other.
posted by Jason on 8-28-2007 at 2:53 pm
“logical” arguments about mythical creatures, at least I have ganja to blame for the wacked out crap that I say. Peace
posted by james on 8-28-2007 at 8:34 pm
The idea of fighting myths with logic is absured if only because myths are invulnerable to logic. We might as well try to disprove the flying spaghetti monster with Algebra.
posted by CJ on 8-28-2007 at 10:58 pm
if a=FSM
and b=bloodsucking vampires
and x=The population of the larger Chicago area
and: a*(x-b)^n where n is the speed of an African swallow in flight
then: the result is the movie Underworld.
Plus, I’d take an author over Hollywood any day, since authors on average tend to research the myths they’re writing about, whereas Hollywood production teams seem to all stand around throwing darts at a dartboard with random pages from Webster’s Dictionary.
posted by TGecko on 8-28-2007 at 11:33 pm
UCF is the coolest university in the country! Go Knights!
posted by Dave on 8-29-2007 at 8:08 am
Besides, all we’d have to do is call Spike (ex Buffy for the unlearned) in and all those Vamps could learn how to reclaim their souls and become humans again… then I could take him home and ravish him.
posted by Andrea on 8-29-2007 at 11:11 am
I think that the beginning of that paragraph should have read “Efthimiou’s debunking math:” because what follows is clearly not a logical argument that would debunk belief in vampires. It is simply a mathematical multiplication showing that we would all have been vampires by now. Were he to actually go on to try to prove logically that they do not exist, he would have to touch on some real biological and philosophical questions. How would they have developed evolutionarily? Many questions from this part alone would be very difficult to answer alone. In addition it is highly improbable that any living or living undead creature would only have to feed once a month. It would be absolutely absurd to have this once monthly feeding as a premise for any scientific/logical debunking. Also, the assumption is made that they only feed on humans and not utilize blood banks or animals of any kind.
It is just this sort of “debunking” on such flawed premises that makes one wonder what sort of muddled thinking really goes on in the scientific community. Is it merely a case of losing the forest for the trees? Or is this the symptom of a much larger problem?
posted by Jen on 8-30-2007 at 11:14 am
At least James has a reason for his part in this discussion. You may want to share it with the rest of these “logical” folks.
Have a happy.
posted by Laurie on 8-30-2007 at 12:33 pm
I like that question about the psychology behind vampires. When you think about it, a vampire is simply the idea of the evil within all of us- a vampire is sort of the person they were before, but not quite. Anyone can become a vampire. I think in our society, we’ve built up the concept of the ‘flawed hero’- one who must commit evil to conquer it. This has led to a fascination with evil within our society (but not, as some might argue, an evil society itself). We see more and more movies about vampires and werewolves becoming central characters because the concept is so fascinating to us- to let oneself go entirely, to shed the moral constraints of society. I think that’s also whats led to an increase in the percent of violent crimes- attacks, school shootings, etc. So if a vampire is simply the evil side of oneself, what does that say about this study?
posted by Chris on 8-30-2007 at 9:28 pm
What I love about mental_floss readers is that we never know where you guys are going to take a discussion when we post something. Well done, flossers!
posted by Will on 8-30-2007 at 10:19 pm
its a disease called Porphyria
posted by webee on 8-31-2007 at 2:23 am
I am of the firm opinion that if vampires can change form (bats, fangs, etc), then their digestive requirements change as well. For those Buffy/Angel watchers, Angel drinks pig blood and therefore does not create any new vampires (anymore). What if others did the same? Just another thorn in Efthimiou’s logic.
posted by John on 8-31-2007 at 5:06 am
I remember seeing this in a kids magazine when I was like 7 (30 years ago). I think this guy should be investigated for plagarism as he did not include that magazine in his notes.
posted by EdS on 8-31-2007 at 11:31 am
Lets not forget that “nutrition” is not required for the “Undead”.
posted by Dale on 8-31-2007 at 1:45 pm
I think all this proves one thing….we all need to get a life. Not just the “undead” but those of us who took the time to read this and/or write!
posted by kristi on 9-1-2007 at 9:59 am
All of you people have way too much time on your hands.
posted by Joan on 9-2-2007 at 6:09 pm
If “nutrition” is not required for the undead, why go around giving massive hickeys?
posted by John on 9-3-2007 at 1:15 am
Did this Mr E take into account the rate of human-type reproduction? Perhaps we need some vampires to trim the hedges a bit once in a while.
posted by suckor on 9-3-2007 at 1:13 pm
While I agree with many of the comments here, it must be said that this argument does, in fact, have merit, as it disproves the existence of zombies.
Also, I agree with Chris’ opinion that Dr. Efthimiou’s name is, quite frankly, suspicious.
posted by nirniva on 6-19-2008 at 2:56 pm
This logic also assumes that the vampire has the urge to 1)”Turn” people into vampires and 2)Ravenously feed on humans.
They would need to feed, but, obviously the major flaw in this equation is the assumed knowledge that a vampire would “turn” a certain amount of people into vampires at a given rate and time frame.
-Conjecure
posted by Conjecure on 6-22-2008 at 7:58 pm
No, he’s right, but for the wrong reasons. There may not necessarily be 2 vampires, then four, then so on, but I’ve never read a Vampire novel where drinking blood didn’t at least kill the victim.
So everyone would be vampires, or dead really.
posted by Dan Helsing on 6-24-2008 at 9:20 am
well if you think about it, even if the drinking of the blood didn’t kill the person, or turn them into vampires, you’d have a lot of people walking around with bite marks on their necks.
So adding onto Dan Helsing’s work in the area, everyone would be vampires, dead, or would have more bite marks on their necks than a teenager leaving the movie theatre on a Friday night.
I don’t get payed for my logic either.
posted by DW227 on 7-12-2008 at 12:48 am
My feeling is that if there were vampires, most of them would be harmless, for the most part. They would most likely be metally retarded or in comas, due to brain damage brought on through combat, alcohol, whatever. If brain cells don’t reproduce easily when someone’s alive, they surely won’t when one’s (un)dead.
posted by TorgosPizza on 12-1-2008 at 9:39 pm
You forget that we keep the vampire population down by killing them whenever we get the chance. ;)
posted by John Heylin on 2-3-2009 at 6:04 pm
I’d just like to point out that people who take the time to read through this many comments, just comment that the rest of us have too much time on our hands, is clearly calling the kettle black.
And since when are werewolves and zombies immortal?
posted by Bored Stiff on 2-3-2009 at 6:21 pm
I’m pretty sure that Mr. Efthimiou is in on the game. He knows about the regular feedings of vampires and how they each are on a monthly schedule and teach their new vapmires to be on the same schedule through a series of instructions and time-keeping instruments. Mr. Efthimiou, being a mathematician, could also very probably be a clock-maker.
It really starts with the first vampire (”Adam”…or is it “Costas”?) who builds a small pocket watch to give to each of the humans he turns into vampires. He also leaves instructions for building new monthly-pocket watches. These pocket-sized, lunar-based devices tell the new vampires when to feed. They, in turn, change new humans into vampires and leave them a newly built pocket watch, like clockwork.
Only now, not only is the entire human race not comprised of vampires, but the earth is also not littered with pocket watches…
posted by nate on 2-3-2009 at 6:24 pm
This fellow is obviously thinking of a Stoker vampire. Those people bitten by Dracula and his decedents reportedly became vampires (dead or not) unless the vampire or someone else put a stake though the victim’s heart and cut off their head.
Of course, more recent vampire myths realized that things would become frightfully hard on the vampire if scores of headless, staked bodies started showing up every time he/she moved into town. For that reason, modern fiction holds that, not only do does a fairly elaborate something-or-other (legends vary) have to happen for a person to become a vampire, but also, vampires have no real need to kill for their sustenance, some stories even claiming that said vampire can survive for a time on animal blood. (Other authors go into things like stealing from blood banks and such).
posted by JessiLee on 2-3-2009 at 6:51 pm
A month later…
there lies the crux. Why a month? Why not a year or a decade?
posted by Ashwin on 2-3-2009 at 6:58 pm
If a vampire sucks and doesn’t blow back into the victim, then the victim will not become a vampire.
So remember to always suck and do not blow.
posted by LeprousThang on 2-3-2009 at 7:41 pm
The Bram Stoker Dracula would not kill his victims. He would simply swoop in and drain some blood slowly over a lengthly period of time. The victim would not become a vampire until their death, at which time after a short period of actual death the persons body would become reanimated with the special powers imbued to it by the vampire that bit it.
The doctor is obviously not taking into account the idea that vampires might be self-regulating their numbers, keeping a few vampires to live off of a couple thousand victims. Obviously turning all of their food into more of themselves would be idiotic, and assuming that vampires are dumb goes against all the literature on the issue (except for dumb zombie-vampire-stripper movies, that are still quite entertaining).
posted by Ryan on 2-3-2009 at 8:09 pm
Even if some vampires don’t turn all their victims into vampires, others certainly will. Eventually, a malthusian limit will be reached where the population won’t be able to sustain itself on the limited natural resources available.
Internal vampire wars will break out and famine will strike!
posted by free mmorpgs on 2-3-2009 at 10:00 pm
This argument kinda reminds me of a religious debate about whether or not god exists
posted by Ash on 2-3-2009 at 10:17 pm
The real waste of time about this is as follows: people who already don’t believe in vampires won’t need any kind of mathematical justification for their disbelief. Those people that do believe in vampires will generally suffer from ‘True Believer Syndrome’ and wouldn’t be swayed by any argument.
One other flaw in this argument is that it doesn’t take into account slayers like Buffy Sommers, who would be like predators to the vampires and would help keep them in check. Something else to keep in mind is that there are no published works that suggest how often vampires need to feed. Is it every night, every other night, every fortnight, or on alternating new moons?
What I would like to see is how many creationists it take to ruin the world…
posted by Ryan on 2-3-2009 at 10:43 pm
They may be mathematically impossible, but they’re still theoretically terrifying.
posted by Phil on 2-3-2009 at 10:48 pm
You all have it wrong….vampires and werewolves are seen everyday on tv and the internet so they MUST be REAL!
posted by WAGS on 2-3-2009 at 11:53 pm
I jump back to the point that someone made about human reproduction, which this math ignores completely.
posted by itemforty on 2-4-2009 at 2:25 pm
First off like vampires werewolves do not have to bite some one every time they turn. How ever they do have to feed, a werewolves being fricken wolf monster they don’t just suck your blood or harmlessly bite you. THEY EAT YOU. Their nothing left so you not going to become a werewolf your just a werewolf snack. You only turn into a werewolf if you are bitten and not killed. Which if a werewolf bites it wants to eat you and unless your really fast or happen to have an elephant gun on you, your not going to get away with only a small bite.
Summary You only turn into a werewolf if you some how survive the initial werewolf attack, with only a minor bite, get away and survive till the next full moon. This means you have ample time to bleed out, or die of complications from being attacked by a fricken wolf monster.
Now on to vampires vampires don’t have to turn you either. They could just suck you dry and leave you on the side of the road. so basically what i’m saying is that the guy with the “Logic proof” is retarded or just vaguely grasps the concept of vampires and werewolves.
On a final note i would just like to add that The recent pop culture vampire reference known as “Twilight” is a disgraceful representation to the concept of a vampire and the man that spawned the idea of a vampire Vlad the Impaler. Long live the Likens!
posted by The voice of reason on 2-4-2009 at 4:39 pm
The population figure he used sounds like he pulled it out of his ass.
posted by zero on 2-4-2009 at 5:09 pm
Count Dracula is on the pull in Glasgow.
He spends the night drinking Bloody Mary’s in various clubs and biting on unsuspecting women’s necks. He is heading for home, wandering along Argyle street sometime before sunrise.
Suddenly he is hit on the back of the head. He looks round and sees nothing. He looks down and sees a small sausage roll. Mmmm, he thinks. What’s going on here. A few yards further on and… BANG! Smacked on the back of the head again! He whirls round as quick as he can, nothing.
Again he looks down and there is a small triangular sandwich lying on the ground. How odd! A few yards further along the street and… crash. Smacked on the back of the head again! He whirls round as quick as he can, nothing. He’s getting really angry now. Again he looks down and there is a cocktail sausage lying on the ground. He stands and peers into the darkness of the night.
Nothing.
He walks a few yards further on when he gets a tap on the shoulder. With a swirl of his cape and a cloud of mist he turns as fast as he can. He feels a sharp pain in his heart. He falls to the ground clutching his chest, which is punctured by a small cocktail stick laden with a chunk of cheese and a pickle. On the ground dying, he looks up and sees a young female. With his dying breath he gasps, who the f**k are you?
She replies, my name is………..
Buffet, the Vampire slayer.
posted by no on 2-4-2009 at 6:51 pm
It does prove however, that Mr. Efthimiou is in dire need of a workload.
posted by spectre on 2-4-2009 at 7:12 pm
I am shocked – shocked! – to find out we are all, and have long been, vampires!
posted by yorktank on 2-4-2009 at 7:39 pm
I’m sure there’s some floss hanging from your ears on this one! Where’s the mental in this or maybe it takes a lack thereof to get around this spending of money on useless research.
The world is falling apart and your worried about weather or not vampires are mathematically possible?
I’ll save you a bunch of money ” they don’t exist” now give those ill spent tax dollars back to the tax payers.
Try mentally working on solutions instead of fables.
posted by Jason on 2-4-2009 at 9:28 pm
I’m sure there’s some floss hanging from your ears on this one!
Where’s the mental in this or maybe it takes a lack thereof to get around this spending of money on useless research.
The world is falling apart and your worried about weather or not vampires are mathematically possible?
I’ll save you a bunch of money ” they don’t exist now give those ill spent tax dollars back to the tax payers.
posted by Jason on 2-4-2009 at 9:30 pm
Okay, this is mathematically plausible except for three things:
1) This was the known human population in 1600. It is entirely plausible that there were more humans in areas that were not discovered by Europeans yet. Therefore, the entire human population being turned within two months does not work here. Theoretically, if the population was indeed the number given, the so it is, however…
2)Vampires do not always turn their victims, but rather use them for continued sustenance. A human “cattle” population would be preferable to feeding yourself out of existence.
3)Get a job! I cannot believe that you get paid for this.
posted by Lamia Larry on 2-4-2009 at 11:26 pm
So let me get this straight.
He’s saying that every person ever bitten by a vampire automatically becomes a vampire.
*slow claps* Way to invalidate every vampire story there is.
Also: if one is to follow the Charlaine Harris line of thought concerning werewolves and other such shapeshifters, this logic still does not follow. A person bitten by a shifter does not automatically become a shifter themselves. There must be repeated bitings, over an extended period of time. And the resulting creature would be dissimilar from either a true shifter or a true human.
posted by blufindr on 2-5-2009 at 5:00 am
I think we’re also forgetting to add the natural birth and death rate to the equation. Might throw the numbers off somewhat.
posted by Cancerman on 2-5-2009 at 8:53 am
What about accounting for Vampire hunters?
posted by chvnx on 2-5-2009 at 8:58 am
You guys are looking at this all wrong, this guy is right.
We all did become vampires. But then, due to a lack of food supply many of us died, but some of us evolved. The humans we have today are the descendants of vampires who adapted to survive on what food supply we have.
This of course, happened many years ago. Now there are vampires who have devolved back, but they live in hiding for fear of being killed to prevent another catastrophe.
posted by Deanna on 2-5-2009 at 9:08 pm
Little known “facts”…
Vampires don’t need specifically human blood to survive, they just need to take in a humans life force.
The average human lives only to be around 30, and can sustain themselves off of sunlight alone.
Vampires can’t sustain themselves off of sunlight.
In 1632, a vampire came about with a strange mutation. One that let him live in sunlight and have children via birth (these children were also vampires). However, instead of living forever, they lived only around 70 years.
In 1659, he married another vampire mutant. This one had gained the ability suck life from humans at a range, and pull life energy from recently dead things by devouring parts of them.
The children of these two vampires, and their prodigy, proceeded to convert all of humanity into vampires, as predicted by the math. The old fashioned vampires died off due to lack of humans, and the new vampires had to resort to devouring dead things in absence of range-suckable humans.
And that’s why we need to eat to survive instead of using sunlight.
And as my great grandfather used to say, “If it’s not true, it oughta be.”
posted by Me on 2-6-2009 at 8:01 pm
Yer like applying rational logic to our irrational fears is ever going to work, who said the first vampire was created in the 1600’s. My own myth points to Cain the first murderer being the first who feed on the blood of his fellow man (or at least gained temporary power from spilling it) So by his logic aoolied to that particular myth the human race would never have even started and given that Eve was the only female around you really dont want to think to much about that relationship and how inbreed that would make us all. Added to which this doesn’t take into account that vamps can allegedly sleep for centuries (A version of the slumbering eternal evil that has always haunted mankinds dreams perhaps) or the fact they can supossedly feed from the same victim more than once with out killing them or turning them. Using logic to debunk unimaginative, illogical hollywood sterio types is just an excersise in futility. Applying it to the illogical tides of humanities subconcious is just dumb. Maybe if he’d used pyhchology to point out that an immortal is likely to become listless and depressed to the point of suicide (death being the only thing they can’t achieve and there for the most appealing and the finality of life being the thing that gives it value) then it would have been a more intresting debunk.
posted by Loa on 2-6-2009 at 9:44 pm
I hate to be all “Captain Buzz Kill”, but the earliest vampire myth predates Stoker’s Dracula–Dracula is a literary work, whereas myths are a part of folk beliefs. Vampires were believed to be the cause of epidemics–usually the first in the village to die from it was blamed for coming back for the rest, starting with their own family.
And yeah, I so need a life………..
posted by taarzaan on 2-7-2009 at 1:10 am
My research into Eastern European vampirific mythologies has shown the mean blood needs of a vampire to be in the 1.275 liters (using the Rotardeau Ratio) per Hexicanical period (approximately 7.9 months.) Therefore, the conclusions of the post are suspect (to say the least.)
posted by woundedduck on 2-7-2009 at 1:28 am
So back on Dr. E’s theory of vampires feeding once a month…There is a very simple explanation to this problem that everyone seems to overlook. Since vampires (if they indeed exist) obviously haven’t changed the entire world into their kind the only logical way they could constantly feed without killing off or turning their victims is to visit once a month to feed, that is on every female when they are at the turning point of puberty, thus leading to a week or so of excruciating bleeding we humans pass off as normal.
The human woman’s period is the only logical way vampires could still exist and feed without evoking the suspicion of society to this day.
posted by lxvantess on 2-7-2009 at 1:42 am
After reading the foregoing commentaries it’s obvious to me that the only people who are not wasting their time on non-existent creatures are Anne Rice, Sarah Geller and General Mills. And I thought the arguments over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin were inane! Please, kiddies, you have prefrontal lobes; start using them. The Middle Ages are over.
posted by Sangre on 2-7-2009 at 5:11 pm
As far as I believe, math does not apply to Vampires
posted by Brijesh on 2-8-2009 at 12:18 am
whoever said that dracula is the oldest vampire myth apparently knows little about the vampire myth.
posted by matt on 2-8-2009 at 12:23 pm
well if he would have taken a better look at the statistics of human population, if and im not saying this happens if a vampire always makes a new one at the rate of human dieing and living the population would still play very steady. that fact though vampires “don’t HAVE to turn another person” it would still be illogical and wrong. now many “believe” they are real and sadly and very strangely many believe they are one you’ll just have to know vampires are NOT real unless the government and the media are hiding “vampire attacks” from the public. You never see breaking news man murdered in sleep bite marks on neck possibly an animal or vampire. not saying there is no prove their not there or they never were her they may have been no prove saying otherwise aliens may have visited the Greek gods could have been real and heck the tooth faerie could be real too.
posted by john j lol on 3-7-2009 at 9:32 pm
We are NOT FREAKS!
posted by CaptainDrac on 3-15-2009 at 10:32 am
what if there wasent human around this vampire and he only feed from animals and so on….later they feed from humans.Maybe.
posted by pamela on 4-13-2009 at 12:03 am
Well….. Just because one doesn’t believe in Vampires, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. What we believe is our truth, even if that belief neglects what is real. Human history is very twisted. Undead can be made up of finite light units whose atoms don’t vibrate. Vampires ghouls and goblins are kindergarden in comparisson to the multitude of various other REAL horrors that have been, will be, and are cohabitating with us in/on this mother Earth. We are birthed from the infinite light that spans the sands of time. Darkness does come through our fine star and casts its blackening light as in a Shadow Dance. Clarity leads our direction and unconditional love guides our thoughts to bring in the long forgotten birthright to embody our eternal divine expression(s) once again.
Well…… gotta go. My buddies Lestat, Numono, Count and Vad are coming over for dinner……….
posted by Eckasha on 7-1-2009 at 12:44 am