The Ghostie Boy photo thread

General Discussion About Anything Amityville And Other Paranormal Topics
User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Streaming on Twitch from the red room
Posts: 718

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Amit Y Ville » Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:33 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:25 am
Thanks for the link, but they got all their info straight from this board. It was our own Maxwell Smart (msmart112) who tracked Paul down and got in contact with him. Max posted about it here.

Max sent him that email in 2008.

And there is a lot more evidence in this very thread. But I suspect some people will want to believe what's in their heart rather than what the evidence seems to show. That's okay. But it doesn't make it true.
I mean, you yourself called it the ghost boy but then go on to say it's not a child... bit contradictory.

And since when is a few emails to someone claiming to be involved in the Warrens gospel? That's "solid evidence" to you? Sorry but that is laughable. If you have him on video with evidence he was Warrens assistant, admitting it was him that would change matters.

Lastly, knowing the two points above, it should be the case that others can come to the conclusion its a true ghost boy.
Had to have high, high hopes for a living - Panic! At The Disco

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11904

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:34 pm

Others can come to any conclusions they desire. I am defending MY position. I'm not telling you that you must believe everything that I do. But when someone attacks my position, I will defend it.

Unless there's something else to do. Like take a long nap or something. In that case, I might not respond.
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:33 pm
you yourself called it the ghost boy but then go on to say it's not a child... bit contradictory.
Oh my God. You did not just say that. :fp: Thanks for the laugh.

The photo is known as "the ghost boy photo." That is the name given to it by others; that is the popular name which it is known by; and therefore, that is how I refer to it. Doing so does not mean I believe it to be a photo of a ghost.

There is a real crappy rollercoaster near me called the "Super Thrill Coaster." But despite it's pretentious name, it, in fact, has no thrills at all. It is an exceptionally tame and boring amusement park ride.

Now if I were to point at that coaster and say, "Hey, that right there is the Super Thrill Coaster," this would not be a case of me telling you that I personally find the coaster to contain super thrills. I am simply referring to it by it's given name. Same with the ghostie boy photo -- I am referring to it by its popular name.

You see, if I refer to "the Paul Bartz photo," everyone would respond with, "What the hell is that? What are you talking about?" But if I refer to "the ghost boy photo," everyone knows the photo that I am talking about.

I mean what stupid point are you trying to make with that? Are you trying to say that I secretly believe it to be a ghost and that I slipped-up or something??? "Oh look, Dan tripped-up and confessed that it's really a ghost!" Is that your point? 'Cause that's pretty amazingly ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as me needing to spell this all out for you...
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:33 pm
And since when is a few emails to someone claiming to be involved in the Warrens gospel?
I'm assuming you meant to write "involved with the Warrens." The way you've written this makes it sound like the Warrens have written a gospel and that Paul Bartz is claiming to have written it with them.

Simple answer: Paul did not contact us. We did our homework and we tracked his ass down.

Paul did work with the Warrens. That is not a secret. The Warrens admit it. There are photos of Paul there, in the house that night (the night the Warrens investigated the house) side by side with Lorraine. His name and story from that night has been published back in the 70s and is part of the public record.

Paul was there. Paul used to work with the Warrens, and was working with them that night. Later on, Paul actually acted as the Warrens' manager.
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:33 pm
That's "solid evidence" to you?
Never said it was solid evidence. Evidence, yes, but not definitive. Nevertheless, it is one piece of a puzzle. An important piece. And that puzzle in toto is enough to convince me of the theory that this is nothing more than an ordinary photo of Paul Bartz. And if that is true, then I think the Warrens did a dishonest thing in not informing George that it was Paul in the photo.
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:33 pm
If you have him on video with evidence he was Warrens assistant, admitting it was him that would change matters.
There is no need for him to prove that he was the Warrens' assistant. The proof is out there. In fact, the proof is in this very thread (which I still doubt you've bothered to read).

As for him "admitting it was him," well, if you can't read between the lines in the email he sent back to us, then there's no way in hell that having him on video saying, "Hi guys, that was me," is gonna change your mind.
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:33 pm
Lastly, knowing the two points above, it should be the case that others can come to the conclusion its a true ghost boy.
So my theory is invalid because I refer to the photo as "the ghost boy photo" and because I don't have Paul on video saying it was him in the picture? Okay. Whatever. :breakdance:

User avatar
Exmortis
Amityville Member
Posts: 12
Location: Ottawa Canada

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Exmortis » Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:10 am

Dan I wouldn't bother debating, it's a waste on this person.

User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Streaming on Twitch from the red room
Posts: 718

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Amit Y Ville » Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:07 pm

Exmortis wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:10 am
Dan I wouldn't bother debating, it's a waste on this person.
No need to get disrespectful or offensive to Dan. It's his opinion and he's entitled to it, no matter how right or wrong. Flinging mud like that isn't making this a better place, considering no one barely posts here any more.

Let's keep it civil, eh? 8-)
Had to have high, high hopes for a living - Panic! At The Disco

User avatar
Exmortis
Amityville Member
Posts: 12
Location: Ottawa Canada

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Exmortis » Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:08 pm

Amit Y Ville wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:07 pm
Exmortis wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:10 am
Dan I wouldn't bother debating, it's a waste on this person.
No need to get disrespectful or offensive to Dan. It's his opinion and he's entitled to it, no matter how right or wrong. Flinging mud like that isn't making this a better place, considering no one barely posts here any more.

Let's keep it civil, eh? 8-)
I was talking about you.

You've insulted his integrity over and over and you're oblivious of it.

Maybe follow your own advice

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11904

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:17 pm

Still unsure if Amit Y Ville is oblivious or playing games. Kinda annoying either way.

I should send the ghostie boy to haunt him...

:horrormovie:

User avatar
DC Fan
Amityville Addict
Posts: 373

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by DC Fan » Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:12 pm

Amit Y Ville wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:33 pm
If you have him on video with evidence he was Warrens assistant, admitting it was him that would change matters.
Bartz didn't deny that it was him either. Why is the onus upon us to show Bartz admitting it was him in the photo rather than the onus being upon you to have him denying it was him? Where's your video? He was working for a pro-haunting organization and Lorraine claimed their visit to the house was the closest she came to being in hell. We don't know for sure but it seems to me that if it wasn't Bartz in the photo, he would have denied it.

User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Streaming on Twitch from the red room
Posts: 718

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Amit Y Ville » Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:53 am

DC Fan wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:12 pm
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:33 pm
If you have him on video with evidence he was Warrens assistant, admitting it was him that would change matters.
Bartz didn't deny that it was him either. Why is the onus upon us to show Bartz admitting it was him in the photo rather than the onus being upon you to have him denying it was him? Where's your video? He was working for a pro-haunting organization and Lorraine claimed their visit to the house was the closest she came to being in hell. We don't know for sure but it seems to me that if it wasn't Bartz in the photo, he would have denied it.
Well it's simple. Dan said it counts as if Paul said it wasn't him, when Paul didn't deny it was him AT ALL. He who makes claims like that should back them up, or not say them.

So can we all agree Paul didn't say anything about it being him? Since it appears there is some backpedalling being done now?
Had to have high, high hopes for a living - Panic! At The Disco

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11904

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:08 am

Amit Y Ville wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:53 am
Well it's simple. Dan said it counts as if Paul said it wasn't him, when Paul didn't deny it was him AT ALL. He who makes claims like that should back them up, or not say them.
I never said that. Again, you have my position on the matter totally mangled and backwards.

Let me ask you a question.

Paul said that his admiration for the Warrens prevents him from confirming or denying that it was him in the photograph.

Why would this be the case if it wasn't him in the photograph?

If Paul declared that it wasn't him in the photograph, that would help to back-up the Warrens' claim. It would be a statement that the Warrens would appreciate. Hugs and kisses all around between Paul and Lorraine Warren.

So what's holding him back?

Think about it.

Give me an answer to this question if you can.

User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Streaming on Twitch from the red room
Posts: 718

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Amit Y Ville » Mon Oct 29, 2018 12:01 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:08 am
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:53 am
Well it's simple. Dan said it counts as if Paul said it wasn't him, when Paul didn't deny it was him AT ALL. He who makes claims like that should back them up, or not say them.
I never said that. Again, you have my position on the matter totally mangled and backwards.

Let me ask you a question.

Paul said that his admiration for the Warrens prevents him from confirming or denying that it was him in the photograph.

Why would this be the case if it wasn't him in the photograph?

If Paul declared that it wasn't him in the photograph, that would help to back-up the Warrens' claim. It would be a statement that the Warrens would appreciate. Hugs and kisses all around between Paul and Lorraine Warren.

So what's holding him back?

Think about it.

Give me an answer to this question if you can.
Its pretty obvious it's not him! What a silly question to ask. If you asked me if I was being paid off by the Warrens, I wouldn't answer either. Too stupid a question to even bring attention to.

Let me put it this way. If someone asked you if you hadn't had a partner your whole life and were still a virgin, would you answer? So if you fail to answer, by your logic, it makes that statement true. THIS is what you're saying.
Had to have high, high hopes for a living - Panic! At The Disco

User avatar
DC Fan
Amityville Addict
Posts: 373

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by DC Fan » Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:34 pm

Amit Y Ville wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 12:01 pm
Its pretty obvious it's not him!
No it's not obvious and Dan's question is legit.

The general rule of debating is that the person taking the positive position goes first and has the onus of presenting reasons for his position, even where absolute proof cannot be obtained. Nothing Dan the Damned says or how you interpret what he says changes this. Normally all of us, including you, assume that a human image in a photo is of a living person. You claim that it's a ghost and that Bartz would have affirmed that it was him in the photo if it was him.

I'm wondering what you make of the adult-length left arm argument.

You might argue that photo interpretation is somewhat subjective, but my experience is still that once I see that long arm, I cannot un-see it.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11904

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:19 am

Amit Y Ville wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 12:01 pm
If someone asked you if you hadn't had a partner your whole life and were still a virgin, would you answer? So if you fail to answer, by your logic, it makes that statement true. THIS is what you're saying.
In no way is this what I am saying. But hang in there -- you'll find someone...

I'm not saying that "Paul didn't answer the question, therefore it was him."

What I am saying is that Paul didn't answer the question, but he gave us some very strong hints that his answer would have been yes. I then went on to describe those hints in detail and also studied what he had to lose and/or gain in replying "yes" or "no."

I honestly can't believe why you are having trouble understanding my posts. (And by that, I don't mean "believing what I believe -- I'm just talking about understanding the points I am making.)
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 12:01 pm
If you asked me if I was being paid off by the Warrens, I wouldn't answer either. Too stupid a question to even bring attention to.
That's right. That would be a stupid question. And that's why I didn't ask that question. Now please stick to the topic instead of muddying the waters with your nonsense.

If Paul was being paid off by the Warrens, then his answer would have been "No, it was not me."

I do not think, nor have I ever thought, that Paul was being paid-off by the Warrens. That is clear by what he wrote to us.

I'll try one more time:

Paul stated that his "great admiration" for the Warrens is preventing him from saying if he was the person who appears in the "Ghostie Boy Photo." In other words, he doesn't want to say or do anything that would negatively affect them. Can we agree on that point? Can we agree that "because I have great respect and admiration for the Warrens, I will say no more on the issue" means that he does not want to contradict their story?

If we can not agree on that, please explain why. Please explain what else that can possibly mean.

Now, if we do agree on that, let's continue:

This statement would NOT MAKE ANY SENSE if his answer was "no." For that answer would not contradict the Warrens or the Lutzes. In fact, that answer would support the Warrens and the Lutzes. So this would not fall into the category of "I can't say, due to my admiration for the Warrens."

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

The only way Paul's "admiration" statement makes any sense is if he wanted to tell us, "Yes, it was me." If Paul said that, then yes, that would contradict what the Warrens and the Lutzes have said about this photograph. That would be a bad thing to do to someone you hold great admiration and respect for.

I think Paul wrote his response to us very carefully. And I believe this was his way of confirming that it was him (without saying so directly, so that he couldn't be accused of going against the Warrens).



Let's go back to your silly "virgin argument."

You say that if I asked someone if they had a partner, their failure to answer would mean they had never had a partner.

But to make this closer to what I am saying, it would go more like this:

I ask Jan Brady if she had a boyfriend. Jan stammers and stutters and gets all flustered, and finally blurts out, "Why yes -- of course I have a boyfriend" in a very defensive manner.

I then ask Jan what her boyfriend's name is, and I see her glancing at a picture of George Washington before answering, "His name is George."

"What is his last name, Jan?"

"Oh, his last name?" she replies, suddenly confused. She looks at a glass on the table and suddenly answers, "Glass. His name is George Glass!"

Now, in this situation, yes, I would be pretty damn certain that Jan did NOT have a freakin' boyfriend...


User avatar
vomit
Amityville Addict
Posts: 124

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by vomit » Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:09 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:19 am
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 12:01 pm
If someone asked you if you hadn't had a partner your whole life and were still a virgin, would you answer? So if you fail to answer, by your logic, it makes that statement true. THIS is what you're saying.
In no way is this what I am saying. But hang in there -- you'll find someone...

I'm not saying that "Paul didn't answer the question, therefore it was him."

What I am saying is that Paul didn't answer the question, but he gave us some very strong hints that his answer would have been yes. I then went on to describe those hints in detail and also studied what he had to lose and/or gain in replying "yes" or "no."

I honestly can't believe why you are having trouble understanding my posts. (And by that, I don't mean "believing what I believe -- I'm just talking about understanding the points I am making.)
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 12:01 pm
If you asked me if I was being paid off by the Warrens, I wouldn't answer either. Too stupid a question to even bring attention to.
That's right. That would be a stupid question. And that's why I didn't ask that question. Now please stick to the topic instead of muddying the waters with your nonsense.

If Paul was being paid off by the Warrens, then his answer would have been "No, it was not me."

I do not think, nor have I ever thought, that Paul was being paid-off by the Warrens. That is clear by what he wrote to us.

I'll try one more time:

Paul stated that his "great admiration" for the Warrens is preventing him from saying if he was the person who appears in the "Ghostie Boy Photo." In other words, he doesn't want to say or do anything that would negatively affect them. Can we agree on that point? Can we agree that "because I have great respect and admiration for the Warrens, I will say no more on the issue" means that he does not want to contradict their story?

If we can not agree on that, please explain why. Please explain what else that can possibly mean.

Now, if we do agree on that, let's continue:

This statement would NOT MAKE ANY SENSE if his answer was "no." For that answer would not contradict the Warrens or the Lutzes. In fact, that answer would support the Warrens and the Lutzes. So this would not fall into the category of "I can't say, due to my admiration for the Warrens."

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

The only way Paul's "admiration" statement makes any sense is if he wanted to tell us, "Yes, it was me." If Paul said that, then yes, that would contradict what the Warrens and the Lutzes have said about this photograph. That would be a bad thing to do to someone you hold great admiration and respect for.

I think Paul wrote his response to us very carefully. And I believe this was his way of confirming that it was him (without saying so directly, so that he couldn't be accused of going against the Warrens).



Let's go back to your silly "virgin argument."

You say that if I asked someone if they had a partner, their failure to answer would mean they had never had a partner.

But to make this closer to what I am saying, it would go more like this:

I ask Jan Brady if she had a boyfriend. Jan stammers and stutters and gets all flustered, and finally blurts out, "Why yes -- of course I have a boyfriend" in a very defensive manner.

I then ask Jan what her boyfriend's name is, and I see her glancing at a picture of George Washington before answering, "His name is George."

"What is his last name, Jan?"

"Oh, his last name?" she replies, suddenly confused. She looks at a glass on the table and suddenly answers, "Glass. His name is George Glass!"

Now, in this situation, yes, I would be pretty damn certain that Jan did NOT have a freakin' boyfriend...

Ahh yes......the Brady Bunch....a 70s classic. Jan was crazy. The crazy middle sibling. And more believable than the Warrens.

Blatz for you all.
"In the Spring, we'd make meat helmets."
Dr. Evil

User avatar
devilbustedinct
Walking the Burning Fence
Posts: 720
Contact:

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by devilbustedinct » Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:10 pm

Dan, I think this guy is just pushing your buttons. It’s obvious no amount of common sense or logical deduction will help. You can’t fix stupid. Now I’m not calling him or anyone stipid, but I think the saying has some merit here. You have clearly provided your valid key points over and over and made it very clear with good evidence. It seems a waste of time to me. I felt the same way with Evanguy; a super nice trusting fellow that despite contradictory evidence presented to him over and over still chose to believe the Warrens because they lived in the next town over and he met her at the Big Y and nd she was sweet. She has to be for real!!! I’m not knocking anybody, but I have learned the hard way people are going to believe what they want to, no matter what evidence you present. You’re wasting your time. This thread explained the “ghost boy” (disclaimer: not a ghost) to me very well. If someone has dug this far, has read all this, and still chooses to believe the Warrens, there is little or no hope for them so why bother? I appreciate this thread more than any other (except for the ones I wrote of course). Continue to fight the good fight. Just don’t waste good ammo.

User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Streaming on Twitch from the red room
Posts: 718

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Amit Y Ville » Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:58 am

devilbustedinct wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:10 pm
Dan, I think this guy is just pushing your buttons. It’s obvious no amount of common sense or logical deduction will help. You can’t fix stupid. Now I’m not calling him or anyone stipid, but I think the saying has some merit here. You have clearly provided your valid key points over and over and made it very clear with good evidence. It seems a waste of time to me. I felt the same way with Evanguy; a super nice trusting fellow that despite contradictory evidence presented to him over and over still chose to believe the Warrens because they lived in the next town over and he met her at the Big Y and nd she was sweet. She has to be for real!!! I’m not knocking anybody, but I have learned the hard way people are going to believe what they want to, no matter what evidence you present. You’re wasting your time. This thread explained the “ghost boy” (disclaimer: not a ghost) to me very well. If someone has dug this far, has read all this, and still chooses to believe the Warrens, there is little or no hope for them so why bother? I appreciate this thread more than any other (except for the ones I wrote of course). Continue to fight the good fight. Just don’t waste good ammo.
Sorry but this post is just offensive to me. There's no "fight" to be had here, we are all here for our interest in the Amityville. No matter if we believe it or not. So since we're a small group we shouldn't be alienating one side or the other.

I stopped posting out of respect for the owner of this forum because we couldn't come to an agreement. I didn't expect to get hunted and and be attacked.
Had to have high, high hopes for a living - Panic! At The Disco

User avatar
jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 687

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by jimmysmokes » Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:05 am

Well, I (on behalf of the entire board) would like to send out apologies to you Amit y ville. Deeply sorry for any offense you may have received here. I do hope you're ok and it doesn't leave emotional scarring of any sort that may lead to having counselling sessions?


I'm also sorry that a certain administrator wouldn't reach an "agreement" with you too, as well as most others on here. I know it can be difficult, but do keep in mind that common sense does pop-up in here from time to time! So if the "ghostie boy" gets your ghost, well you keep the faith my man! I still believe in Santa Claus myself, do to the fact that there was always wonderful presents under the tree on the 25th of December. But I can't figure out why the presents stopped when I reached a certain age? Maybe he doesn't like me anymore? And maybe the "ghostie boy" only liked Paul Bartz and The Warrens?

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11904

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:06 pm

devilbustedinct wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:10 pm
Dan, I think this guy is just pushing your buttons.
I was thinking the same thing. Or at least part of me was. But then I saw that post he made the other day in that thread about the Lutz audio tapes, and it's pretty clear that he doesn't bother to read everything that people have written. Almost like he just reads the first sentence of a post and leaves it at that.

And then to feign offense at your post. Pretty ridiculous. Sorry, ATV, but it is pretty ridiculous.

User avatar
Exmortis
Amityville Member
Posts: 12
Location: Ottawa Canada

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Exmortis » Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:45 am

Well he seems to think we need him here because of the lack of members posting. I would rather no posts then listen to the drivel he spews. He says he's being attacked but I've seen him call people stupid and other remarks....can't take it don't dish it.

User avatar
daiichi
Amityville Member
Posts: 76

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by daiichi » Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:18 am

bobbo wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:39 pm
I've tried and dispelled as "goofy" many attempts at rationalizing, explaining, or debunking the photo on the basis of the viewer's preconceived ideas of the Lutz haunting, and certainly the claim that the flannel shirt and glasses make it undeniably possible that the subject is the Warrens' pageboy, or whatever. Scaled down and sitting on the second step without his knees concealing his face? Well, heck. I guess, maybe.
I'm not sure what you mean about the second step. I'm looking at the photo and see a staircase in the foreground. But Bartz is not sitting on the second step (or any of the steps). He's kneeling down inside the bedroom (I believe it was Missy's room?) and peeking out the doorway at one of his cameras.

km2020
Amityville Member
Posts: 9

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by km2020 » Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:38 am

I didn't quite realize how old this thread is, so it has some time dust layered on it..lol. Anyway, let me add some things I think about the picture.

I don't know how the Lutz' came to copyright it as it was someone else who took the picture and I am sure I heard Laura Didio talking about it.

Let me say this, whatever it was took on the appearance of a little boy. It had intelligence and an awareness because when it peeked around the door, it looked straight at the camera. So if it had intelligence and was aware, then it has knowledge. It knew that there were adults in the house. So why it would appear only on camera as a little boy is because if an adult saw a little kid, the adult would not be afraid and consider it just the ghost of a little boy.

This is a common thing in hauntings, they appear as children because children are perceived as innocent. You are not threatened by a little kid. But notice some things, the little boy was wearing pajamas and its hair appeared combed. It was night when the picture was taken. So an adult would associate that with the time that children should be asleep.

This entity had a will and because of its intelligence, knowledge and will, it would have the capability to appear as anything it wanted and to do what it wanted. It has the power to manipulate people. Did it manipulate Ronnie? To a degree.

I know about this because the house my grandfather grew up in was haunted like this as well. His father was very cruel to children and as children, my mother, my siblings and I were aware of the presence of many things. Amityville Horror at the very base elements is no different than what millions have experienced. The reason so many people watched it and it so famous is because millions of people who watched it related to it. It is a shared experience.

I am not saying what Jay Anson wrote is true, that was done for commercial appeal. Even the Lutzs knew that. In 1974, interest in the occult was starting to become mainstream. What the Lutzs were saying about the basic elements of the haunting is believable, but they both were skeptics before moving there. They helped embellish a lot of the story, but at that base level, it is true because what they said about the base level has been experienced by those millions of people who now had a way to vindicate their experiences. And it is more common than people want to think.

The motif of a little boy or girl is the most common in hauntings. However, from what I know and understand, it would not have hurt Missy because of the nature of her innocence and that would protect her. Children are hurt by physical people. But what Ghost Boy did was way too often reported, according to George, he heard what sounded like a marching band. Yes, to hear music is common. Now whether or not Kathy looked like an old hag, I don't know about that. But I have been in houses as a paranormal investigator and have seen a gazillion flies in cold rooms. I am going to throw this out there and you can take it with how big of grains of salt you want, but there is a reason why the Bible calls the Devil Beelzebub. In Hebrew it is Ba'al (lord) zevuv (flies).

Even in Egypt flies were associated with spiritual things, and it is because flies eat the dead. The priest should have known this.

But don't let Ghost Boy fool you, he only appears to you as a little boy because you perceive him as just an innocent child who suffered something very traumatic. And his eyes glowed just like Jodie the pig.

There is literally a billion stories just like Amityville but those billion stories never get told. What Amityville did do was give people a voice to their own experiences.

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9868
Contact:

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by sherbetbizarre » Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:43 pm

km2020 wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:38 am
I don't know how the Lutz' came to copyright it as it was someone else who took the picture
George had the copyright because he had planned to put the pictures in a book one day.

Post Reply