There is NO proof of a haunting

General Discussion About Anything Amityville And Other Paranormal Topics
User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9519
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by sherbetbizarre » Sat Mar 23, 2019 4:45 pm

Amit Y Ville wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:24 am
Maybe the topic name should be changed or split into another, it's been derailed. Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum does not fit into the topic of one person denying the whole case and Dan having to explain everything. :fp:
Done!

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11555

Re: There is NO proof of a haunting

Post by Dan the Damned » Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:01 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:53 pm
We showed that Weber and Kaplan, along with Danny & Chris brought forth the hoax proof as well as some debunking for us all.
There is no "hoax proof." The people you mentioned offered claims and theories. None of which have proven the haunting to be a hoax.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 605

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:09 pm

sherbetbizarre wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 4:24 pm
jimmysmokes wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:53 pm
We have the books The Amityville Horror II and Amityville The Final Chapter for "documents".

I once in here pinned sherbetto down on this question and got him to admit that the claims in these subsequent books were "pretty much cash-ins"!
I wouldn't use the term "cash-in", but as John G Jones was told to avoid using real names and places (so no lawsuits, unlike the previous book) he went overboard with the fiction, so it's in no way a good account of what happened post-112.

George described these events of having a "half-life" - ie half as strong as in 112. And Christopher remembered way more incidents occurring during this period than he did in Amityville, saying something like, "we were only in that house for a month, but it followed us for years."

But as Dan says, this period has been woefully under-documented.

And you don't need to "pin" us down on anything to get answer! Too much smoke = paranoia? :lol:
Well you told me that man! and too much ass kissing makes for a fume to keep one in a fog! There was no incidents so lets admit defeat and you do the walk of shame.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 605

Re: There is NO proof of a haunting

Post by jimmysmokes » Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:13 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:01 pm
jimmysmokes wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:53 pm
We showed that Weber and Kaplan, along with Danny & Chris brought forth the hoax proof as well as some debunking for us all.
There is no "hoax proof." The people you mentioned offered claims and theories. None of which have proven the haunting to be a hoax.
Much hoax proof buddy! You got an education in here. You can now add Danny's in famous call to Kaplan since you now know who it was. :doh: Please add to your FAQ page now you know its true! :rotate:

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11555

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Dan the Damned » Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:46 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:56 pm
I want to add this here for you all. Might help some of you? Maybe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

My Oh My! Where have I heard these claims before?
Gee, where have we heard this before?

Oh, I know! We've heard it in this thread: Sleep Paralysis?

And it was mentioned in this thread: Explaining it all

And it was also mentioned in this thread: Ghostly Rape

And mentioned over here in this thread: Have you experienced any hauntings yourself?

And again mentioned in this thread: Your own horror

And once again mentioned in this other thread: Why are you SO sure?..

And for good measure, we've also talked about it here: Something rarely, if ever, mentioned

And here's yet another one from 3 years ago. You even participated in this thread, remember?: She hears voices in her head...

Again, you have brought forth nothing new. Yawn.


jimmysmokes wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:13 pm
Much hoax proof buddy! You got an education in here.
"Proof" would be "beyond the shadow of a doubt." No one has provided proof of a hoax. Just claims and theories and conjecture.

An education? That's a laugh. All you've done is regurgitate the same old stuff that we've been talking about on this forum for years. Perhaps I didn't know about Chris backing up the claim that Danny called Kaplan on the phone, but that doesn't prove anything. I don't think Kaplan is necessarily a liar. I just think he jumps to conclusions way too easily and fails to use his critical thinking skills, possibly blinded by a grudge he held against George for cancelling his big investigation.

But everything else you've posted has been mentioned on this forum over the years ad nauseam. You don't even bother reading the older threads, do you? You should read more and talk less. Way less...

User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Streaming on Twitch from the red room
Posts: 567

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Amit Y Ville » Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:00 am

jimmysmokes wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:17 pm
sherbetbizarre wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 4:45 pm
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:24 am
Maybe the topic name should be changed or split into another, it's been derailed. Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum does not fit into the topic of one person denying the whole case and Dan having to explain everything. :fp:
Done!
We're real sorry for amit y ville because he posts sh!t threads here and cant anyone to talk to him. :2guns:
But good news is on the way for him! New Amityville movie coming out entitled "Amityville Sucker".
Why don't you go have lick
Maybe if this person started listening to Dan and spending less time breaking the forum rules he would actually learn something. :fp:
"Everything's sliding into place. Just ONE more sacrifice Lisa."

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9519
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:02 am

Amit Y Ville wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:00 am
Maybe if this person started listening to Dan and spending less time breaking the forum rules he would actually learn something. :fp:
But then he wouldn't be the Jimmy we know and love!

User avatar
Brendan72
Forest Giant
Posts: 2954
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by Brendan72 » Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:48 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:46 pm
Gee, where have we heard this before?

Oh, I know! We've heard it in this thread: Sleep Paralysis?

And it was mentioned in this thread: Explaining it all

And it was also mentioned in this thread: Ghostly Rape

And mentioned over here in this thread: Have you experienced any hauntings yourself?

And again mentioned in this thread: Your own horror

And once again mentioned in this other thread: Why are you SO sure?..

And for good measure, we've also talked about it here: Something rarely, if ever, mentioned

And here's yet another one from 3 years ago. You even participated in this thread, remember?: She hears voices in her head...

Again, you have brought forth nothing new. Yawn.
After scrolling past the multiple quotes to get to the actual response (of the response responding to the response) has made me realised is there actually anything further to add to the whole Amityville discussion? Maybe it has run its course (for one person at least).

I am reminded of a plane flying on an empty tank having run out of fuel years ago and now only flying on fumes, long overdue to pick a runway and forever park in a hangar.
- Brendan72

"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."
- George Carlin. Comedian. (1937-2008)

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 605

Re: Roxanne Kaplan Slanders This Forum

Post by jimmysmokes » Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:30 pm

sherbetbizarre wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:02 am
Amit Y Ville wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:00 am
Maybe if this person started listening to Dan and spending less time breaking the forum rules he would actually learn something. :fp:
But then he wouldn't be the Jimmy we know and love!
Listen to what? Paint dry? I already showed him it’s debunked and by Dan and Chris themselves. Dan can’t stand that the story is a hoax! His personal feelings for George overtake his common sense. I no it’s hard but it’s time to give it up

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11555

Re: There is NO proof of a haunting

Post by Dan the Damned » Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:51 am

If you want to believe that, fine. But the fact remains that this case has not been debunked. You can claim otherwise until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true.

Sure, there might be discrepancies here and there. There might be unsubstantiated claims of a hoax. There might be fictional elements added to the story by others. But there is no concrete proof that an outright hoax has been committed.

Dan and Chris both say that the haunting really happened. They have some issues with certain things, but they have both said time and again that the haunting was real. You choose to overlook that very important aspect. Funny, that...

As for me -- I kinda wish the haunting WAS a hoax. Then I would have a definite answer one way or the other.

The realization that this case has not been debunked commits me to a life sentence of uncertainty; of wondering whether or not these things really happened. Waiting for an answer that I know will never come. Kinda like waiting for the Seattle Mariners or Washington Nationals to win the World Series...

User avatar
Amit Y Ville
Streaming on Twitch from the red room
Posts: 567

Re: There is NO proof of a haunting

Post by Amit Y Ville » Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:41 pm

Thing is, Jimmy is fake. He's as fake as the hoax he's accusing the Lutz's made. No one can be that dumb.
"Everything's sliding into place. Just ONE more sacrifice Lisa."

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11555

Re: There is NO proof of a haunting

Post by Dan the Damned » Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:35 pm

The following posts were deleted from this thread due to an accident:




daiichi wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:53 am
After all these years, I come back to visit and there are STILL people who believe this hoax. Wow! Even after it has been thoroughly debunked. Here's a refresher course of what REALLY happened:
  • George and Kathy Lutz liked the Amityville house and the neighborhood, and thought it'd be "cool" to live in a house with such a sordid history.
  • Even though they didn't have much money, they figured that they could buy the house at a discount and make it work out somehow.
  • They soon realized that the mortgage and boat payments were too much and they got cold feet. This happens to a lot of couples when they buy a house they can't afford.
  • George's land surveying business wasn't doing well, hence why he sat around the house all day, brooding in front of the fireplace and randomly checking the boat (bored and nothing to do).
  • They came up with the idea, along with DeFeo's lawyer, to concoct a BS story about a haunting (using elements of the Exorcist and other popular pop culture inspirations from the 1970s).
  • Claimed they called the police, but public records PROVE that this never happened.
  • Quietly walked away from their mortgage (didn't flee in the middle of the night)
  • Moved far away to avoid George's creditors. Or, as they'd like you to believe, because the ghosties followed them :think:








DC Fan wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:00 pm
One thing that has always bothered me about these hoax theories is that there never is any explanation about why, if Lutz considered himself such a great potential writer of horror fiction, he did not just try writing fiction and submitting it for publication as fiction. Stephen King and James Herbert were just starting off at that time but William Peter Blatty had already made a pile of money. Why share it with Jay Anson?

If Lutz had ever submitted this story before buying the house in Amityville, I would accept that as proof of a hoax.

And I wish someone would have gotten a hold of Lutz's and/or William H Parry's tax returns from the time in order to put to rest the question of whether his bank was being irrational in granting him the mortgage.







daiichi wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:15 pm
Most people aren't able to dedicate themselves to the task of writing a novel and completing it in full. And even if they do, it's probably going to be very amateur in quality and not marketable. I don't see why Lutz would be any exception to this. But for all we know, maybe he did try, and that's possibly what he was doing while moping around the house all day. Regardless, he and Kathy must have realized at some point that the only way they were going to produce a marketable product was with the help of an established writer under the premise of a "true" story about the survivors of a genuine haunted house that was already in headlines around the world due to the DeFeo familicide.







DC Fan wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:37 pm
Well, that's why I say if he did try submitting a manuscript I would accept it as proof of a hoax. But even if you try doing short stories and try getting an agent, you would figure out eventually if you're just not good enough. I would think if it were true of Lutz, someone would have come out with it by now that he tried his luck at being a writer and sucked.

Jay Anson was a Hollywood documentary hack that Lutz would have needed a publisher to find and it was the publisher who found him. The general public had never heard of him before.

Plus there is the issue of introducing risks if you buy a house you actually can't afford, if that part were true, in order to try to pull it off the way you describe it. Haunted house stories were not that big and Lutz would not have known in advance that his story would be a success. But the hoax people never want to listen to that one or acknowledge the speculation/knowledge distinction when the speculation is theirs.

And then there is the strange coincidence that this house, not being the first one Lutz toured, is the one having a boathouse where he could dock his boats, the basement where he could move his business and plenty of bedrooms to accommodate even the other two kids he had later with Kathy. So he wants to buy the scene of a murder to concoct a "true story" and it just happens to fit his needs?

Probably everyone here admits this hoax story is POSSIBLE but I don't think it's very likely to be true.




sherbetbizarre wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:26 pm
daiichi wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:53 am
  • George and Kathy Lutz liked the Amityville house and the neighborhood, and thought it'd be "cool" to live in a house with such a sordid history.
...what? :P
  • Even though they didn't have much money, they figured that they could buy the house at a discount and make it work out somehow.
...yep.
  • They soon realized that the mortgage and boat payments were too much and they got cold feet. This happens to a lot of couples when they buy a house they can't afford.
Speculation.
  • George's land surveying business wasn't doing well, hence why he sat around the house all day, brooding in front of the fireplace and randomly checking the boat (bored and nothing to do).
...Speculation!
  • They came up with the idea, along with DeFeo's lawyer, to concoct a BS story about a haunting (using elements of the Exorcist and other popular pop culture inspirations from the 1970s).
If so, why would they turned down all interviews beyond the initial press conference? The story they "created" was just getting hot!
  • Claimed they called the police, but public records PROVE that this never happened.
I don't think anyone checked the records back then. The police told Kaplan they never visited, but was that an attempt to stop the hype surrounding the story?
  • Quietly walked away from their mortgage (didn't flee in the middle of the night)
What about giving up the house and their possessions?
  • Moved far away to avoid George's creditors. Or, as they'd like you to believe, because the ghosties followed them :think:
Speculation!
And come on people... ghosts AREN'T REAL.
Ah, I see where you're coming from now :P






jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:38 pm
Lol, here we go again.

They turned down the interviews because they quietly walked away (breach of contract with Weber) for a new publisher & author. Thus trying to avoid any subsequent legal entanglements while high-tailing it to the west coast and disappearing so to speak. Obviously Weber eventually caught on and we know what that spurred. They did indeed give up the house, well it was repossessed by the bank. Not the mere speculation that Dan has on here (faq's/note pg) that they made payments up until Jun 76 :lol: and it's yet to be taken down and corrected? Oh yeah, you can here Laura Didio talk about it in the classic My Amityville Horror.

And what about their possessions they "left" behind? Are you forgetting that friends of George's went back the very next day and picked up some of those possessions? That's right people! Seems the Lutzes did retrieve a few items back from the house and left other junk they didn't want. Which leaves some of us wondering, how did these people go into that house the day after the family fled in terror and make it out just fine with no supernatural phenomenon occurring? Ahh yes it was just a coincidence. No wait, what am I saying? Sorry guys I forgot. The ghosties left the house when the Lutzes did and followed them that's why there were no ghosts!

Wait a minute here. :think: If the ghosts did exit the house and torment the Lutzes after they fled then why would it concern George & Kathy who ended up having the house? In other words they didn't want to be responsible for passing it on to unknowing buyers. But since the house was repossessed, George & Kathy had nothing to do with the house "passing" on to others. And why would George be concerned for others safety in that house? ANSWER- because it made it look like something indeed took place in the house.

But it all worked out well for everyone! Families came and went with no trouble while in the house and TAH went onto becoming the most celebrated haunted house of all time. :clap: And the Lutzes made some nice dough off of it and we still get new stories from time to time from family members.





sherbetbizarre wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:19 am
jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:38 pm
They turned down the interviews because they quietly walked away (breach of contract with Weber) for a new publisher & author. Thus trying to avoid any subsequent legal entanglements while high-tailing it to the west coast and disappearing so to speak.
I can see there's some logic in that... but there was no contract breach as they never signed one.

If they were just in it to hype up a book, there was nothing to stop them breaking away from Weber in public, and doing their own publicity there and then.
And what about their possessions they "left" behind? Are you forgetting that friends of George's went back the very next day and picked up some of those possessions?
It was never "the next day" - as everything was still there when the Warren's had their night there around two months later.

And anyway, the two friends only took a ceder trunk, with instructions not to stay too long, etc.





daiichi wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:59 am
sherbetbizarre wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:26 pm
daiichi wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:53 am
  • George and Kathy Lutz liked the Amityville house and the neighborhood, and thought it'd be "cool" to live in a house with such a sordid history.
...what? :P
Hi, thanks for your feedback! I haven't been in the game for awhile so I'll need dive in to my Amityville research again before I can circle back to your other points. I just remember doing some in-depth research of Amityville a few years ago and came to my conclusions about the Lutz family falling in love with the house and buying it, but quickly realizing that George's business was a wreck and they wouldn't be able to afford it. Oh, to be a fly on the wall of that house... they did have a lot of flies. Sadly none of them are alive and able to come on this forum to give us the full scoop. I once had a lot of flies in my house. But it was because I accidentally left a bag of trash in the garage for a couple weeks during the summer. Not ghosts.

But to make a long story short, those were all my conclusions. I could have specifics wrong here and there, because ultimately none of us know the details of The Lutz family finances or when precisely they came up with some of their ideas. But to the quoted point above, I would say that there are a lot of people who wouldn't mind living in a house where a grisly crime occurred, especially if it's in an otherwise good neighborhood and it was a domestic dispute. If I could get a good deal on the Amityville house, I'd happily buy it and move right in. It looks like a beautiful house. The one thing that would give me pause for thought would be the curiosity seekers that would occasionally knock on the door or look in the windows. That might get irritating.








sherbetbizarre wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:41 pm
daiichi wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:59 am
But to the quoted point above, I would say that there are a lot of people who wouldn't mind living in a house where a grisly crime occurred
They were obviously OK with it, but I've never heard anyone suggest they thought it was "cool" to live there before :)







jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:44 pm
sherbetbizarre wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:19 am
jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:38 pm
They turned down the interviews because they quietly walked away (breach of contract with Weber) for a new publisher & author. Thus trying to avoid any subsequent legal entanglements while high-tailing it to the west coast and disappearing so to speak.
I can see there's some logic in that... but there was no contract breach as they never signed one.

If they were just in it to hype up a book, there was nothing to stop them breaking away from Weber in public, and doing their own publicity there and then.
And what about their possessions they "left" behind? Are you forgetting that friends of George's went back the very next day and picked up some of those possessions?
It was never "the next day" - as everything was still there when the Warren's had their night there around two months later.

And anyway, the two friends only took a ceder trunk, with instructions not to stay too long, etc.
They were countersued for breach of contract by Weber. Regardless of them not signing the contract, when the judge threw out the Lutzes lawsuit and allowed Weber's to continue, they must have thought they were going to get hit bigtime and settled out of court. It's baffling to me why they sued in the first place? Just opened up a mess of legal trouble.

Yeah, they left beds and furniture and food behind. Those items can easily be replaced. So as far those things being left behind and untouched (when the investigators came in) doesn't really suggest much of anything. And when did these two friends come and remove the trunk? I believe it was more than that.

Other than what I suggested here, why didn't they do publicity then at that time?











sherbetbizarre wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:59 am
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:44 pm
They were countersued for breach of contract by Weber.
Yeah, because Weber retro-fitted this idea they had stolen it all from him. If true, he would have sued as soon as the Jay Anson book was announced, not after.
Regardless of them not signing the contract, when the judge threw out the Lutzes lawsuit and allowed Weber's to continue, they must have thought they were going to get hit bigtime and settled out of court.
They settled out of court when the Weber suit was progressing. Weber offered to settle.
It's baffling to me why they sued in the first place? Just opened up a mess of legal trouble.
The TAH publisher Prentice Hall made them sue Weber, to stop him selling the story before the book was even published. They made that decision after The Good Housekeeping article (which ironically was a great primer for the book)
Other than what I suggested here, why didn't they do publicity then at that time?
Because they didn't want any?










sherbetbizarre wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:30 am
And when did these two friends come and remove the trunk? I believe it was more than that.
A quote from George -
A couple of friends went back into the house and got the food and the clothes and gave those to the Salvation Army, and brought out the chest for us with some personal items. But that's the only things we took from the house.
Here's a passage from the abortive haunting-friendly book Ric Osuna was writing before he shacked up with Geraldine...
After consulting with Father Ray, [the Lutzes] asked a few of their closest friends to enter the house and prepare what they could for the Salvation Army. "They were warned by Father Ray that the only time they could enter the house was during Holy Week and only while it was daylight," recalls George. "They were also to say a special prayer prior to entering the house and stay no longer than one hour." During the time they were there, a special mass was being said by Father Ray.

Doug Capra, knew George Lutz for at least six years prior to moving in to the house in Amityville. Once Capra arrived at the house in Amityville, he went right to work.

At around noon George's other friend, Benny, arrived to help. After already staying longer than they were supposed to, Capra and Benny carried out a cedar chest -- the only thing the Lutzes were allowed by Fr. Ray to reclaim. During the hour Benny was there, his girlfriend stayed in the car refusing to go in the house. However, she eventually wandered into the garage where the two men had been checking on George's speed boat. "I was told she complained about feeling uneasy and returned to the car," says George. "A week later she was arrested for murdering Benny."
So around Easter '76?

He's wrong about Benny dying just a week later - he disappeared a few weeks later, and his body turned a few weeks after that.

His girlfriend didn't kill him herself, she got some local hoodlums to do it. And she had already planned this before sitting in the driveway of 112, before you accuse me of saying the house made her do it :P

More on the story here -

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5331





jimmysmokes wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:02 pm
Ahh, you're quoting Osuna now huh? :lol: And this piece with Fr. Ray I find absurd. What would have happened if they had stayed for two hours lol? This is George at his funniest! Come on sherbetto you can't buy this man?








jimmysmokes wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:57 pm
Why didn't Prentice Hall sue Weber themselves, it was Ansons book? Is that like the Weber conference they had to attend? So Weber had TAH story before the book came out? :P So The Lutzes did steal the idea from him! You just admitted it.

A great primer for the book- yeah I agree. A little lawsuit to drum up interest and future sales for the product to be sold.






sherbetbizarre wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:03 pm
jimmysmokes wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:57 pm
Why didn't Prentice Hall sue Weber themselves
Because there was no contract signed at that point. Not sure why... maybe as it was Anson's first book they wanted to see it finished first? Either way, Prentice Hall said they wouldn't take it on if other versions kept appearing.
So Weber had TAH story before the book came out?
Of course he did. How else would have Paul Hoffman written the New York Sunday News and Good Housekeeping articles that lead to the lawsuit?





DC Fan wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:27 am
It does not prove a haunting, but I will submit for consideration that I had stumbled upon some level of proof against the hoax theorist. In this forum in response to JimmySmokes:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11803&start=63
DC Fan wrote:It's not that simple because there has to be a timeline on these events. The Lutzes did three things:
1. Objecting to the press conference, to which you just admitted.
2. They decided, whether telling Weber or not, to not sign on with him.
3. A friend who knew Tam Mossman arranged for an offer from Prentice Hall.

But in what exact order? If these events did happen in this order then they did not as you proclaim reject Weber's offer "upon learning they could make a bit more money on that fairy tale".

In an interview with Lou Gentle, presumably without any prior knowledge that he would need to describe things in this way, George states here:

http://www.amityvillefaq.com/intlgps.html#moss

"Well that was probably one of the biggest mistakes we ever made – even trying to help Ronald DeFeo – because this guy was only interested in doing books and movies about the murders, and he was not interested in helping his client in that manner.

Eventually he came back to Kathy and I with a contract that is about 3/4 of an inch of paper, where he wanted us to do books and movies with him about this, and he wanted us to give him the house – donate the house to this corporation he was gonna form. And I still have this contract – this proposed contract from him. He wanted us to donate the house to him and all the contents and agree that for the rest of our lives we would appear anytime that he decided we should appear – and we would talk about this on cue. But also that if we at any time told – said – anything that wasn't the truth, that we would receive no benefit from doing this.

So on the one hand he was making us swear to the truth, that everything we had told him was the truth – and that was the reason why he was interested in doing this. On the other hand, he was going to control our lives one way or the other, either economically or physically even. And that was just an unconscionable kind of idea to become an indentured servant to someone who hadn't even – didn't even know what we were talking about – who had no real belief in anything that we had been through in terms of his own experience – his own personal experience. He obviously believed us, because he put this contract together in such a way that he thought it was commercially viable.

A friend of mine who sold textbooks to colleges looked at this and said, "I know someone who you should talk to before you ever consider such a thing." I said, "Well we're not even considering this – this is just an absurd idea," but he introduced us then to Tam Mossman who was an editor at Prentice-Hall Books – Prentice Hall Trade Division." [emphasis added]

So it here at least looks like the Lutzes decided against Weber's offer before having any knowledge that they could get any other offer.
Does this prove a haunting? Certainly not. It also does not prove that exaggerations or outright fabrications were not made either.

I do however think that if accepted it shows the Lutzes were not planning a book at the time they left the Amityville house, contrary to the narrative of the hoax theorist. It should especially be troubling for those who think it was logical for an aspiring story teller Lutz to go to criminal defense lawyer, just like when you have a toothache of course you go see your plumber!

It proves it about as much as a negative can be proven, which is never absolutely.

I think the hoax theorist needs some narrative of why the Lutzes left the house after only 28 days. And even if that other narrative about financial trouble had any validity, who the hell moves out, without putting the house up for sale, prior to even the first missed payment?









jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:57 pm
This interview was in 2003 for cripes sake! Most of it sounds like bs from George (indentured servant :fp: ) to make it look like he & Kathy were being led around on a leash by Weber from the start. They knew damn well who Ronnie was at that time and knew Weber was his attorney. "One of the biggest mistakes we made", GET OUT OF HERE MAN! Hell, if it wasn't for the murders, none of this crap would have happened. Ronnie Defeo helped them to proceed with their haunting nonsense, not to mention the other crackpots that came along for the ride over the years.

"I knew the Lutzes were unstable" - quote from Ronnie himself. Yeah, I wonder how he knew or how much?

And if you read in the interview you listed it didn't take long or much persuading George & Kathy on the "absurdity" of doing a book. Not to mention recording 45 hours of "recollections" just to have for their personal record that soon after just happened to get turned over to Jay Anson? :clap:


You claim that the "hoax theorist" needs some narrative concerning why they left after 28 days? Some of us don't believe they were in there even that long. And the reason why they didn't put the house up for sale after moving out is obvious. That would've involved a realtor going into the house and showing it to others huh? And if it were not haunted then the hauntings claims would've been pointless. No, you know what happened. They wanted the house investigated and called the wrong person right off the bat!

And you're correct in stating that it doesn't prove a haunting. But if you need another hoax theorist to provide some skepticism for you, I'd track down a guy named Danny Lutz. I think this guy was close to George & Kathy? In 1988 he went so far as to try and sell his hoax claims of The Amityville Horror to another hoax investigator.







DC Fan wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:44 pm
Jimmy:

I see again that you want to have Dan calling the thing a hoax. We've already had that argument and until he says that on my copy of the film, I'm not believing that. You have him confused with his crazy aunt who, consistent with the theories of Professor Loftus, might be the source of his "memory" of George floating wrenches.

As for maybe it wasn't 28 days that they were there, early news report do suggest otherwise, but I see no reason to rely on those reports. Maybe you can have a medium consult President Dewey about the accuracy of early news reports.

As for Weber, yes they knew he was Butch's lawyer. So what? That means they should have to accept his offer, because if not for Butch none of this would have happened? That I don't understand. And the contract is available somewhere here, I've seen it, and it does detail that formation of a corporation,what it will own, what Butch will get, and the availability of the Lutzes for promotions and polygraphs.

I know you don't want to believe anything George says because you think he was such a brilliant planner of everything in advance. I'm not sure about that one, given his failed dealings with Weber, Kaplan and the Cromarty lawsuit. Maybe Buckland, DiDio, the Warrens could have planned it better?





jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:02 pm
Danny didn't say it was a hoax in the film but in his call to a certain party in 1988. You can side-step that issue if you like but if you take his words as gospel in My Amityville Horror, then you might want to re-watch it again and see what he says was the "true" horror and why it happened. And that might coincide with his crazy aunt (as you say) but he doesn't mention her as to being there during this object moving incident so continue to choose from the Amityville Café as you please. A lot of other believers do the same thing. You can toss Chris in there too while your at it.

If you don't choose to rely on the early reports of their being in the house for 28 days, why did you mention it to begin with?

No they didn't have to accept his offer, nor did they have to discuss the details of the case with him either. Much of what they discussed eventually became their claims and subsequent book as we know. As to Ronnie, I'm simply stating that without him committing the murders, The Amityville Horror would not exist! So let me spell that out for you in elementary language. No murders means, no house to buy, no haunting claims, no books, no movies, no horror. You following?

I don't think George was a brilliant planner as you state, better yet a sly deceiver. On the contrary just the opposite as I've pointed out such as his dealings with Weber & Kaplan and so on. You incriminate him just fine with what you posted here! "Maybe Buckland, DiDio, and the Warrens could've planned it better"? Huh? Not sure where you're going with that?

I'd like to ask you a couple of questions though. You seem to believe what George says in his interviews, like the one you posted earlier. George states that he wasn't pursuing the idea of a book and found such a prospect absurd! Yet he went ahead and made 45 hours of tapes recalling what they experienced inside the house not long after they left. Wouldn't it seem odd to waste all that time to put this stuff down for the record (so to speak) if they didn't intend on using it for anything such as a book? What purpose could it possibly serve? And how did this absurdity seem to be forgotten after they ditched Weber and hooked up with Prentice Hall for a BOOK?






sherbetbizarre wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:28 am
jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:02 pm
George states that he wasn't pursuing the idea of a book and found such a prospect absurd! Yet he went ahead and made 45 hours of tapes recalling what they experienced inside the house not long after they left. Wouldn't it seem odd to waste all that time to put this stuff down for the record (so to speak) if they didn't intend on using it for anything such as a book? What purpose could it possibly serve?
http://www.amityvillefaq.com/haunting3.html#tape

"Self-help therapy" to discuss the 28-days... In particular, I seem to recall, them "remembering events differently" is what lead them to getting it all down on tape.








DC Fan wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:40 am
Quite honestly I do wish there was something in Eric's movie or elsewhere having Dan clarify exactly what dealings, if any, he may have had with Kaplan. But imagine if Dan says he told Kaplan that George caused a haunting, you would twist it into a pretzel just like Kaplan would, so what's the point of discussing it?

I mentioned the early news reports because you stated some hoax theorist don't believe the 28 days and it was early news reports suggesting otherwise. It's not me who relies on them.

I asked about the significance, not the fact, of the without Ronnie and the murders there would be no book and no movies. I don't think it means that the Lutzes owe him anything and in general I find it morally repugnant that any killer should profit from his murders. You following?

As for the tapes, I would add something to Sherb's response that might give another reason why Sherb's response is more credible than yours. Anson's book is written from the viewpoint of the adults in the house, even the Jodie stuff.
All Anson had was the tapes. I've suspected for a long time that the kids, if they ever went public, would focus on different events, potentially on events not in Anson's book, because potentially they were not in the tapes. Dan did not focus on Kathy's hand being touched because he isn't Kathy, and it is natural for it to happen this way. We do know that Anson never met the kids.

The upshot of this is that the tapes used by Anson to construct his novel seem to be the story of George and Kathy, although admittedly nobody alive seems to know exactly what is in them. If I were Anson I would have loved to have some of Dan's stuff for the book. We probably all have our favorite lines from Dan and some of mine are; " a f&%$@ing spirit walks in", "projected up the stairs" and of course the classic "right f&%$@ing through me". I'm sure Anson would have loved to have that. Especially when you consider that George would not have actually known whether or not "bedposts jammed into the sheetrock" was an exaggeration, why not ask the kids for stuff if it was for a book?

Aaahhhh, but of course it is because the great warlock George was the sly deceiver rather than a great planner!!!

When someone says "if it was a hoax, it certainly could have been planned a lot better", I take that as statement of doubt that it was a planned hoax.








DC Fan wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:12 pm
jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:57 pm
And the reason why they didn't put the house up for sale after moving out is obvious. That would've involved a realtor going into the house and showing it to others huh?
George let reporters into the house on March 6 and the result was Marvin Scott telling his viewing audience that nothing happened when he was there. If what you say is true, he would have known in advance that nothing was going to happen to them.

And if what Micky Sexton says was true, he would have used audio tapes, invisible wires and other tricks to give them something to report.




jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:33 pm
Nothing did happen so what is your point? I'm quite sure George knew nothing would happen regardless who went in there. But they wanted the house to be investigated so they could get some kind of account to help them with their claims. And by God they got one too! They got a pic of a what appears to be a ghost inside of a room, which George proceeded unto his death to claim that it was a little boy that used to play with Missy while they lived at the home. I do remember I read somewhere that this was debunked but since you've shown time and time again here that only George Lutz is the only truth-teller in the entire Amityville world, I back down from that challenge and do not question the master authority.

Micky Sexton's claims vs George Lutz's :think: Hmm, I wonder who wins in that comedic battle? You guys decide.

Anson indeed only had the 45 hours of tapes to work with. And proceeded to sell us a true story that Judge Weinstein (when he threw out Lutz lawsuit) told us that the book was in large part fiction. Some investigator Anson was and it's been stated he never even met George & Kathy! And what the hell does the U.S. Judicial System know anyway? Well lets take another Lutz lawsuit- https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of ... 60262.html

In this one we find the Lutzes suit being tossed out again and being accused of telling more tales and trying to make more profits out of their latest fibs. And wanting sole rights to the name Amityville in regards to movies and books, etc. It's all right here for you folks, wonder how DC Fan will slide around this one? I mean the courts accuse the Lutzes right here of their nonsense, but you can kid yourselves (if you prefer) and side with the few believers that buy what George Lutz sells and that's what he did, hell just ask James Brolin. As for me I'll stand with the courts on this one so DC Fan, have fun trying to convert any newcomers here or Victoria P. You do have shebetto on your side and Amit Y Ville.






DC Fan wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:32 pm
My point in stating that George let reporters into the house? Why would he do that if he was planning a hoax? For the same reason you say he would not have wanted to try to sell the house himself if going bankrupt because he wouldn't want a realtor in there saying nothing happened to him, he should not have wanted the press in there.

Under no circumstances will I accept the omniscience of court judges, even if I would accept the impartiality of them most of the time. Why should anyone? If they thought so themselves there would be no appeal courts. The good ones among them will even tell you that they are not the experts on things other than law. They're former lawyers!!!

I think Lutz was guaranteed to have a problem with Judges and their duty to "dispose of" a case, find something "sufficient to dispose of" the case that is. Calling Lutz a liar makes an easy way out.

And they can figure out who is lying, can they? One wrongfully convicted Canadian, awarded $6.5 million in compensation in 2008, was called a liar by no less than the Supreme Court of Canada which stated in 1967 “There were many incredibilities inherent in the evidence given by Truscott before us and we do not believe his testimony.”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Truscott






sherbetbizarre wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:11 am
jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:33 pm
In this one we find the Lutzes suit being tossed out again and being accused of telling more tales and trying to make more profits out of their latest fibs. And wanting sole rights to the name Amityville in regards to movies and books, etc. It's all right here for you folks, wonder how DC Fan will slide around this one?
They were only going after what was promised when they signed on for the first movie.

Even in 2019 Mrs Anson is having a go...






jimmysmokes wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:16 am
Did Mrs. Anson comment on the fiction in her husbands book that was a true story? And yeah I could see her wanting to get in on the action of the subsequent fictional films that were made. Perhaps you should read the lawsuit document again.





DC Fan wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:27 am
Mrs. Anson should not need to comment about fact or fiction in a copyright law case. Stephen King can sue you if you reprint and sell something he published. My concern with it though is it coming so long after the movie. Potentially too late by statute of limitations?







sherbetbizarre wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:12 pm
DC Fan wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:27 am
My concern with it though is it coming so long after the movie. Potentially too late by statute of limitations?
The suit is against 2017's Amityville: The Awakening, which is meant to be an official sequel.








jimmysmokes wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:33 pm
DC FAN was referring to the 2005 remake. He's usually a bit zonked when posting in here. Anyway I do hope Mrs. Anson gains a little restitution from this travesty. Perhaps a truck load of cashmere sweaters for furthering the fiction? And let's pray that the karma doesn't intervene (like it did with Jay) and keep her from enjoying them!





DC Fan wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:46 pm
So are you going to unzonk me by telling me why it is that, if George was planning a hoax he would invite the press into the house, knowing in advance that nothing would happen to them?







jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:43 pm
Yeah I am. He made sure that Kaplan did not go in didn't he? Because he knew he wouldn't hesitate to expose it as a hoax. And what exactly happened there with his own investigating team, (made up of local tv crew/reporters, The Warrens :D ), a whole lot of nothing.









km2020 wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:14 pm
I am new here and found this thread. I am not sure if the OP has been satisfied in his quest, but I would like to add some things.

First of all, Jay Anson embellished the story. That much is true. However, the base story has not been debunked. I would say there is some kind of entity or spiritual energy in the house. The fact that a picture of a little boy was on the camera that the very skeptical news crew had set up. That wasn't Hans Holzer's or the Warren's camera.

What it does show in that picture is that something appeared as a little boy, but it had an intelligence because it looked directly at the camera. The fact that it projected its image into the camera means that it wanted to be seen. But here's the thing, just because it appeared as a little boy does not mean it was a little boy.

Not only does it look like a little boy, but its eyes are glowing. Think about this, whatever that was not only appeared as a little boy, it peeked around the corner and looked directly at the camera at the right time for its picture to be taken. So it has intelligence. It wanted to be seen. And its eyes were glowing just as the description of Jodie the pig.

That thing with the intelligence knew that there were only adults in that house and that people were there to search and investigate. It knew the people there were not going to be manipulated as it was able to do to the DeFeos and the Lutzs. Remember that the DeFeos and Lutzs had small children. Why do you suppose most hauntings occur where there are children or appear as children? Because children are innocent and children do see more than adults.

When you break it down to the most basic elements, they are similar to a billion other stories of hauntings. I do not believe that was a ghost, but it was definitely something supernatural. And this world isn't 100% natural. Even you can't prove it is, there is no way that you can prove that everything you see is physical nor that everything you hear is originating from a physical source.


Can pigs fly? Certainly, if it is not a physical pig. But if it appears as a pig then it can do whatever it wants. And you can't prove that something didn't happen either. You only believe what you believe because you tell yourself everything you think you see or hear is physical. And you know yourself that not everything you have seen or heard is physical. People do it all the time.

Twins feel pain even though they are apart from each other, also parents feel their children even though the children are in another place. I am going to say this, whatever the Lutzs experienced at the most basic level, it was capable of manipulating them as well as the DeFeos.

Remember, this intelligence is not bound to the physical, and because it is intelligent, it has knowledge. And if it has knowledge, it can manipulate. Was the house haunted? Yes. And yes, it still is. And here is how we can tell, even though you have never been in the house, it can still evoke a feeling in you, it can do what it wants because it compelled you to come onto a forum to tell us you think it can't happen, but it did. You said you were interested in the house. Why? Because it evokes something in you that compels you to think about it. You said you were interested in the DeFeos and the Lutzs. Why? Because your mind was triggered to accept something about them and that is supernatural and you were haunted.

If it had no effect of manipulation over you, then you wouldn't be here. You can deny it all you want, but you were still compelled. And if it can do that across time and space and the internet, just think about what it can do where you are. They use electricity, just as your body does, therefore, it can use the electricity in your body to haunt you.


This is not Medieval, even your very modern CIA and the Russian KGB tapped into remote viewing for spying, so the government is quite admitting that the supernatural happens.

Scientists used science to design the experiments for remote viewing. And we have information about Russia that turned out to be absolutely true.





jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:03 pm
I would say you are definitely new here if you're proclaiming the ghostie-boy as legit. I would suggest you read the threads on this forum discussing the subject matter before making "haste" decisions.

You claim that Anson "embellished" his book, but go on to say that the "base story" :think: has not been debunked? What is this base story?

You claim that hauntings occur around small children like the Defeos & Lutzes. I wasn't aware the house was haunted when the Defeos lived there? Never saw any reason to believe the house was haunted when and after the Lutzes "fled". And you are correct, children are innocent but they can be easily manipulated and brainwashed, as most children are at a young age.

You claim the house was haunted & still is? What are you basing this on? Did you go inside the house at anytime in your life? And this "intelligence" you refer to that you claim is present inside the house, if it indeed did exist, from what I've read about this so called entity, is anything but intelligent! More moronic I dare say.







devilbustedinct wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:37 pm
km2020 wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:14 pm
I am new here and found this thread. I am not sure if the OP has been satisfied in his quest, but I would like to add some things...
With all that being said, I invite you to do some more research on the subject. Especially about the “ghost boy” photo. We all have our different opinions, but there is NO WAY anyone will ever convince me that photo is anything supernatural. There is much evidence stacked against it (not to mention common sense) that is destroys the entire theory (and the credibility of certain people). I believe the photo 100% debunked as not being anything out of the ordinary, and another example of failed high hopes. Take a closer look.







sherbetbizarre wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:49 pm
The main Ghost Boy thread is here -

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=120





sherbetbizarre wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:51 pm
jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:43 pm
DC Fan wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:46 pm
So are you going to unzonk me by telling me why it is that, if George was planning a hoax he would invite the press into the house, knowing in advance that nothing would happen to them?
Yeah I am. He made sure that Kaplan did not go in didn't he? Because he knew he wouldn't hesitate to expose it as a hoax.
Kaplan took himself off the investigation after George postponed it.





jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:23 pm
Are you insinuating that George might go ahead (later on) and allow Kaplan to investigate? Remember, it was George that postponed Kaplan from investigating due to the fact that he was a vampirologist. So I don't think that George was going allow Kaplan to investigate regardless. And I suppose Kaplan was aware of this and decided not to waste more time. Instead George let the Warrens get involved. Two quacks! But so essential to introduce sheer nonsense into this scheme to further the "haunting"! Wouldn't you agree?





sherbetbizarre wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 4:17 am
George postponed the investigation after Kaplan went to the press. Kaplan admits so in his book-
I go to the desk and pick up the receiver. It is George Lutz. He sounds rather annoyed.

“You told the press you would be investigating!” he says. “I told you we didn’t want any publicity.”

”Yes, George, but you failed to tell me about the press conference you held on that very same day. I didn’t
feel I was giving away any secrets and, in case you didn’t notice, I took special care not to mention the date.”
I could not believe the audacity of this man! “Since you are not going to be there, I have some apprehension
that people may misunderstand when they see a large group of people entering a vacant house. The police
may think we are intruders attempting to break in. We are merely covering all bases by making it public
knowledge that we will be investigating at some unspecified date.”

This did not pacify George. “Well, I told you we didn’t want any publicity, and you told the press anyway.
I’m going to have to postpone your investigation for at least a couple of weeks. (...) we’re really tired of this
whole thing. We only gave that press conference to clear up the exaggerated rumors about our story. I think
I’ll wait until the publicity has died down some before having you investigate. Cancel your plans for this weekend and I’ll call you in about two weeks.”

“Fine, George,” I said. “Our egos will still be intact whether you call or not. We’ll be here if you need us.”
Wishing him and his family good luck, I hung up the phone and went to tell my staff that this weekend was
off. They were rather annoyed that they had changed their weekend plans for nothing and, like myself, could
not understand George Lutz’s rather strange position on publicity. In my opinion, the Lutzes’ press conference
had started more rumors than it had cleared up.

After discussing the situation at length, my staff and I decided that, should Lutz decide to call back again,
we would not accept the case after all.
,,,George doesn't call back anyway, as he finds out he's a vampireologist and looks elsewhere.




jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 7:45 am
They went to the press anyway with their next group they brought in.

I don't understand where you're going here or your point?

"We don't want any publicity"! So lets wait until we can get the local news team in and film their encounter into our home and put it on the ten o'clock news???






sherbetbizarre wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 4:56 pm
The point was to show you the correct reason things broke down between Lutz and Kaplan.
"We don't want any publicity"! So lets wait until we can get the local news team in and film their encounter into our home and put it on the ten o'clock news???
Yep - and Kaplan went apeshit over it! So clearly they had a different approach a month later... namely Laura Didio talking them around.





jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 7:06 pm
Yep, better to have it publicized on the news (little hokum thrown in) to promote a "haunting" than have a "vampiorlogist" report on finding nothing ey'? Not good to expose but better with exposure 8-)

While we're on the subject of things breaking down with George, you are aware that several other incidents like this happened with Mr. Lutz and his involvement with certain people regarding the horror? Almost a pattern (if you will). I can bring these forward if you like!




sherbetbizarre wrote:
Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:50 am
I witnessed it happen with Ric Osuna, and that was a case of Osuna flouncing off when his underwritten pro-haunting book was put on hold, only to return with a pro-hoax book.

Again, another example of someone's fragile ego being bruised, so off they go, putting themselves front and center of the story...




jimmysmokes wrote:
Tue Dec 24, 2019 8:21 am
I just read that break-down piece you did on Osuna. Did he respond to you?



sherbetbizarre wrote:
Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:04 pm
Nope, just a few weeks after his book came out, he never posted a single thing on Amityville again (Spring 2002).

Post Reply