Haunting perspective

General Discussion About Anything Amityville And Other Paranormal Topics
User avatar
Dan Cooper
Amityville Member
Posts: 19

Post by Dan Cooper » Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:11 pm

wow, everything I type seems to end up in quotes for some reason, At this point I'm not suprised. A lot of that is obviously nit picking so lets stick to the topic here of the churches involvement so we don't get totally sidetracked addressing the unnecessary.

Tanner Boyle wrote -

Regardless, it's still not what I asked for in the first place, nor is it an official statement about the Church's stance on the subject--it's a letter allegedly sent from one priest on behalf of the Bishop...a letter sent to parties still as of yet unknown to us, since you still haven't posted a link to where we can find this letter for ourselves, told us who the letter was sent to, or what your source is.
Well, why can't you find this info online yourself? The priests name is signed right there on the letter itself. The letter clearly states that that the story (or haunting) was a false report. This is directly from the Rockville centre diocese itself - the church!...Or do we need official notification from the Vatican now just to satisfy you?

That's not an official statement of the Church's position, or anything close. It's the alleged unofficial opinion of one man...and the fact that he sent an article from "Newsday" in lieu of anything official from the Church is just an example him effectively dodging the question.
Of one man? Its a reverend from the church itself, in fact the assistant vicar general of the church making this official statement in a signed letter. Again maintaing the story (or haunting) was a false report. Now since you are maintaining that it would be incorrect to assume that the church doesn't believe it to be a false report for some reason. For "gods" sake simply supply us with something that refutes this letter or the "churches", better yet the Rockville dioceses own assistant vicar generals "official" position on the matter.

You can't do that, you can't offer anything at all except your paragraph picking tactics to accuse somebody of making broad generalizations. I have offered the full name and rank of this official within the church itself along with a written statement signed by him.

(thats not a broad generalization, thats a detailed account of a high ranking official within the diocese itself claiming the haunting reports were false. lol)

So if you can't offer anything into the discussion other than your own word play and opinions. Maybe you should give somebody else a chance that is familiar a little bit more with the direct subject matter, 'cause obviously you aren't.
[img]http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/5531/cig3qq.jpg[/img]

Say, candy and ronnie, have you seen them yet
But they?re so spaced out, bennie and the jets
Oh but they?re weird and they?re wonderful...

- Sir Elton John

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9793
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:07 am

Dan Cooper wrote:wow, everything I type seems to end up in quotes for some reason, At this point I'm not suprised.
We only reserve the "quote" technique for special people ;)
Well, why can't you find this info online yourself? The priests name is signed right there on the letter itself.
But it's not THE Priest, is it? Father Pecoraro, who was in the house.

Also, what is the date of letter? If it's after the book and after the movie, it's no surprise the diocese wished to wash their hands of the story, no matter what really happened.

User avatar
TannerBoyle
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 1235
Location: North Valley League

Post by TannerBoyle » Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:05 am

Well, why can't you find this info online yourself?.
Because it's not my responsibility to validate your sources in a debate. I'm not using that letter as the basis for my argument. You are. In an online debate, you need to provide a link to where you got your information, or at least cite your source if it's off-line. That way, we can easily check on it's authenticity. If you can't, or (in your case) won't, then that bit is irrelavant.
The priests name is signed right there on the letter itself.
Actually, it was blacked out.
The letter clearly states that that the story (or haunting) was a false report. This is directly from the Rockville centre diocese itself - the church!
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. Since you haven't cited your source, we don't even know if it's authentic.
Or do we need official notification from the Vatican now just to satisfy you?
Hell...just by proving what you've got is in any way authentic (by citing your source) would be a great start. But, an official statement from the Vatican would be even better.
Of one man? Its a reverend from the church itself, in fact the assistant vicar general of the church making this official statement in a signed letter. Again maintaing the story (or haunting) was a false report. Now since you are maintaining that it would be incorrect to assume that the church doesn't believe it to be a false report for some reason. For "gods" sake simply supply us with something that refutes this letter or the "churches", better yet the Rockville dioceses own assistant vicar generals "official" position on the matter.
Actually, there's nothing official at all about that letter. At this point, since you haven't cited your sources, we still don't even know if it's genuine.

I could type something up right now, scan it, and post it here...and that would make it just as valid as your source at this point--because you've repeatedly refused to tell us where you came across that information.
You can't do that, you can't offer anything at all except your paragraph picking tactics to accuse somebody of making broad generalizations. I have offered the full name and rank of this official within the church itself along with a written statement signed by him.

(thats not a broad generalization, thats a detailed account of a high ranking official within the diocese itself claiming the haunting reports were false. lol)

So if you can't offer anything into the discussion other than your own word play and opinions. Maybe you should give somebody else a chance that is familiar a little bit more with the direct subject matter, 'cause obviously you aren't.
Not at all. All I've done is prove you wrong, DC.

As usual. :lol:

User avatar
Dan Cooper
Amityville Member
Posts: 19

Post by Dan Cooper » Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:50 am

To Sherb -

Well, obviously since the date of the original letter sent that this particular one is responding to, it would have to be post March 2002 sometime.

Also the contents of the letter are in relation to Peccararo, but he didn't author the letter no. The letter reads sympathetic to Pecarraro, but doesn't when addressing the haunting claim itself. As far as I know this letter is the only statement issued by the Rockville diocese claiming the report of haunting was false. Since its authored by the assistant vicar general (convincing sounding to me) I would think the views and opinions in it pretty well sum up the diocese official position on the haunting claim.


On the topic of Peccararro I seem to recall somewhere that once transferred to Oakland he wasn't allowed to practice or participate in certain catholic rites. In other words demoted I guess you could say. Thing is the catholic religion isn't really too shy when it comes to the supernatural or paranormal even. The religion is practically based on it, have rituals designed intentionally to deal with it, exorcisms, demonology lore etc.

It seems to me (and this is my own opinion)...I see how vital it is that I point out an opinion here to avoid an exploding posting barrage..

..Anyway it seems to me like the diocese as you say want to wash their hands of the entire ordeal. But I don't think that is solely because of Rod Stieger's harrowing performance in the film. I think the simple answer just fits a lot easier, they believed it to be false.

And what about father Pecarraro? He was an unwilling victim in all of this. He didn't go public as the "priest", he was drug into the claims via the Lutze's. Obviously they told Webber Pecarraros involvement in the house blessing and as a result of that Webber knew exactly just who to subpoena into court.

Practically I guess ruining this mans career. That seems kind of selfish doesn't it? For the Lutze's to start name dropping the family priest in order to add further interest in their sprouting haunting claims?

I would think being a priest whatever he encountered on the second floor, he would stand behind it in court, in a bar, wherever, and not in cognitio. I'm sure there are a lot of priests that have been on the receiving end of strange encounters, why don't they run and attempt to conceal their entire status as well? It seems like all involved with the diocese are acting as if to distance themselves from a hoax, as opposed to an ordinary claim of haunting.
[img]http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/5531/cig3qq.jpg[/img]

Say, candy and ronnie, have you seen them yet
But they?re so spaced out, bennie and the jets
Oh but they?re weird and they?re wonderful...

- Sir Elton John

User avatar
Dan Cooper
Amityville Member
Posts: 19

Post by Dan Cooper » Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:32 am

Back to Tanner -
Hell...just by proving what you've got is in any way authentic (by citing your source) would be a great start. But, an official statement from the Vatican would be even better.
Well I'm not sure if your being sarcastic or not (who knows) I doubt the vatican is going to supply anybody here with a statement on the AH though.
Actually, it was blacked out.
No actually all of the info is there, REV Robert O. Morrissey, J.C.D
Ass't to the vicar general

In fact heres a link - http://www.drvc.org/

Now on the front page of that link there is the gentlemanly father Murphy (Who himself is mentioned in the letter)...and who by the way asked REV Morrissey to respond in that letter for the Rockville diocese official position on the matter of the Lutz haunting. In fact I bet if you contacted the diocese and pretended to be a cop or something they might send you a whole bunch of info in relation to amityville, plus their official position on why they believe the haunting claim to be false. That no doubt would be neat to see.
[img]http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/5531/cig3qq.jpg[/img]

Say, candy and ronnie, have you seen them yet
But they?re so spaced out, bennie and the jets
Oh but they?re weird and they?re wonderful...

- Sir Elton John

User avatar
TannerBoyle
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 1235
Location: North Valley League

Post by TannerBoyle » Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:45 am

No actually all of the info is there, REV Robert O. Morrissey, J.C.D
Ass't to the vicar general
That doesn't matter. I was responding to your statement of...
The priests name is signed right there on the letter itself.
...and in the bit you posted, it's blacked out.

And, since you still haven't given us a link to where you got it, or cited a source off-line, it still carries no weight in this debate.
In fact heres a link - http://www.drvc.org/

Now on the front page of that link there is the gentlemanly father Murphy (Who himself is mentioned in the letter)...and who by the way asked REV Morrissey to respond in that letter for the Rockville diocese official position on the matter of the Lutz haunting. In fact I bet if you contacted the diocese and pretended to be a cop or something they might send you a whole bunch of info in relation to amityville, plus their official position on why they believe the haunting claim to be false. That no doubt would be neat to see.
I'd never claim to be something I'm not, DC. That would be dishonest.

How come you can provide us with THAT link to the Diocese, and not a simple link to the letter you posted? Why can't you cite your source?

User avatar
TannerBoyle
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 1235
Location: North Valley League

Post by TannerBoyle » Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:24 am

Well...all in all it carries about as much weight as a screen shot of a letter with the signature blacked out that came from an unknown source. :roll:

:lol:

User avatar
Dan Cooper
Amityville Member
Posts: 19

Post by Dan Cooper » Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:14 pm

So Vampirologist? Are you saying that the Lutz's drugged the priest? Your conspirocies are getting stranger and stranger.
LMAO did they drug the priest? I can't believe I'm reading that, let me grab what I wrote because who knows even in a haste of punching keys I don't think I screwed up the statement that bad. So here it is -
And what about father Pecarraro? He was an unwilling victim in all of this. He didn't go public as the "priest", he was drug into the claims via the Lutze's. Obviously they told Webber Pecarraros involvement in the house blessing and as a result of that Webber knew exactly just who to subpoena into court.
"He was drug -----> i.e.: "dragged by name" into the claims (haunting claims) via < ----- (By way of) which in fact he was. Wow, I don't even need to invent conspiracies, your practically making your own up for me by just reading into my statements.

Now I know everything is right in the world!
Hey Pope! Maybe you can help DB/DC Cooper with finding the link to the letter?
C'mon now isn't it already obvious that Tanner thwarted this little caper already? I invented the statement right along with REV Robert Morrissey, and Bishop Murphy to. I even gave him the creative title of assistant Vicar General just because I thought it sounded "churchly."

Only a fool wouldn't be aware that not only the Rockville diocese, but the catholic church itself knows first hand what evil emanates from the very floorboards of that house. There is so much evil in there that nobody can even tell that its in there, know what I mean?
[img]http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/5531/cig3qq.jpg[/img]

Say, candy and ronnie, have you seen them yet
But they?re so spaced out, bennie and the jets
Oh but they?re weird and they?re wonderful...

- Sir Elton John

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11897

Post by Dan the Damned » Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:17 pm

To everyone:
Father Ghostbuster wrote:Multiple usernames are NOT permitted in any part of this forum. Flaming will be cause for no more warnings??flaming is and will continue to be cause for deletion of all user rights for whatever time is decided by ANY moderator at any time??if you have a problem with this you are on the wrong forum.

--George Lutz

User avatar
TannerBoyle
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 1235
Location: North Valley League

Post by TannerBoyle » Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:37 pm

C'mon now isn't it already obvious that Tanner thwarted this little caper already? I invented the statement right along with REV Robert Morrissey, and Bishop Murphy to. I even gave him the creative title of assistant Vicar General just because I thought it sounded "churchly."
Well, since you still refuse to cite your source, that may very well be the case. Simply citing your source is something anyone ought to be able to do in a debate--online or otherwise. And, the more you duck the issue, the worse off it looks in that regard.

After visiting the link you posted, I could just as easily type up a letter supposedly from Rev Morrissey, sign it, black out that signature, and post it right here as well...only my version could validate the case as genuine. And, my letter would carry just as much weight as yours, since I'd also be unable to cite a source or post a link proving it's authenticity.

Like I said--as of right now, without citing your source, that screen shot you posted carries about as much weight as the Pope Benedict's validation of the case posted on page two of this very thread. :roll:

User avatar
radiomixer
Billy's Next Ex-Wife
Posts: 3542

Post by radiomixer » Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:03 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:To everyone:
Father Ghostbuster wrote:Multiple usernames are NOT permitted in any part of this forum. Flaming will be cause for no more warnings??flaming is and will continue to be cause for deletion of all user rights for whatever time is decided by ANY moderator at any time??if you have a problem with this you are on the wrong forum.

--George Lutz
AMEN! THANK YOU!

User avatar
Warlock
Amityville Member
Posts: 42

Post by Warlock » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:40 am

Dan the Damned wrote:To everyone:
Father Ghostbuster wrote:Multiple usernames are NOT permitted in any part of this forum. Flaming will be cause for no more warnings??flaming is and will continue to be cause for deletion of all user rights for whatever time is decided by ANY moderator at any time??if you have a problem with this you are on the wrong forum.

--George Lutz
heh irony :roll:

Locked