Analyzing the Paul Bartz Theory

For Discussion Of Amityville Photographs
User avatar
kudzu
Amityville Addict
Posts: 360
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Post by kudzu » Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:43 pm

I agree with you all about the identity of ghost boy. If this person (Paul) is indeed sitting on something in the doorway and peering out, it would seem to me that he was purposely trying to create "evidence". It doesn't seem likely to me that an investigator would set up a time lapse camera to capture activity and then go sit in its field of vision...then move again before the next shot fired unless they were faking evidence. Just my feeling on it. Maybe I watch Ghost Hunters too much.

Speaking of GH...anyone going to see Paranormal Activity? I've got tix for the Saturday night show in Atlanta. I can't wait.

User avatar
Grave
If looks could kill then death would be my name...
Posts: 763
Location: The Dead Box
Contact:

Post by Grave » Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:49 pm

MerchBoi wrote:You watch old ladies while they shop? ;)
:lol:
[img]http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b221/GraveDiggersUnion/nutskick.gif[/img]

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11567

Post by Dan the Damned » Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:27 pm

I think this is Paul, but I don't think it was done on purpose. There are other shots from that time lapse camera showing investigators walking past, peering into doorways, etc.

Paul was with the Warrens, but was not the camera guy. That's why Paul appears in many photos -- the camera guy was always behind the camera. Gene Campbell was the camera guy who set up the time lapse camera.

And yeah, while both Gene and Paul were part of the Warrens' team, I still don't think this was done on purpose. If it was, then it would have been the Warrens who would have found this photo. Instead it was found by a secretary of George's some 3 years after the fact. And if it was done on purpose, they could have dressed up Paul to better hide his identity -- make him look spooky. Maybe even dab his face with ketchup. But no -- it's just a shot of a guy looking at the camera.



Why wasn't this photo found right away? Surely both the Warrens and Gene Campbell would have studied all those photos from the time lapse camera. I mean, otherwise, why bother? Why bother setting up an infrared time lapse camera if you're not going to bother looking at the results?

These photo simply must have been closely examined for the slightest trace of any paranormal signs. Nothing was found. Not until 3 years later was this ghost boy photo discovered -- by accident.

So why didn't the Warrens notice it 3 years earlier? I think the Warrens saw this photo for what it was -- a photo of Paul Bartz, captured by accident.

Why didn't the Warrens correct George and tell him, "No, George, that's just a photo of Paul, the kid who was helping us with our investigation -- that's not a ghost"? This is where the credibility of the Warrens comes into play... :?

User avatar
MerchBoi
Official Gay Mascot of Amityville
Posts: 1154
Location: Everywhere

Post by MerchBoi » Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:26 pm

There's one key bit to this Paul Bartz theory that doesn't add up to me.

George and Kathy ask Missy what she thinks, and she says "That's the little boy I used to play with."

Clearly, Missy never met Paul Bartz.

Jus' sayin.
MerchBoi...resident Gay Mascot for Amityville Horror Truth.

"The last chance,
The last dance,
One moment in time.
One song,
Doesn't last that long.
Life turns on a dime.
The wheels of fortune seem to pass you by.
Tomorrow there's a dawn again.
A dream can still be born again.
Take a chance,
While there still is time.
Because life turns on a dime."
-IN MY LIFE

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11567

Post by Dan the Damned » Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:49 pm

My take on that -- the original photo is very different than what we are all used to (when we see the photo on History's Mysteries, etc). The figure of the ghost boy in the original photo is very very tiny -- it's not the blowup image we're used to seeing.

I think Missy mistook what looked to be a little boy for the entity she encountered, and I think it was a very natural thing to do under the circumstances.

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9585
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:51 am

Dan the Damned wrote:Paul was with the Warrens, but was not the camera guy. That's why Paul appears in many photos -- the camera guy was always behind the camera. Gene Campbell was the camera guy who set up the time lapse camera.
Ah, but if he set up time-lapse, he didn't need to stand behind it for those shots :wink: Just saying! :P
These photo simply must have been closely examined for the slightest trace of any paranormal signs. Nothing was found. Not until 3 years later was this ghost boy photo discovered -- by accident.
How about the Moose/Padre Pio pic - when did they start talking about that one..?

User avatar
Tim
The monkey supplied the glue.
Posts: 639

Post by Tim » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:42 am

Does or has Lorraine presented this in her lectures?

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11567

Post by Dan the Damned » Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:14 am

sherbetbizarre wrote:Ah, but if he set up time-lapse, he didn't need to stand behind it for those shots :wink: Just saying! :P
I didn't mean to insinuate that Gene was standing behind the time lapse camera. I'm sure the intention of having a time lapse camera was so that it could be left unattended.
sherbetbizarre wrote:How about the Moose/Padre Pio pic - when did they start talking about that one..?
Dunno. But with the ghost boy photo, we know from George's interviews when/where/how it was discovered. I'm assuming the moosehead photo was discovered by the Warrens, but I don't know if it was right away or what.

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9585
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:12 pm

Maybe the first mention was in the Demonologist book..?

User avatar
msammons
Amityville Addict
Posts: 298
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by msammons » Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:33 pm

I love this topic because I would love to know who it really is. I am leaning toward it being Bartz

Dan,
One thing about Missy too. She was what, 5 years old when they lived in the house? Three years later she probably just thought it looked like the entity she saw.
Mary
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/spooks/

User avatar
Jetstar3D
Shiner
Posts: 1196
Location: Sidewinder, Michigan

Post by Jetstar3D » Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:15 pm

This may not mean much and probably has been discussed before, but has anyone ever compared the size of ghostie's head to other shots taken from the same set that show the investigators?

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11567

Post by Dan the Damned » Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:27 pm

I've tried that, yeah. Didn't seem conclusive. Part of the trouble is that part of the ghost boy's head is hidden from view. I sent it to George 4 years ago. It didn't change his view on it being a boy.

User avatar
Just Simon
There is no spoon....
Posts: 849
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Just Simon » Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:57 pm

I watched Hystories Mysteries again on Friday night...yeah yeah I know, I need a life, but after watching it closely, freeze frame and all that, I am absolutely convinced the the GB pic is a photo of Bartz.

I also agree with Dan's theory as to why the Warren's didn't flag the pic earlier, they knew exactly what they were looking at.
Cheers,

Simon

User avatar
devilbustedinct
Walking the Burning Fence
Posts: 703
Contact:

Re: Analyzing the Paul Bartz Theory

Post by devilbustedinct » Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:17 pm

Your initial thread gave way to some team work which resulted in exactly what I had always suspected. Paul Bartz is the ghostie boy, and also plays a key role in some other damning evidence against the Warrens. I concur that that the Warrens knew exactly what it was the moment they saw it, and like so many other things, took it for a ride.

I always thought it was just Bartz or some other person...but this info cinches it for me.

Great work to everyone involved especially tourmaline and thanks for finally putting the subject to rest.

Why on earth would a demon need need glasses and a plaid shirt anyhow?

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11567

Re: Analyzing the Paul Bartz Theory

Post by Dan the Damned » Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:14 am

devilbustedinct wrote:Why on earth would a demon need need glasses and a plaid shirt anyhow?
Because he never wanted to be a ghostie boy -- he always wanted to be... A LUMBERJACK!

Leaping from tree to tree with his best girl by his side, he'd sing! I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok -- I sleep all night and I work all day!





(sorry -- Monty Python 40th anniversary stuff on TV)

User avatar
MerchBoi
Official Gay Mascot of Amityville
Posts: 1154
Location: Everywhere

Post by MerchBoi » Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:27 am

On Wednesdays he goes shopping and eats butter scones with tea!
MerchBoi...resident Gay Mascot for Amityville Horror Truth.

"The last chance,
The last dance,
One moment in time.
One song,
Doesn't last that long.
Life turns on a dime.
The wheels of fortune seem to pass you by.
Tomorrow there's a dawn again.
A dream can still be born again.
Take a chance,
While there still is time.
Because life turns on a dime."
-IN MY LIFE

tourmaline
Amityville Member
Posts: 47
Contact:

Post by tourmaline » Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:15 pm

Hey everyone,

I just wanted to follow up and let everyone know that I never received any response for my email to Paul Bartz. I was able to definitively track him quite easily based on a couple hints in some obscure Amityville articles I stumbled onto, and use some "people search" type sites to find his current address, ph. #, email, and his business website. I did see the other thread elsewhere on the board about finding Paul Bartz, and I agree with Dan that it would be a mistake for people to "badger" or harrass him about his involvement with Amityville. I think that he's moved on and has a normal life divorced from the paranormal world and I think his privacy should be respected; I even feel semi guilty about emailing him about this.

My sense is that this phenomenon of Amityville and this Ghost Boy photograph in particular - which seems to drive the interest so much - has taken on a life of its own and I'm sure that Paul Bartz is aware of how many people, franchises, and reputations he would affect by saying once and for all "Yes, that's me in the picture." I think he just doesn't want to touch it, either to perpetuate the myth or disprove it, because there would be serious fallout in the paranormal community and beyond; as a young man he was the "manager" of the Warrens and is likely still on good terms with them.

Anyway, FWIW, I do still truly think that it was Bartz in the picture, although I do feel on an intuitive level that there is still a lot of negative energy in that house, particularly connected to Dawn (especially) and the father (to a lesser extent).

User avatar
Chichibcc
Cat Avatar Lover
Posts: 3182
Location: Battle Creek, Michigan

Post by Chichibcc » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:18 am

Thanks for the update...
[size=125][i][color=red]Actions speak louder than words....[/color][/i][/size]

User avatar
Howard64
ta-wo-di u-s-di
Posts: 4017
Location: Athens, Texas

Post by Howard64 » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:54 am

im still not convinced its someone posing for the camera as some would speculate.

Myself personally, i do not know either, i cant explain it.
" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9585
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:00 am

Howard64 wrote:im still not convinced its someone posing for the camera as some would speculate.
Not posing - caught by accident.

User avatar
Howard64
ta-wo-di u-s-di
Posts: 4017
Location: Athens, Texas

Post by Howard64 » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:15 am

i stand corrected.

but if someone was caught by accident and it was not the fellow setting up the camera, why look directly at the camera when the shot was taken?
" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Post Reply