Why are you SO sure?..

General Discussion About Anything Amityville And Other Paranormal Topics
Post Reply
User avatar
Shit_Scared
Amityville Addict
Posts: 129
Location: Scotland

Why are you SO sure?..

Post by Shit_Scared » Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:38 am

This question goes out to the people who firmly believe that the house in Amityville is / was haunted.
I would like to know why you are so sure that something happened. How are you so sure that the people you defend aren't lying? How do you know the facts that you debate with non believers about are not complete lies?
I am not starting this thread to try and prove this whole story is a lie or anything, I am just interested to find out why some of the other users on this board believe Geroge Lutz and his story.
For the record, I do believe that the Lutzes were a victim of a haunting simply because after 30 years the story hasnt changed and any interview I have seen with George and Kathy, they seem very genuine, however some people say that if you tell a lie often enough, you start to believe it.
Bustin' makes me feel good...

amandapanda887
Amityville Addict
Posts: 191
Location: IL

Post by amandapanda887 » Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:30 am

This question goes out to the people who firmly believe that the house in Amityville is / was haunted.
I would like to know why you are so sure that something happened. How are you so sure that the people you defend aren't lying? How do you know the facts that you debate with non believers about are not complete lies?
I am not starting this thread to try and prove this whole story is a lie or anything, I am just interested to find out why some of the other users on this board believe Geroge Lutz and his story.
For the record, I do believe that the Lutzes were a victim of a haunting simply because after 30 years the story hasnt changed and any interview I have seen with George and Kathy, they seem very genuine, however some people say that if you tell a lie often enough, you start to believe it.
Hi ok this is where I stand on the whole thing. I believe that there might be something in the house but im not exactly sure how much of the actual so called haunting I believe. That's the exact thing. Nobody is for sure that anything happened in that house other than those horrible murders. Nobody knows if the place is really haunted. The Lutz's have gained a great reputation for living in that house and supposedly telling us what happened. Alot of people I would say don't believe the Lutz's account, because alot of people think George was out for a lot of money, which is also stated in Ric Osuanas book. The thing is we don't for sure know if the people we are defending are lying. I need you to elaborate on that a bit. Did you mean how do we know that the people we are trusting in aren't lying to us about the hoax or aren't lying to us in just general? Ronald Defeo Jr. has told many sides to the story over the years so we don't for sure exactly know what happened that fatal nite, but there are many facts and very interesting information all over the internet. All I have to say is I don't believe most of what Ric Osuana has to say in his book so if you have yet to read it I would go very lightly on whats really there. Alot of people including myself don't believe what Mr. Lutz has said so far, and probably never will. The Defeo family has died they didn't need Mr. Lutz coming in and trying to make money off of the deaths.
-Amanda

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Post by Dan the Damned » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:36 am

Well, there are a variety of reasons I believe the Lutzes' story of the haunting in their Amityville home. I'll list them first, and then go into a bit more detail. Hope I don?t forget any...

--The actions of the family do not lend themselves to building/perpetuating a hoax

--Chris is angry at George, but still agrees with him that the haunting was real

--People have tried to discredit the Lutzes and prove the haunting was a hoax for nearly 30 years now, but no credible proof of a hoax has been uncovered.

--I have a gut feeling they're telling the truth



The actions of the family do not lend themselves to building/perpetuating a hoax

This is the main reason for my attitudes towards this case. The actions of the family just don't add up to someone planning this all as a hoax. Let's think about this. I think we can all agree that if this was a hoax, the point of the hoax would be to make money. Therefore, anyone planning this hoax would do their best to get the maximum amount of money from the story. The Lutzes seemingly have gotten that backwards, missing out on multiple opportunities that a true con artist would never miss out on.

The Lutzes apparently did not put on a show for the neighbors, so they could have witnesses later on to say, "Oh yes, the Lutzes were scared out of their wits in that house." By "putting on a show," I mean stuff like the family running out of the house screaming, or maybe having Missy knock on a neighbor?s door saying she sees ghosts and doesn't want to go home and pleading if she can live with them (the neighbors), and then having George or Kathy come over and apologize, saying Missy has an active imagination, etc... Stuff like that...

The Lutzes shied-away from the media. If this was a hoax, they would have embraced the media, hoping to get as many people interested in their story as possible. Now of course the Lutzes could have simply pretended to be media-shy, to give them some credibility, but that would be difficult to pull off for amateurs - to publicly shy-away from the media while working behind the scenes to keep the media interested in their story. If their shying away from the media was a premeditated action to give them credibility during their creation of a hoax, that would show them as masterful con artists - people who were clever enough to play the media without having it backfire on them.

But were the Lutzes accomplished con artists? They'd have to be if their dealings with the press were deceptive (pretending to avoid the media while actually playing them behind the scenes). But it doesn't make sense for accomplished con artists to miss so many other money-making opportunities.

Firstly, what could the Lutzes have hope for in this hoax? A book deal? Most people realize that writing a book is a crap shoot. There's no guarantee that the book will spark with the public and become a best-seller. Sure, people point out that there was an audience for this type of story in the '70s, with the release of "The Exorcist" and so forth. But that doesn't mean its a sure thing the book would find an audience and make the family lots of money.

If the Lutzes were out to make money, why did they give the house back to the bank? Why not keep it and either sell it after the book came out (at a profit) or keep it and rent it out as a sort of haunted vacation rental to paranormal enthusiasts? Surely there were options to make a profit on the house rather than just giving it back to the bank. Does this sound like something a con artist would do? No. If the Lutzes were pulling off a hoax in order to make money, they'd be looking at every angle.

And another angle came when they had their infamous "garage sale." For those who don't know, the Lutzes had their possessions from the house auctioned off. Another missed opportunity for making money. Had they waited for the book to be released, these items would easily have fetched more money. Again, a true con artist would realize that.

And perhaps the biggest foul-up came with the release of the movie. The original movie made millions for Jay Anson and the producers, but the Lutzes made only around $160,000. Again, if the Lutzes were perpetuating a money-making hoax, they'd have made damn sure that they'd get the lion's share of the profits.

So given all this, it just seems to me highly unlikely that the Lutzes were perpetuating a money-making hoax. In my eyes, that just doesn't add up...


Chris is angry at George, but still agrees with him that the haunting was real

It?s no secret that Chris has made public allegations that George has embellished the story of the haunting. Whether or not this is true, it is very telling that although Chris can, at times, be very angry towards George, Chris still maintains that the haunting was real.

Whatever other personal issues Chris may have with George, Chris still maintains that the haunting was real. If Chris really wanted to lash out and hurt George, I think he'd go public and say the haunting was a hoax (even if it wasn't), or at least admit it was a hoax (if it was). But he hasn't. Chris still maintains the haunting was real.


People have tried to discredit the Lutzes and prove the haunting was a hoax for nearly 30 years now, but no credible proof of a hoax has been uncovered.

This case has been picked apart by many people through the years, and what do we get? Steven Kaplan spent over two decades on his book, and it basically consists of lists of discrepancies within Anson's book as well as his visit to the house during a Halloween party where he didn't witness anything paranormal happening. In the meantime, the text reeks of Kaplan having a personal grudge against the Lutzes. He doesn't even try to hide his contempt.

Attorney William Weber has claimed the Lutzes' story was a hoax - that he helped create the story with the Lutzes "over many bottles of wine." He says they fashioned Jodie the pig after the neighbor's cat. Weber sued when the Lutzes refused to include their story in his book and instead ended up allowing Jay Anson to write their story. So is Weber saying that he knew it was a hoax, and is angry that he couldn't be a partner in pulling off a hoax on the public? Isn't that kinda like saying "my friends and I planned to rob a bank, but they did the heist without me, so I'm suing for my share of the stolen money"?

I don't know. It just seems like Weber is impeaching his own credibility, saying the story is a hoax, and I helped create the hoax.

Furthermore, concerning Weber, he brought in Hanz Holzer to investigate the house. If Weber knew the story was a hoax, why bring in Holzer to investigate?

Another book that comes to mind is the recent one by Ric Osuna. Although Ric's book is about the DeFeo murders, he still feels the need to address the Lutzes (undoubtedly in a vain attempt at making the book appealing to a larger audience). Ric's claims of a hoax come from two main sources - the parroted claims of Kaplan, and the outlandish claims of Geraldine Gates (who I feel has been pretty much totally discredited by now). People excuse Ric by saying he was "fooled by Geraldine Gates' claims," but would any kind of investigative journalist (as he describes himself) be fooled by Geraldine's claims? Didn't he check out her background or anything? Or did he just want to believe her story so badly that he blinded himself to the truth? Either way, I'm afraid that's pretty piss-poor for an investigative journalist...

So damn near thirty years now. Where's the proof that this was a hoax? No loose ends?

Sure, there's no proof that the haunting was real, either. Without proof either way, one must judge the evidence on both sides. For me, the hoax evidence just isn't as strong as the "pro-haunting" evidence.


I have a gut feeling they're telling the truth

Sure, this may be the weakest reason. But I'll still include it. I can't put my finger on this. Who knows what causes a gut feeling? It may be due to the stuff I've written above. It may be due to my talks with George and my observations of his personality. I don't know, but I can't ignore it.

I think all of this pretty much covers my reasons why I tend to believe the Lutzes' claims.



[edited to restore original punctuation marks which got messed up during this board's restoration]
Last edited by Dan the Damned on Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

leathermonkey
Amityville Addict
Posts: 493
Location: North Carolina, USA
Contact:

Post by leathermonkey » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:30 pm

wow Dan, just wow... your reading my mind :shock:

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

Post by Just Simon » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:41 pm

Dan the Damned wrote: And perhaps the biggest foul-up came with the release of the movie. The original movie made millions for Jay Anson and the producers, but the Lutzes made only around $160,000. Again, if the Lutzes were perpetuating a money-making hoax, they?d have made damn sure that they?d get the lion?s share of the profits.
Dan, was the $160,000 a % of the profits or was it a flat fee ? 160k was alot of money back then and especially when you are in a desperate situation.

User avatar
sithsk8r
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 333
Location: orbiting your primitive homeworld in my mother ship

Post by sithsk8r » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:48 pm

cuz jody told me...wearin a hood...and cuz...i was in the house and saw the whole thing. :o
[color=red][b]RY'S AQUA TEEN HUNGER FORCE[/b][/color]
[img]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/rysk8r/sigsandpix/Meatwad.gif[/img] [img]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/rysk8r/sigsandpix/Shake.gif[/img] [img]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/rysk8r/sigsandpix/Frylock.gif[/img]

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Post by Dan the Damned » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:25 pm

Just Simon wrote:Dan, was the $160,000 a % of the profits or was it a flat fee ? 160k was alot of money back then and especially when you are in a desperate situation.
Don't know if the money was a percentage or a flat fee.

160k was a lot of money back then, but nothing compared to the millions Anson and the producers made. And the Lutzes weren't in a desperate situation.

User avatar
TheVampireologist
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 829

Post by TheVampireologist » Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:32 pm

Great job Dan of explaining your logic as to why you believe this to be an actual haunting.I thought why not voice an opposition to it for the sake of argument and the skeptics evaluation of the events.(with my own opinions added in of course).

So I will begin by addressing you four-part catagories to support your reasoning.
--The actions of the family do not lend themselves to building/perpetuating a hoax
I feel in this case that to be true.But understand also just because somebody is skeptical of these events that dosent generally mean they have to subscribe to the idea of a premeditated hoax.Myself for example as you know believe embellisments were created(by the Lutz's) after they fled the house.So in effect embellishments here for whatever purpose equals out to be classified as a hoax but "not premeditated".Further on in your explainations you actually state influence from Chris Quaratino as solidifying your belief into this being an actual haunting.Well to explain the "real" phenomonon occuring here I to am influenced by what Chris has stated recently in regards to the case.For example the statement by him that Mr. Lutz was deeply fascinated and determined to carry out occult practices within the house itself.

Chris also going further to state Mr. Lutz at one point was actually chanting.Why?I have read into transcedental meditation as you know and nowhere have I found chanting to be associated with the practice of "TM".It leads one to conclude Mr. Lutz was actually chanting while conducting some kind of occult "ritual".The scenario here is simple actually.The Lutz's sometime during the course of their stay in the home thru the power of sub-concious self suggestion activated more than likley by the meditation ,convinced themselves of a demonic entity present within the home and a grave threat to them.The surroundings and prior murders magnified this I believe and simply drove them into a very real state of mental hysteria.After all it is fact here that both George and Kathy Lutz were practicing "TM" at the time in question.Given they were in this traumatic state of mind their high-strung emotions could have easily influenced the children into a frieghtened sense of awarness aswell.

Onto the topic of media exposure ,Weber could of easily supplied (as he did) the exposure needed.Following this scenario the Lutz's no doubt would be in a sort of post-traumatic state and not fully realized yet the oppurtunity here to sell the story and probly had no real intentions to early on.Weber I think is key to planting the idea of a book contract in their minds and expanding on the story in hopes of gaining some kind of profit from it.After all the foundation was there for a really good story and the public had an apetite for this subject matter aswell at the time(hence the exorsist).As for the garage sale wasnt most of these possesions the Defeos anyway?The Lutz's no doubt wouldnt have any real reservations for parting with any of it including their possessions after such a traumatic series of events occuring to them.Agian like you pointed out they were not established "con artists" and easily could have been duped out of most of the initial profits from the book and movie by savy legal attorneys representing the intrests of the authors and or motion picture studios.

So in looking at it this way the actions of the Lutz family dont seem like they are going along with a well fabricated hoax from the start but very well could have gotten sucked into participating in stretching out details of the actual events thinking ultimatley it was in their best interests to do so.

Chris is angry at George, but still agrees with him that the haunting was real
There are many ways to look at Chris's role here 30 years after the fact.One he very much could still believe that something actually did occur to them in a supernatural sense.Another is he simply would be losing out aswell if he were to just come out and claim this was indeed greatly embellished upon events that were misinterpreted by his then parents.

My reasoning in the latter is what exactly is "Chris Quaratino productions"?I have seen that before displayed on his own website and am not very clear on if that is an actual established creative body of some kind or not.If in fact it were I would think he would be attempting to market his own version of the events or already a "pressence" in the entertainment industry.In any event hence crying hoax on the whole "Amityville Horror" would undoubtably quell his attempts at attemting to market the story on his own accord.

People have tried to discredit the Lutzes and prove the haunting was a hoax for nearly 30 years now, but no credible proof of a hoax has been uncovered.
Again each of the players here - Weber,Kaplan,Osuna and so on cant really disprove anything in light of a secluded claim of haunting between a small group of people.They can however offer insight and certain facts in wich each and every one has to be weighed on by our own scales of logic and reasoning.Chris Quaratino I think now harbors the power alone to sway the publics opinion on this thing one way or the other.That being said each and every viewpoint and fact by these "players" more than likley has to contain a certain level of truth.At this point though all pieces of the puzzle have still yet to be laid out to really see the entire "picture" here.
I have a gut feeling they?re telling the truth
I honestly believe you do.But at the same time right now in my own honest opinion my gut tells me we arnt getting the entire story or full perspective on it and for whatever reason certain key people here have alot to lose by devulging it.
[img]http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/2986/22ns2.jpg[/img]

"He took a face from the ancient gallery...and walked on down the hall" - Lizard king

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Post by Dan the Damned » Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:14 am

TheVampireologist wrote:...understand also just because somebody is skeptical of these events that dosent generally mean they have to subscribe to the idea of a premeditated hoax.Myself for example as you know believe embellisments were created(by the Lutz's) after they fled the house.So in effect embellishments here for whatever purpose equals out to be classified as a hoax but "not premeditated".
I don't know if I agree with your assessment of the haunting being classified as a hoax if it contains embellishments. Then again, I suppose it depends on just how much and what exactly was embellished. Chris says George has embellished parts of the story, but after all this time, he's only given us one example - the number of times Kathy turned into "an old hag." Mind you, Chris isn't saying Kathy NEVER turned into "an old hag," but is just disagreeing with the number of times this occurred, and where.
TheVampireologist wrote:Further on in your explainations you actually state influence from Chris Quaratino as solidifying your belief into this being an actual haunting.Well to explain the "real" phenomonon occuring here I to am influenced by what Chris has stated recently in regards to the case.For example the statement by him that Mr. Lutz was deeply fascinated and determined to carry out occult practices within the house itself.
Lets not go wild here. You are, I'm guessing, referring to the article on Chris back in May? The reporter says George dabbled in the occult, but Chris' quote in that article is "I don't know that I'd call it black magic, but it was ... a way to call up spirits." So unless you have another quote from Chris, lets not blow his statement out of proportion...
TheVampireologist wrote:Chris also going further to state Mr. Lutz at one point was actually chanting.Why?I have read into transcedental meditation as you know and nowhere have I found chanting to be associated with the practice of "TM".It leads one to conclude Mr. Lutz was actually chanting while conducting some kind of occult "ritual".
From what I read, Transcendental Meditation often involves reciting a mantra, which could be seen, I guess, as "chanting."

http://skepdic.com/tm.html
TheVampireologist wrote:The scenario here is simple actually.The Lutz's sometime during the course of their stay in the home thru the power of sub-concious self suggestion activated more than likley by the meditation ,convinced themselves of a demonic entity present within the home and a grave threat to them.The surroundings and prior murders magnified this I believe and simply drove them into a very real state of mental hysteria.After all it is fact here that both George and Kathy Lutz were practicing "TM" at the time in question.Given they were in this traumatic state of mind their high-strung emotions could have easily influenced the children into a frieghtened sense of awarness aswell.
The reason I don't subscribe to this theory is that the Lutzes discussed the matter of the house's history before they bought it. They wanted to make sure no one felt weird about living in a house where people were murdered. They weren't superstisious.

And if this was all in their minds, how do you explain the shared experiences of two or more individuals? Were all of the shared experiences "embellishments"?

And remember, William Weber stated that he helped create the story with the Lutzes. He didn't say he simply embellished their true haunting story.

I can't prove your theory is wrong, but I don't find it very probable.
TheVampireologist wrote:Onto the topic of media exposure ,Weber could of easily supplied (as he did) the exposure needed.Following this scenario the Lutz's no doubt would be in a sort of post-traumatic state and not fully realized yet the oppurtunity here to sell the story and probly had no real intentions to early on.Weber I think is key to planting the idea of a book contract in their minds and expanding on the story in hopes of gaining some kind of profit from it.After all the foundation was there for a really good story and the public had an apetite for this subject matter aswell at the time(hence the exorsist).
I guess this comes back to just how much you think was embellished by the Lutzes. The Lutzes claimed they didn't sell the house to another family because they felt it was dangerous, and they couldn't live with the knowledge that they might be putting another family at risk.

If the Lutzes did not believe the house was that dangerous, surely they would have sold it to another family rather than giving it back to the bank.

And if the Lutzes were suddenly thinking about turning their experiences into cash, surely they would have kept the house until the book was released so they might make more money selling an infamous piece of property. And the same with their possessions - surely their "possibly haunted possessions" would be worth more after the book was released.

You're not convincing me...
TheVampireologist wrote:As for the garage sale wasnt most of these possesions the Defeos anyway?The Lutz's no doubt wouldnt have any real reservations for parting with any of it including their possessions after such a traumatic series of events occuring to them.
The "garage sale" contained a lot of the Lutzes' possessions, including their boat. But my point of the auction was that they could have gotten more money for these items (and the house) if they waited until the book was released.
TheVampireologist wrote:Agian like you pointed out they were not established "con artists" and easily could have been duped out of most of the initial profits from the book and movie by savy legal attorneys representing the intrests of the authors and or motion picture studios.
Yes, that's true. And in a sense, I think that's what happened. George has said that after escaping from Weber's proposed deal, they pretty much stumbled into the deal with Prentice-Hall and Jay Anson. George says what happened is that he showed a friend a copy of Weber's contract. This friend assumed that George was shopping their story around for a book, and put him in contact with people which eventually led to Jay Anson writing the book.

It seems the Lutzes were sort of lackadaisical in dealing with the book deal. They didn't even sign a contract until shortly before the book was to be released. This seems to mesh with their story and them getting taken advantage of in regards to the profits. Had the situation have been the Lutzes out there shopping their own story, I think they'd have made sure they didn't get ripped off or taken advantage of in the process.
TheVampireologist wrote:...what exactly is "Chris Quaratino productions"?I have seen that before displayed on his own website and am not very clear on if that is an actual established creative body of some kind or not.If in fact it were I would think he would be attempting to market his own version of the events or already a "pressence" in the entertainment industry.In any event hence crying hoax on the whole "Amityville Horror" would undoubtably quell his attempts at attemting to market the story on his own accord.
Chris has been saying for a long time that he was going to make his own documentary on his experiences in the house. He also said something to the effect that he has a stage area or something where he planned to make this film. CQP is not an entertainment Industry prescence - it is the name Chris is using to hopefully, one day, make his film.

However, I don't know if his crying hoax would hurt his attempts at marketing his own book and/or film. Instead, it might be the opposite. Wouldn't people love to read a book by a member of the Lutz family detailing how the haunting was a hoax?
TheVampireologist wrote:Again each of the players here - Weber,Kaplan,Osuna and so on cant really disprove anything in light of a secluded claim of haunting between a small group of people.
I believe Weber claimed to have tapes of meetings between him and the Lutzes where they made up aspects of the story. I'm a bit fuzzy on this, though. Sherb, if you're reading, am I way off here, or am I thinking of something else?
TheVampireologist wrote:They can however offer insight and certain facts in wich each and every one has to be weighed on by our own scales of logic and reasoning.Chris Quaratino I think now harbors the power alone to sway the publics opinion on this thing one way or the other.That being said each and every viewpoint and fact by these "players" more than likley has to contain a certain level of truth.At this point though all pieces of the puzzle have still yet to be laid out to really see the entire "picture" here.
Fine, but so far their "facts" have not been very persuasive. And some have been outright lies.

User avatar
Spectral Birth
Horror Infinity
Posts: 45

Post by Spectral Birth » Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:15 am

I agree with Dan on a lot of stuff here. Can anyone give me the link for Chris's website?

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9561
Contact:

Post by sherbetbizarre » Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:14 am

I think it was http://www.waronhorror.com/ but it seems to have gone...

User avatar
TheVampireologist
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 829

Post by TheVampireologist » Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:38 pm

To continue on anyway with the discussion with Dan -
I don't know if I agree with your assessment of the haunting being classified as a hoax if it contains embellishments. Then again, I suppose it depends on just how much and what exactly was embellished. Chris says George has embellished parts of the story, but after all this time, he's only given us one example - the number of times Kathy turned into "an old hag." Mind you, Chris isn't saying Kathy NEVER turned into "an old hag," but is just disagreeing with the number of times this occurred, and where
No matter really at what level of key details being embellished here.My argument is based on The Lutz's misinterpreting something other as being a genuine haunting.Assuming now that to be the case the misinterpreting itself may not be an actual "hoax" but at the same time it couldnt be really labeled as a haunting either (IF) your looking at it from this perspective.I guess inadvertant "self deception" would fit better than "hoax".But again if you embellish any detail of it after the fact when does that really cross over into the realm of hoax here?
Lets not go wild here. You are, I'm guessing, referring to the article on Chris back in May? The reporter says George dabbled in the occult, but Chris' quote in that article is "I don't know that I'd call it black magic, but it was ... a way to call up spirits." So unless you have another quote from Chris, lets not blow his statement out of proportion
I dont think im blowing anything out of proportion when interpreting the statement of "calling up spirits".Granted maybe that isnt in reference to "black magic" but the term itself for me anyway seems to hint on some level of occult practice.
From what I read, Transcendental Meditation often involves reciting a mantra, which could be seen, I guess, as "chanting
Again I have to disagree with that assesment here.For example look at this description in the FAQ page of a TM.org website promoting the practice (http://www.t-m.org.uk/whatistm.shtml) -

Q - Will I be required to chant, or adopt unusual postures?

A - No. When you meditate you sit comfortably with your eyes closed, in silence. To the onlooker it will appear as though you are dozing. It is perfectly possible, for instance, to meditate on a train journey

From your own link you provided to me here is how the "mantra" is described -

(The method involves entertaining a mantra, an allegedly special expression which is often nothing more than the name of a Hindu god. Disciples pay hundreds of dollars for their mantras.)

So the "mantra" would simply be a special name or title given to the practicer.Further more (TM) is often cited as an almost dangerous practice for some and actually has a support group for those harmed by engaging in the practice itself.Again as for the "old hag" and levitation occurences in the haunting claims themselves.Consider that "levitation"itself to be a central practice in relation to (TM) as well as after effects such as hallucinations etc. hence the creation of a "support group" directly related to (TM) for those suffering these very real after effects from engaging in it.
And if this was all in their minds, how do you explain the shared experiences of two or more individuals? Were all of the shared experiences "embellishments"?
Shared expieriences?I thought a key distinction from that here was a direct quote from George Lutz himself "The haunting seemed to affect each member of the family in a different way".For example Nobody but George Lutz shared the expierience of waking up to a loud distinct sound of a "marching band tuning up" for example.Wich I speculate was an after affect of the (TM) and attempts at "calling up spirits" maybe in relation to simple sleep paralysis in wich it is common to feel a loud surging in the head accompanied by "jumbled noises".
I can't prove your theory is wrong, but I don't find it very probable.
After really considering all of this up to this point you have to admit its at the very least probable.
And if the Lutzes were suddenly thinking about turning their experiences into cash, surely they would have kept the house until the book was released so they might make more money selling an infamous piece of property. And the same with their possessions - surely their "possibly haunted possessions" would be worth more after the book was released.

You're not convincing me...
Again im not saying after the Lutz's suffered through all of this that they didnt truly feel frieghtened or at jeopardy somehow.Like I said I think they were duped and mislead by alot of people ,Weber maybe included.After the fact now though in hind sight im sure they realize the overall value of keeping the public intrest alive and believing in interprting these events as a genuine case of demonic haunting.That might not convince you but it sure is a convincing way of looking at it for me.
However, I don't know if his crying hoax would hurt his attempts at marketing his own book and/or film. Instead, it might be the opposite. Wouldn't people love to read a book by a member of the Lutz family detailing how the haunting was a hoax?
havnt I already hinted at this very idea here in my post from Aug 31st 2005?

theVampireologist wrote -
"Imagine though if George were to release a book detailing an elaborate hoax in this case.It would probly outsell the original book released in 1979"
[img]http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/2986/22ns2.jpg[/img]

"He took a face from the ancient gallery...and walked on down the hall" - Lizard king

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Post by Dan the Damned » Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:59 pm

Are you asking me if its "probable" or "possible"?

Your theories may be possible, but I don't feel they are probable.

I know we've gone over splitting hairs on the definition of "occult." That's not really a big deal - but when people say the Lutzes dabbled in the occult, others are more likely to take that as them performing some sort of devil worship rather than practicing meditation...

As far as TM involving chanting, I guess we both come up with conflicting information. Here's another one I found from http://www.meditationiseasy.com/mCorner ... ues/TM.htm
When the TM student pays the money, he is given his personal mantra to chant along with  detailed instructions (such as pronunciation, place and timing) for chanting the mantra. He is told not to reveal the mantra to anybody.
So perhaps its optional whether or not you chant the mantra?

Concerning the shared experiences - yes, even though the family had many different experiences, they also shared some experiences.
Again im not saying after the Lutz's suffered through all of this that they didnt truly feel frieghtened or at jeopardy somehow.Like I said I think they were duped and mislead by alot of people ,Weber maybe included.After the fact now though in hind sight im sure they realize the overall value of keeping the public intrest alive and believing in interprting these events as a genuine case of demonic haunting.That might not convince you but it sure is a convincing way of looking at it for me.
Not entirely sure of what you mean here. "interprting these events as a genuine case of demonic haunting." I guess you have your reasons why this isn't a genuine case.


EDIT: I edited that last quote. Never meant to quote your whole post - just the last part...
Last edited by Dan the Damned on Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheVampireologist
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 829

Post by TheVampireologist » Wed Sep 28, 2005 5:09 am

In response to Dan -
I know we've gone over splitting hairs on the definition of "occult."
That's not really a big deal - but when people say the Lutzes dabbled
in the occult, others are more likely to take that as them performing
some sort of devil worship rather than practicing meditation...
Practicing meditation?

Take Chiris's own quote for example -

Dan the damned wrote -

Chris' quote in that article is "I don't know that I'd call it
black magic, but it was ... a way to call up spirits."
Since when is "calling up spirit's" in anyway associated with
transcedental meditation?

When Chris was refering to "TM" why wouldnt he simply substitute
"meditaion" in his sentence instead of the remark
"a way to call up spirits."?

The reference of "calling up spirits" to me seems like a hint by
Chris as opposed to something other simply than (TM).After all its
pretty much a fact trying to contact "spirits" isnt offically endorsed by
any western religions or even transcedental meditation itself for that
matter.

yes, even though the family had many different experiences,
they also shared some experiences.
Its a fact though both adults in the household at the time were practicing this complex form of meditaion and "maybe" as Chris hinted at going a step further in tring to "summon up spirits" in the very setting of a brutal multiple homicide involving the actual former tenants they had recently
substituted in a very literal sense.As far as conflicting statements
in regards to certain details - c'mon its been 30 yrs with yet
a diffinitive account from anyone involved anyway.
Not entirely sure of what you mean here. "interprting these events
as a genuine case of demonic haunting." I guess you have your reasons
why this isn't a genuine case.
I am simply implying that maybe these events were
not a "demonic" haunting but instead misenterpreted as
such due to -

#1 The actual setting in regards to a recent horrific event

#2 - coupled with self-subjecting of the adults to complex meditaion...

#3 Further influenced by 'occult" or "spirit summoning" rituals as Chris had
described.
[img]http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/2986/22ns2.jpg[/img]

"He took a face from the ancient gallery...and walked on down the hall" - Lizard king

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

Re: Why are you SO sure?..

Post by Howard64 » Wed Sep 28, 2005 5:12 am

:) flower :)_Scared wrote:This question goes out to the people who firmly believe that the house in Amityville is / was haunted.
I would like to know why you are so sure that something happened. How are you so sure that the people you defend aren't lying? How do you know the facts that you debate with non believers about are not complete lies?
I am not starting this thread to try and prove this whole story is a lie or anything, I am just interested to find out why some of the other users on this board believe Geroge Lutz and his story.
For the record, I do believe that the Lutzes were a victim of a haunting simply because after 30 years the story hasnt changed and any interview I have seen with George and Kathy, they seem very genuine, however some people say that if you tell a lie often enough, you start to believe it.
I am the type of person that will not blndly follow some sort of idea or concept. How can i believe what the Lutzes said? My own belief in God is the basis that i base this belief on. Let me explain.

I know what the bible tells me is true. The bible speaks of Good and Evil and of the evil there are spirits which torment and harrass us. Ephesians 6:12 tells us about the principalities for which we wrestle against. Those principalities are the the ones that we should be concerned with.

Hope this helps:)
" 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
TheVampireologist
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 829

Post by TheVampireologist » Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:19 pm

My own belief in God is the basis that i base this belief on
So your using your belief in religion as the prime influence in convincing you on a highly debatable claim of haunting?

I highly respect your religious beliefs but aside from them dont you think any claim offered by anyone especially a claim of haunting deserves some kind of objective scruitiny aside from that?
[img]http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/2986/22ns2.jpg[/img]

"He took a face from the ancient gallery...and walked on down the hall" - Lizard king

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

Post by Howard64 » Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:22 pm

I do believe that some scientific study as well as psychological evaluation is warranted. Certain factors have to be ruled out.

What i meant was, i believe what happened to the Lutzes...COULD happen, given the right circumstances. As far as what exactly happened, is still a subject for scrutinization, which is why we are here:)

Howard64
" 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
TheVampireologist
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 829

Post by TheVampireologist » Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:39 pm

do believe that some scientific study as well as psychological evaluation is warranted. Certain factors have to be ruled out.

What i meant was, i believe what happened to the Lutzes...COULD happen, given the right circumstances. As far as what exactly happened, is still a subject for scrutinization, which is why we are here:)
That makes total sense to me Howard.
[img]http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/2986/22ns2.jpg[/img]

"He took a face from the ancient gallery...and walked on down the hall" - Lizard king

Post Reply