JimmySmokes thread of Going Nowhere...

[sherbetbizarre]

Gates was around when he was still working on the Lutz book. He was working on the Histories Mysteries show too, but when they wouldn't acknowledge Gates, and he was told his book needed work, that's when he bailed and told Gate's story.

[Brendan72]

according to osuna, at some point lutz was only interested in putting out another piece of fiction, such as film/book. why the idea of a picture book may have been around beforehand, I doubt it never got off the ground and was merely only an idea. but then one wonders why osuna would write up a manuscript (pro-haunting) then do the usual in the Amityville world and flip-flop and do his own thing? sour grapes perhaps? my guess is he just couldn't keep forcing himself to buy into the haunting after being around George for a while? enter gates.

No it was pretty much sour grapes.

[jimmysmokes]

got my own thread on here and can't even take responsibility for it! how cool is that!

[sherbetbizarre]

And one day there might actually be a point to it!

[jimmysmokes]

you're just upset because osuna split with george and did his own book. i told you that paybacks a beach.

[Brendan72]

you're just upset because osuna split with george and did his own book. i told you that paybacks a beach.

Yes Sherb stays awake at night fretting about his never realised book deal ...

[jimmysmokes]

yes he is touching about people intruding on the lutz story and does frequently stay up late at night on this board. i would know since we chat past his bedtime.

[jimmysmokes]

hey sherbetto? my company is doing business with a company over there in England now.

they sent some complimentary gifts. something called "spotted d1ck".

you wouldn't be behind that would you?

[sherbetbizarre]

[horsysauce]

hey sherbetto? my company is doing business with a company over there in England now.

they sent some complimentary gifts. something called "spotted d1ck".

you wouldn't be behind that would you?

I could have told you to avoid that rubbish!

[jimmysmokes]

as you can see- jimmy definitely "smokes"

[Amit Y Ville]

as you can see- jimmy definitely "smokes"

Not so bad, especially since that thing is legal in some parts.

[Ayko]

hey sherbetto? my company is doing business with a company over there in England now.

they sent some complimentary gifts. something called "spotted d1ck".

you wouldn't be behind that would you?

Spotted dik was first created by the celebrity chef and Frenchman, Alexis Bénoit Soyer.

[jimmysmokes]

hmm? a Frenchman? I would follow that up with a comment but our rainbow "boys" would delete so not to offend what is offensive!

[Ayko]

Yup. But we have the advantage that censorship, in this day and age, is what is really offensive.

[jimmysmokes]

Umm, does anyone know when Chris is going to be releasing or setting the record straight about what went on in the house? Been waiting a over a year for this! Anyone?

[kathyM]

Wonder what he is doing now? What happened to him?

[jimmysmokes]

I don't know? I guess since the Awakening shot an all time blank financial wise, a lawsuit seemed pointless, not to mention an utter embarrassment.

[Dan the Damned]

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

Dan, I've been going through the transcripts like you told me to awhile ago. As they are supposed to pertain to what the Lutzes original claims were before Anson got involved, etc.

Hmm? These transcripts begin from interviews 1979 onward. They are largely not the original claims. In their original claims (before the book came out) there is no levitation, no door being ripped off or blown off but simply add-ons over time. Plus you mentioned that it appeared they made payments on the house till June/76 I believe? Laura DiDio said the house was repossessed by the bank making it clear they made no payments on the house, which is what I already thought (as well as others).

So we're back to square one.

Dan, I was going through the Rick Moran interview show you called into. Very interesting!


While you were doing damage control in the "Notes" section, you forgot to mention the key aspect to prove your points?

Give me a list and I'll do my best.

Well you forgot to mention "there's room for doubt" & the "I don't totally believe it myself" line you use?

I just want to bring up a couple things without breaking it all down and keep it simple.

In Note 19- you quote Rick that Anson admitted to Rick that he used artistic license and exaggerated events. And why does Rick continue to treat the book as Lutz Gospel, being Rick is basing his argument on Ansons book rather than the original claims.

You are aware that the book was labeled a true story with the Lutzes name on it and sold to the public? And we all know that it was not a true story, (well some of us anyway) so from that stand point Rick's argument is not dishonest but rather what was sold to the public as true was! And while it's true that he might not have been quoting "original" Lutz claims it still doesn't hide the fact that they did put their names on this "true" story (book) and that makes them accountable regardless. Just like the press conference they attended with Weber but claimed they never called it. So? They were their with him and involved with him at that time! Of course they changed course (like they had a habit of doing) and split with him.

It's like Sherbetto and Mentally Ill in Amityville. If he's an Amityville "expert", one wonders why he got involved in that error ridden thing when he should know better? Maybe he didn't read the final print?

p.s. George once stated that Kathy never read the book. This was back in the seventies when they were promoting it.
Does anyone find this odd? If what George said here was true, I think I know why.

Okay, as you said, let's keep it simple. I'll focus on what seems to be the main point of your post here, and later, after we've gone through that, we can return to one of these other points you mention. Though it is sometimes hard to understand exactly what you're getting at. I'll try.

In Note 19- you quote Rick that Anson admitted to Rick that he used artistic license and exaggerated events. And why does Rick continue to treat the book as Lutz Gospel, being Rick is basing his argument on Ansons book rather than the original claims.

You are aware that the book was labeled a true story with the Lutzes name on it and sold to the public? And we all know that it was not a true story, (well some of us anyway) so from that stand point Rick's argument is not dishonest but rather what was sold to the public as true was! And while it's true that he might not have been quoting "original" Lutz claims it still doesn't hide the fact that they did put their names on this "true" story (book) and that makes them accountable regardless.

This is a pretty minor point in that interview. But yeah, Moran has previously stated how he was told by Jay Anson about how Jay used artistic license in writing the book and had even exaggerated certain events and moved events around in the timeline to make for a more interesting book.

So right there Rick knows that he isn't reading "the Lutzes' story." He is reading "Jay Anson's exaggerated version of the Lutzes' story."

That doesn't stop Rick from holding up Jay's book and holding the Lutzes' accountable for its discrepancies.

And that is dishonest.

Well, (pretty much) you seem to toss Rick under the bus on the same kind of thing for "discrepancies" when George (in previous note) changed it to a marching band later on to make his answers quicker for interviews. That is not a big deal to me though it would still be inaccurate on George's part by not sticking with his original claim.

One thing I'll ask you is how do you know George & Kathy were telling the truth about their claims? What convinces you even though none of it can be proven? And yes, they do have inaccuracies in their own claims as I have pointed out in here.

Just like the press conference they attended with Weber but claimed they never called it. So? They were their with him and involved with him at that time!

It's like Sherbetto and Mentally Ill in Amityville. If he's an Amityville "expert", one wonders why he got involved in that error ridden thing when he should know better? Maybe he didn't read the final print?

Well, with both of these issues it's all in the details -

Weber called the press conference when the Lutzes were losing interest in working with him - maybe even after they refused to sign his contract because Ronnie DeFeo signed it too.

They only attended because of his threat the press would come after them anyway - even via their kids - it was a bluff, but they had less than a day to think it over.

Now, you might not believe the Lutzes, and think they were up for that conference anyway - but there's more to it than them just being "involved with Weber at the time".

Also, if they happy to do the conference, why did they refuse all press interviews for days, weeks, months afterwards?


Mentally Ill in Amityville - the author arrived on this forum having already completed his book. People started buying digital copies and immediately reporting inaccuracies.

I had ordered a print copy, and by the time it arrived, the author had decided to take it off the market and deal with the corrections at some point.

I made notes as I read it - some of which had already been spotted - and sent him the list. Initially he was working on another project, and said his re-write would be months away, but upon getting the list he was eager to make the corrections, and gave me a PDF of the new version to go over, complete with my name in the new intro.

Now, as I had just read the book, and he wasn't planning on re-releasing it for a while, I put the pdf to one side... However, about 2 weeks later or so, he put the new version on the market anyway!

So no, I did not read the version with my name in it, although I'm still glad I helped clear up the errors in the first version.

To my shame I've still not read the final version - I think he had to pay every time he corrected the book, so this would be the "final" version anyway, even if I disagreed with one or two things. So if you still think they are some howlers in there, let me know!

I didn't say the Lutzes were happy to attend the press conference or they were up for it, just said they attended it. As for the kids being hounded by the press, I answered (corrected) you once on this matter and the reasons why they avoided the press afterwards. Wouldn't sit well at that time to reveal they would be working with a new author and they're "breaching" of contract with Weber, even though they didn't sign. Lawsuits, yes they eventually began.

I guess you should've looked at the pdf. Lol, he put it back on the market pretty quick huh? I have the version with your name in it so I guess that's the new version?

Obviously you don't agree with his insinuating on Dawn's involvement in the murders? I just reopened the book, going to have a good time breaking this down as I already saw some goodies to get into!

It says right in the intro that with your help and another administrator on this board, Savive was able to create a very accurate book! But if you (sherbetto) haven't read it guess I can't point my finger at you? Psst, shades of Anson and The Lutzes. And Dan is Savive referring to you?

Well, (pretty much) you seem to toss Rick under the bus on the same kind of thing for "discrepancies" when George (in previous note) changed it to a marching band later on to make his answers quicker for interviews. That is not a big deal to me though it would still be inaccurate on George's part by not sticking with his original claim.

So you count that as a discrepancy? George sometimes referring to the musical sounds (and multiple footsteps) as a marching band? Seems a pretty apt description to me. He said it kinda sounded like multiple musicians tuning up.

One thing I'll ask you is how do you know George & Kathy were telling the truth about their claims?

You know, there is something really wrong with you. I don't know how many times I've told you that I don't know if the haunting was real or not. Get it through your f*cking head.

It says right in the intro that with your help and another administrator on this board, Savive was able to create a very accurate book! But if you (sherbetto) haven't read it guess I can't point my finger at you? Psst, shades of Anson and The Lutzes. And Dan is Savive referring to you?

I don't recall helping Savive at all. Savive is a hack. For his book, all he did was to rip stuff off (sometimes verbatim) from this very board, from MY website, from Ric Osuna's stupid book and elsewhere on the internet.

No, there is nothing wrong with me, rather it seems there is something wrong with you? I just asked you a question on why do you believe their claims (story). You proceed to fly off the handle about getting it through my F-ing head that you have always stated that you don't know if the haunting was real or not? Yet, you've spent years trying to oppose the debunkers and skeptics with your original claims jargon and your own break-downs of trying to keep the arguments in favor of the Lutzes, etc. Fine, but you seem to lean towards pro-haunting but toss out the "I don't know if I believe in the haunting"- "room for doubt" and the kicker you told me recently, "I don't know why I believe it"????? WHEW

You got me? But you see right there, that's the problem with fence-sitters! Even with ALL the info and "FACTS" they have to dig into, they still remain uncertain about what they believe or are trying to pass off as "truth". They slip up and the cracks start appearing and that's where I come in. No doubt about it.

Dan, I'll help you out here, You can't get a little bit pregnant. Meditate on this.

Yes I agree with you on Savive. At times when I read his book I have to remind myself that I didn't mistakenly pick up Osuna's book. I guess he was referring to another admin on here?

Dominus vobiscum Et cum spiritu tuo

I have the version with your name in it so I guess that's the new version?

Yeah.

Obviously you don't agree with his insinuating on Dawn's involvement in the murders?

Nope, so it's a little disappointing the intro may make it sound I'm down with the whole book!

I wasn't "flying off the handle," but I realize it's hard to judge someone's temperament via the written word.

It was just that you keep asking me variations of the same f*cking question, and it's irritating. It makes it seem like you are a troll, just here to play your silly games.

you've spent years trying to oppose the debunkers and skeptics with your original claims jargon and your own break-downs of trying to keep the arguments in favor of the Lutzes, etc.

You are forgetting two of my main "breakdowns" which actually go the other way. I have spent a lot of time debunking the ghost boy photo, and I have spent a lot of time saying how I feel the Warrens were frauds.

Both of those go AGAINST the haunting (or, as you put it, "the Lutzes, etc"). But since that doesn't fit into your argument, you conveniently overlook them.

that's the problem with fence-sitters! Even with ALL the info and "FACTS" they have to dig into, they still remain uncertain about what they believe or are trying to pass off as "truth". They slip up and the cracks start appearing and that's where I come in. No doubt about it.

And there we have it again. Once more, you claim that I am trying to push some sort of agenda upon everyone. Damn. It's getting old, dude. You keep coming back with the same bullsh*t, over and over.

I am here to find out the truth. Unfortunately, I realize that this is most like impossible (how does one prove a haunting was real when we can't even prove that ghosts are real?) Sound familiar? Should be. I've probably told this to you a few times already.

A lot of what I argue about does seem to typically be about the various hoax claims against the Lutzes. Of which, the majority seem to be hastily thought-out and downright stupid. But if you'll notice, a lot of times, I'm simply responding with "well, George said this about that." That's just me giving the other side of the story. If you want to believe it or not, whatever.

Again, to me, the name "Truth Board" means "uncovering the truth." That's why I put the silhouette of Sherlock Holmes in the logo, to give folks the idea that we are here to investigate the stories. "Truth" doesn't mean "I'm here to tell you the truth and you're gonna shut up and listen." I mean, yeah, if I believe something, I'll argue my case. But that doesn't mean I'm the final word on anything (nor do I pretend to be)...

Yes, the bottom line is we’ll never know what happened as we weren’t there. All anyone can do is speculate. I like reading all the different points of view.

You have the Lutzes claims as to what happened. If that's not good enough for you or others then I don't know why one would bother to speculate on what happened? If you're having trouble believing their claims, you must see something "doubtful" with the whole thing. Once again we do know what happened there IF they were telling the truth?

If they were not telling the truth, then yes one could speculate all kinds of theories about why?

It’s hard to know what to think entirely because we hear so many other versions of events.

Also there’s always a possibility that in their mind things played out a certain way but the psyche can play tricks in high anxiety situations.

And of course there is the possibility of a hoax.

Or the possibility everything they said is true and the ones with different versions of events are the ones not being honest. It’s impossible to prove it one way or the other.

You have the Lutzes claims as to what happened. If that's not good enough for you or others then I don't know why one would bother to speculate on what happened? If you're having trouble believing their claims, you must see something "doubtful" with the whole thing. Once again we do know what happened there IF they were telling the truth?

If they were not telling the truth, then yes one could speculate all kinds of theories about why?

It’s hard to know what to think entirely because we hear so many other versions of events.

Yes, they themselves have different versions.

Also there’s always a possibility that in their mind things played out a certain way but the psyche can play tricks in high anxiety situations.

Well if it was in their minds then it was imagined. The psyche or anxiety has nothing to do with a haunting.

And of course there is the possibility of a hoax.

uh huh

Or the possibility everything they said is true and the ones with different versions of events are the ones not being honest. It’s impossible to prove it one way or the other.

If they can't get it right, who can?

I wasn't "flying off the handle," but I realize it's hard to judge someone's temperament via the written word.

It was just that you keep asking me variations of the same f*cking question, and it's irritating. It makes it seem like you are a troll, just here to play your silly games.

you've spent years trying to oppose the debunkers and skeptics with your original claims jargon and your own break-downs of trying to keep the arguments in favor of the Lutzes, etc.

You are forgetting two of my main "breakdowns" which actually go the other way. I have spent a lot of time debunking the ghost boy photo, and I have spent a lot of time saying how I feel the Warrens were frauds.

Both of those go AGAINST the haunting (or, as you put it, "the Lutzes, etc"). But since that doesn't fit into your argument, you conveniently overlook them.

that's the problem with fence-sitters! Even with ALL the info and "FACTS" they have to dig into, they still remain uncertain about what they believe or are trying to pass off as "truth". They slip up and the cracks start appearing and that's where I come in. No doubt about it.

And there we have it again. Once more, you claim that I am trying to push some sort of agenda upon everyone. Damn. It's getting old, dude. You keep coming back with the same bullsh*t, over and over.

I am here to find out the truth. Unfortunately, I realize that this is most like impossible (how does one prove a haunting was real when we can't even prove that ghosts are real?) Sound familiar? Should be. I've probably told this to you a few times already.

A lot of what I argue about does seem to typically be about the various hoax claims against the Lutzes. Of which, the majority seem to be hastily thought-out and downright stupid. But if you'll notice, a lot of times, I'm simply responding with "well, George said this about that." That's just me giving the other side of the story. If you want to believe it or not, whatever.

Again, to me, the name "Truth Board" means "uncovering the truth." That's why I put the silhouette of Sherlock Holmes in the logo, to give folks the idea that we are here to investigate the stories. "Truth" doesn't mean "I'm here to tell you the truth and you're gonna shut up and listen." I mean, yeah, if I believe something, I'll argue my case. But that doesn't mean I'm the final word on anything (nor do I pretend to be)...

No I'm not playing games dude, I'm serious. And no I didn't overlook your ghostie boy debunking or saying the Warrens were frauds. You do put forth some truth I'll admit.

I'd like to hear of some of the hoax claims you find hastily thought out or stupid.

No I don't believe you're trying to force us to believe anything in here but you do have your views & "beliefs", I guess, so I'll respond to some of them if need be. Besides, you and Mr. Sherb are top dogs in here. I come in here for you two. If I can't get you two out of hibernation, I'm not doing something right

What I'm not sure I understand is this:

A belief that the Warrens were frauds and that the ghostie boy is nothing more than a researcher damages the credibility of the Lutz claims.

The credibility of the Warrens conclusions becomes absolute zero, and even worse makes George Lutz look like a liar.
Because he said, on many occasions that Missy identified the figure in the picture as a little boy ghost/demon/thing she played with in the house.

This obviously is not true and it's very obviously not a little boy. Didn't George even tastelessly (a rather disgusting, hypocritical act from a man who was so against exploitation of himself and his own family... but the DeFeos were fair game it seems) whip out an autopsy photo no less of one of the DeFeo boys to suggest that is who the ghostie boy was?

How do the these beliefs reconcile with each other? Because in my mind there's no way they can.

If someone believes the Warrens were frauds that makes their conclusions and claims about Amityville completely invalid.
If you (rightfully) believe there is no ghostie boy in that picture then George's claims about it have to be a lie.

I don't know... maybe it's a lot like you find with a lot of "true" stories, a mixture of truth, embellishment and outright falsehoods. But even ONE lie can damage the credibility of everything else.

I didn't realise if you believe something and it turns out to be false it makes you a liar. But there ya go.

That's not what I even said.

George didn't say he believed it was a little boy "ghost" his step-daughter played with. His claim was always that she told him it was. There's a difference between portraying something as a belief and something as a fact.
The problem is it cannot be a true statement, based on what we now know

I think the photo has been thoroughly debunked at this point, and accepted by most around here that it was a researcher?

So the thing is... somebody is not telling the truth about the origin of the photo. It can't be both, can it?
Also it's incredibly hard to believe that this supposed ghostly image was missed by everyone involved for two years, because it's claimed the ghost boy wasn't noticed for that long.
I call BS on that one, because what kind of incompetent, shoddy investigators were they to apparently miss such an apparently striking thing? Unless, of course, they knew exactly what it really showed in the first place.

I call BS on that one, because what kind of incompetent, shoddy investigators were they to apparently miss such an apparently striking thing? Unless, of course, they knew exactly what it really showed in the first place.

Yeah, the belief is they knew it was Bartz, so never mentioned it... Then two years later Lutzes secretary notices this strange "person", George shows Missy, and Missy says "that's the little boy who played in my room."

To my mind this could have been mistaken identity on her part - the image is not entirely clear, and appears to show a small person in her doorway.

Perhaps but the problem I have is that it was always stated as concrete fact, not mere speculation which is at best misleading, at worst possibly a total lie.

For me the whole thing is not a case of 100% true or 100% hoax but a mixture of truths, lies and embellishments.
I've used an example elsewhere of Holocaust survivors who have spiced up their stories, possibly straight up lied and spread rumours and myths they heard as actual true events. It does damage their credibility but doesn't mean they weren't there at all or never suffered/witnessed awful things.

I think the Lutz family certainly believed something supernatural was going on in the house, but that doesn't it mean it was or that everything they say is true.

Yes, I'm sure they believed the house was haunted. The flies, dark running water, smells etc... The problem is that people tend to judge their actions with today's expectations and not that of the superstitious 1970's.
Back then these things could easily have been mistaken and built upon, a little like a fisherman's story - the one that got away.
I have no doubt that the Amityville Horror is based upon a 'true' story, but it was true to them. How much of it was misinterpreted and built upon is what is debatable. Even the smallest of phenomena, such as Kathy being touched in the kitchen, would seem heightened in such an environment.
This doesn't detract from what they went through nor does it mean they were lying.

Yes, I'm sure they believed the house was haunted. The flies, dark running water, smells etc... The problem is that people tend to judge their actions with today's expectations and not that of the superstitious 1970's.

That could be true of their first three weeks in the house... But then came the levitating, Kathy turning into a "hag", the eyes at the window, the figure in Missy's room... then it became something else.

You are quite right. At that point it became a much more active haunting. Levitation and transfiguration's are not uncommon but the other phenomena, such as Jodie and the the demonic presence I suspect are more down to over active imaginations.
Again, I really don't think the Lutz family were lying. But after living three weeks in a house they believed to be haunted (which it may well have been), then under such circumstances their minds could create all sorts of demons.
Towards the end of their stay at the house I think they were jumping at shows.

What I want to know is why George was still saying up until his death that Missy said it was the little boy she used play with in the her room? He still never knew who it was? And how did Bartz get into Missy's room to play?

Yeah yeah I know, this doesn't mean they were lying about the house being haunted=ÿDfi

How old was Missy when this took place - about 5? I'm not sure I'd be willing to base my argument on a five year old's recollections.
I can't even remember being that age?

I’m talking about George and his passing this off until his death. Furthermore I don’t believe this came from Missy but rather George who proceeded to throw it off on his five year old stepdaughter to add “credibility” to this silly pic taken by those jackleg investigators.

Just like I don’t believe the kids had anything to do with this story to begin with. They were used by George in this whole scheme, even Kathy who did play along with it. Danny and Chris have admitted to this fact all along.

As much as I want to defend him, I have to concede that George must have had an inkling that it was Paul Bartz.
Not sure about Danny and Chris though. I spoke to Chris a few years ago, who claimed that George was the cause and had deliberately provoked something in the house. As there was no love lost between George and Chris - I took that with a pinch of salt.

Yes, I'm sure they believed the house was haunted. The flies, dark running water, smells etc... The problem is that people tend to judge their actions with today's expectations and not that of the superstitious 1970's.

That could be true of their first three weeks in the house... But then came the levitating, Kathy turning into a "hag", the eyes at the window, the figure in Missy's room... then it became something else.

Not a single authentic case of any person levitating has been documented. Not one. No unmanipulated photographic or video evidence whatsoever.

Do you really believe two people actually levitated just because they claim they did, despite no real evidence that it even happens?

I’m talking about George and his passing this off until his death. Furthermore I don’t believe this came from Missy but rather George who proceeded to throw it off on his five year old stepdaughter to add “credibility” to this silly pic taken by those jackleg investigators.

Just like I don’t believe the kids had anything to do with this story to begin with. They were used by George in this whole scheme, even Kathy who did play along with it. Danny and Chris have admitted to this fact all along.

As much as I want to defend him, I have to concede that George must have had an inkling that it was Paul Bartz.
Not sure about Danny and Chris though. I spoke to Chris a few years ago, who claimed that George was the cause and had deliberately provoked something in the house. As there was no love lost between George and Chris - I took that with a pinch of salt.

It has a definite ring of plausibility to me.

I understand there was no love lost between both boys and George, but I wouldn't dismiss that animosity the way you seem to. There's obviously a good reason for it and it isn't too far fetched that maybe George's reasons for buying that house was because of and not despite the horrific murders.
The scenes of brutal murder and bloodshed are often considered great places for seeking out ghosts and paranormal activity.

I’ve wondered if he might have actually been interested in the occult and bought it for that reason, thinking it might be haunted. I have heard people say they thought it would be fun to live in a haunted house.

Also, in Stephen Kaplan’s book, he said George admitted he knew Ray Buckland, a prominent witch in the area. I don’t know if George disputed that but if it’s true, that is interesting.

Also, in Stephen Kaplan’s book, he said George admitted he knew Ray Buckland, a prominent witch in the area. I don’t know if George disputed that but if it’s true, that is interesting.

George tells Kaplan he visited Buckland's museum after leaving the house...

But Kaplan writes in his book: "I am getting more suspicious by the minute. Didn’t George just tell me he knew nothing of the occult up until the past two months? Ray Buckland had been gone from New York for a year or two now. That would mean George had discussed “the craft,” as it is called, with one of the most knowledgeable witches in the country long before he bought the house; actually even before he married Kathy."

Not sure I trust Kaplan's memory of this conversation, as he's writing the book years afterwards.

You got a quote for George stating to Kaplan his visit was afterwards?
I've heard the claim that it was before from numerous sources, not just Kaplan.

You got a quote for George stating to Kaplan his visit was afterwards?
I've heard the claim that it was before from numerous sources, not just Kaplan.

Kaplan doesn't say either way.

Don't recall George saying it was before...

Where did he say it was before, if not to Kaplan?

Your comment seemed to imply George told him it was an after visit but he still wrote it as a before visit?

Where did he say it was before, if not to Kaplan?

I don't know, where did you hear it?

I’m looking at Kaplan’s book now. It seems that Kaplan has the idea that George talked to Ray before he moved into the house because George said he had conversations with Ray when he ran his museum, and Kaplan notes that Ray had left N.Y. a year or two before the events. While George had told Kaplan he hadn’t known anything about the occult until two months ago. So Kaplan was surprised George knew of Buckland and had talked to him.

Mr. Sherb, I have a question.

When did the Lutzes exit the house? Under what circumstances, to be correct. A little background if you please.

MId-January, after a week of heavy activity. They were advised by Father Ray to take a change of clothing and spend a night or two away from the house. They left in the afternoon, probably when the kids returned from school, stayed at Kathy's mother's house, and never returned to 112.

Ok. Did they flee in terror?

Certainly not as much as in the movies.

[jimmysmokes]

I knew you were desperate for attention Dan but wow!

And you called me a troll

Must have been Jodie on here

[Dan the Damned]

It's all about ME! Soon I will be the author of EVERY POST on here!

Except those by you and Amit... lol