The Ghostie Boy photo thread

General Discussion About Anything Amityville And Other Paranormal Topics
User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11827

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:31 am

Did the others at least credit you or point back to your blog? Didn't look like this one did. Seems like they simply rewrote your piece and pretended it was their own (but maybe I missed something -- I skimmed through it pretty quick)...

User avatar
tomspy77
Son of Davros
Posts: 885
Location: Haddonfield, IL.
Contact:

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by tomspy77 » Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:52 am

Dan the Damned wrote:Did the others at least credit you or point back to your blog? Didn't look like this one did. Seems like they simply rewrote your piece and pretended it was their own (but maybe I missed something -- I skimmed through it pretty quick)...
I am pretty sure they did (Cannot get that link or the main page to load via Google search..shrug).

I think the un-written rule is that they use only parts of my original post and then link back, or rewrite the post with their own words and credit the source. All of which did this, including Doubtful News if I'm remembering correctly.

Believe me I check. Borrowing is fine, rewriting is fair game as long as it's not all of my content and I'm credited and passing on what I write is great but stealing my actual words... :naughty:

Personally, I was more disturbed by other sites reporting the article as the 'end all-be all'.

User avatar
tomspy77
Son of Davros
Posts: 885
Location: Haddonfield, IL.
Contact:

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by tomspy77 » Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:25 pm

Response on my post from one Gerald Brittle, who's Gravatar links back to this site:

http://www.thedemonologist.net/

And he says this:
I know Paul Bartz. He is tall and slender and at the time was probablly 6’1″. If you look at the picture, which looks to have come from The Demonologist website, you will notice that the child’s image stands about three to four feet tall. Nearby is a door. A typical door is 80″ in height. Were this to be Paul Bartz the clearance between the boy’s head and the top of the doorway would only be six inches – which it clearly is not. Your allegation that this photograph is false therefore does not hold water. GB
My rebuttal will simply be what I stated to you guys here, that I was posting on a theory I know of, not of fact...that my opinion is that this most likely Paul Bartz but I am not saying it was 100% a sure thing...

Between this and DB writing a post now and then the Warrens and their followers are gonna love me I guess..oh well screw it, i think they are a bit on the fishy side anyway and if I'm gonna start websites and books, you gotta dig your feet in somewhere right? ;)

Anyway, here is my response as put up on my website (MSmart if you want to rebuttal or comment on the point of the Bartz email you are more then welcome to do so):
Hello Gearld, thanks for popping in to comment.

First let me say that although the ghost boy pic I used is indeed from the net, it is not the one I see on your site (A Little Extra on Amityville). I actually acquired the pic above described as the original and did the rest of the close up etc in the program Ifranview.

As for it not being Paul, I never said that this is the end all-be all of the ghost boy debate, but rather an interesting theory that deserves a look.

Thing is the internet took it and ran with this one, so if you got here by way of About.com or Skeptic or another site that has picked this one up, the headlines they write for it were not my words but rather the ‘grab’ they used to get people here.

Although I am sure my personal feelings bleed through a bit (This is a blog and a ‘personal’ touch works better, unlike when I work for a local paper out my way where it has to be ‘facts’ all day with no side taken) and I do think that the pic may indeed be Bartz.

As for the height issue, if this was Bartz he would be kneeling on the floor, perhaps they were checking for the black substance George Lutz claimed was dripping for the keyholes in the house? ;-)

Also, there is an aspect I forgot to add and will add in later revisions about the length of the arm of the figure seen in the pic…too long for a kid but just right for an adult in a plaid shirt kneeling down or a shape shifting demon eh?

There is also the email from Bartz which comes from a forum member on the Truth Board who has never seemed to be a troll nor a spreader of misinformation.

With that being said, if you would like to write a rebuttal of this post I will be more then happy to allow you to do so and publish it without any commentary from myself beyond explaining it is a rebuttal to this post and not the opinion of this website…

Again, thanks for taking the time to comment…I am an Amity ‘fan’ of sorts and Amityville is a pretty popular subject in the paranormal world so we will tackle a lot of different angles and theorys often.

In future I hope to publish both pro haunting and hoax angled articles on the case…I do not know what happened in 1974-1976 as I was not there, but I intend to gather all the info I can and write about it as I see fit, which for me is leaving no angle or stone unturned.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11827

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:43 pm

Right. To me it seems the figure is an adult who is kneeling or sitting on something. That would account for the "long arm" that some people are seeing. As you say, just the right arm length for an adult. I think some people are assuming the figure is standing and are seeing the partially-hidden head as being the smaller head of a child.

Image

And from my dealings with Max, I trust his word totally. He does not believe in the haunting, but I don't think he is the type of person to manufacture evidence to supplement a claim or theory. He seems totally above the board and honest.

User avatar
tomspy77
Son of Davros
Posts: 885
Location: Haddonfield, IL.
Contact:

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by tomspy77 » Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:34 pm

Yeah I think I will revise that tonight...is that your drawing Dan? If so I will use it when I revise.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11827

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:39 pm

Yeah, that's my crappy drawing. I can't draw to save my life. And it's even worse when using a mouse instead of a pencil. But feel free to use if you like.

User avatar
tomspy77
Son of Davros
Posts: 885
Location: Haddonfield, IL.
Contact:

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by tomspy77 » Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:41 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:Yeah, that's my crappy drawing. I can't draw to save my life. And it's even worse when using a mouse instead of a pencil. But feel free to use if you like.
Thanks I will.

Got a reply from GB and he seems to be very polite about things. I am responding now and will report back the content of those here so it does not look like I am fishing for more hits on my site (At the moment it is all non for profit anyway lol) and for completions sake.

I will probably revise the post today through tomorrow but I will use your drawing (I would do 100 times worse then you) thanks.

User avatar
tomspy77
Son of Davros
Posts: 885
Location: Haddonfield, IL.
Contact:

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by tomspy77 » Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:11 pm

GB:
Mr. Spychalski,

This piece was forwarded to me and apparently came from About.com.
I am not an apologist for the Amityville case. I was not there and, at this point in time, find the subject to be remarkably boring. What I can tell you in retrospect is that I did in-depth interviews with all the psychics involved in the case, including Ed and Lorraine Warren, the Lutzes, and pertinent clergy assigned to the matter. Though interviewed separately, their experiences were nearly identical and in a court of law would have functioned as total corroboration. As I have said elsewhere, a veritable cottage industry has grown up trying to shoot down this case, almost exclusively by people who where never there in the first place. Typically this happens whenever a prominent haunting hits the papers, whereupon the usual manifestation of grumps and athiests come forth in all their nonsensical splendor. Yet those who were actually present came away aghast, harmed, and emotionally brutalized from the experience. All received visitations – though none but the clergy lived on Long island – and all were personally traumatized for years after the event. In short, the Amityville case went on much longer and with far more enduring consequences than anyone knows. Thus trying to pick apart a picture comes off as utterly trivial compared to the brute reality that the true participants suffered during the rest of their lives. Ultimately, in the end, it is not the endless conjecture that accompanies this matter, it is the detailed diocesan record that affirms the reality of this case.
GB
My Reply:
Thomas Spychalski

Gerald:

First of all I am far from a “Mr.”. Please feel free to call me Tom instead.:-)

I respect all that you have said and truth be told, I do believe something happened on Ocean ave to the Lutz’s. I do not think they are all lying or anything like that, especially considering the profit [sic] George and Kathy made off the Jay Anson book and the original film.

Personally I am the kind of guy who ‘wants to believe’ on most ghost cases. I did have one experience of this nature which I have already mentioned on this site so I am aware it is possible that these things can happen to people. My goal here is to bring readers the facts, theorys and debates of these cases so they can get solved, and without selling TV shows, DVDs or knick knacks.

The ghost boy pic seems to be something that could go either way, either it is the best picture of a ghost/demon/creature ever taken or it is simply a child or a man in a hallway of a Dutch Colonial house.

Again, without firm proof of one or the other I cannot honestly comment as I was not there and although I know much more then the laymen I am not an Amity expert, or at least I do not consider myself to be one (Neither will I go around calling myself one either).

But I am a firm believer in the Lutz side of things personally for a few reasons, including the fact that I think Anson made things more interesting for the book and Anson only had the tapes the Lutz’s made after the fact about the incidents in the house and the fact that they both passed those lie detector tests.

Also, I wholeheartedly agree that there is an ‘industry’ built up around Amityville and not just by the fictinal movie franchise either. People will do anything for a buck.

I have an article coming up on fake E-Bay haunted item sales that mentions a person I know who got burned on an Amityville related item. I hate the fact that people are just selling the Amityville name without bringing anything of interest to the table as they are doing it to make money.

I would just like to get to the truth of both the DeFeo murders and the twenty-eight days the Lutz’s spent on Ocean Ave.

Thanks again for taking the time and for discussing it in a polite manner.
Tom

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11827

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:29 pm

What I can tell you in retrospect is that I did in-depth interviews with all the psychics involved in the case, including Ed and Lorraine Warren, the Lutzes, and pertinent clergy assigned to the matter. Though interviewed separately, their experiences were nearly identical and in a court of law would have functioned as total corroboration.
But what does that have to do with the ghostie boy photo? None of that is relevant. Seems like he is trying to say, "the haunting was real, so don't waste your time investigating it."
Ultimately, in the end, it is not the endless conjecture that accompanies this matter, it is the detailed diocesan record that affirms the reality of this case.
GB
Detailed diocesan record??? Love to see that sometime. If it exists... :?

Victoria Principles
I Am Insane
Posts: 3101

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Victoria Principles » Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:45 am

Dan the Damned wrote:
What I can tell you in retrospect is that I did in-depth interviews with all the psychics involved in the case, including Ed and Lorraine Warren, the Lutzes, and pertinent clergy assigned to the matter. Though interviewed separately, their experiences were nearly identical and in a court of law would have functioned as total corroboration.
But what does that have to do with the ghostie boy photo? None of that is relevant. Seems like he is trying to say, "the haunting was real, so don't waste your time investigating it."
Ultimately, in the end, it is not the endless conjecture that accompanies this matter, it is the detailed diocesan record that affirms the reality of this case.
GB
Detailed diocesan record??? Love to see that sometime. If it exists... :?
Perhaps GB can provide a copy of the detailed dicesan record. Certainly aren't going to get it from the church who have a habbit of covering up many things.

User avatar
Brendan72
Forest Giant
Posts: 3020
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Brendan72 » Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:51 am

Dan the Damned wrote:Looks like someone is reading your blog: http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/04/who-was ... ghost-boy/
I have made some comments on this page if people wish to read it.
- Brendan72

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

User avatar
tomspy77
Son of Davros
Posts: 885
Location: Haddonfield, IL.
Contact:

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by tomspy77 » Sat Apr 14, 2012 4:20 am

Well, He commented back and seemed to get a bit snippy...

GB:
Tom -

Your reply is very balanced.
If you can come forth with some useful facts, or develop a “new truth”, more power to you.
Put variously, you can gather all the believeable info you want, but it will always be second-hand, and you will never really know if it is actually true. Going to after-market experts on such a contentious matter, moreover, is hardly the place to start, insofar they’ve always got their thumb on the scale, requiring you to somehow divine what is real and what is opinion. Still, if you want to spend the time of your life trying to separate out the peppercorns from the fly :) flower :), then you’ve certainly found your niche. Making matters worse, whenever you’re dealing with the devil, you immediately become involved in a massive game of keep-away, where pivotal facts always become corrupted by lies, duplicity, or contradiction. Try as you might, It will never let you get to the core of the matter, lest It then become revealed. And that ain’t gonna happen.
All I can say is that there was nothing terribly remarkable about the Amityville event: the phenomena was not new, while in terms of demonology the progress of the case conformed exactly to a known theological pattern. Those who investigated the matter, furthermore, were capable and sincere, and the only reward they got was a massive dose of contempt and derision. Had any of them known what the future would bring, none would have ever gotten involved in the first place.
In end, here’s some advice. If you really want a sense of accomplishment, crack open a beer and go mow the lawn.
That way something important will actually get done, and you won’t go crazy in the process.
Over and out.
GB
But do I take the bait?

No, I don't take the bait, I no fish, I man!

Gerald:

Yes, my responses are very well balanced as I have no desire to get into any silly internet flame wars with anyone who comes here to comment. I feel they belittle me as a person and insulting people via the internet is to me the equivalent of two three year old children squabbling over a ball.

I will admit to having no ‘insides sources’ that were ever at the house on Ocean Ave and were never directly involved in it, but in my mind, the Wright Brothers were not present when the Concorde first flew in 1969, but I think they might have played a big hand in it’s flight.

Difference is I am not claiming that this post nor my stance is the definitive take on the photo, although personally as said I would rather bet on it being Paul Bartz or some other explanation then it being a demon or some such.

To each their own…

That stance does not belittle your position on the pic nor does it mean I think the entire Amity case, common or not, is as simply explained away…it also does mean I was not trying to make any accusations as to your or the Warrens sincerity in investigating the haunting.

I also personally don’t feel I am dealing with the Devil. Obviously you feel otherwise, hence the stance you have taken on this matter and others, and feel strongly enough about those feelings to write on them.

Therefore we are on the same river going in totally opposite directions. That’s OK, the universe is big enough for more then one theory, on Amityville and a lot of other things as well.

I’d also like to say that the end of your comment that refers to your ‘advice’ to me feels a bit insulting, or at the very least very misplaced. It seemed to have no bearing on the subject matter as well as which is unfortunate as until then I thought you were being pretty cordial and respectful.

If you feel I am barking up the wrong tree so to speak I thank you for the bother but as said above everyone is different. I feel very accomplished when what I speculate or report on is taken seriously and leads to healthy debate, which any theory should do, but which also sometimes leads down a path where the opposite sides of the argument refuse to co-exist. Which is a shame because they may learn something from one another.

Also I’d appreciate you not swearing in the comments…I asked one of the other writers here not to do so to commenting ‘guests’ and I would ask the same respect of my visitors please as despite the subject matter I consider this a site anyone can enjoy without bumping into bad language.

Thus I edited out the swear word in your last comment…

In response to the separating the peppercorn from the fly ****, I also take no shame doing so wen it comes to things like this. I write about the paranormal and the other subjects I do because I have an interest in them.

When we all started as writers we were told somewhere along the line to ‘write what you know’.

I do not claim to be an expert but the passion to explore, investigate and write about what I like is something that drives me to continue on with the work on my blogs and other projects.

Sorry to say that I also felt this to be a bit over the top honestly, but as I said I have no desire to argue with you on it, I will shrug it off and continue my ‘separation’ experiments.

Hopefully I can not only have the chance to report paranormal news and opinion but also expose a few frauds and ‘experts’ along the way.

Thank you Gerald for stopping by again, it is always a pleasure to meet someone new related to any of the paranormal cases we write about.

Cheers,
Tom
:redx:

User avatar
Howard64
ta-wo-di u-s-di
Posts: 4300
Location: Athens, Texas

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Howard64 » Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:54 am

At one time I thought this might have some credibility to it,
anymore, the more I look at it, it loses the fascination. I think perhaps
it could actually be a person who got caught on camera.

Anymore I am dubious of the validity of ghost pictures. I believe that
spirits do exist, but to be able to use a device of this dimension to
capture an image of something intangible scientifically is in my
opinion extremely difficult if not impossible.

Yes at one time I thought otherwise; but then again many things are
changing as it concerns my thinking.
" 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."

tourmaline
Amityville Member
Posts: 47
Contact:

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by tourmaline » Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:05 am

That email that someone posted from Paul Bartz is really wonderful. I have long been 99% convinced that it is Paul Bartz in the ghostie boy photograph - I even created a thread analyzing the Ghostie Boy's plaid shirt and comparing the pattern to Paul Bartz's plaid shirt from that night (link to this thread from '09: http://www.amityvillefaq.com/truthboard ... f=8&t=7048).

I too emailed Paul Bartz but I never received a response. I'm glad he responded to someone and that his response implied that the figure in the photo may indeed be him. Debunking is such a positive thing, it's disheartening to read the many posts on here by those who are resistant to a perfectly natural explanation for the photograph. Especially when, through logical analysis, Paul Bartz emerges as a very convincing candidate on many levels - far more convincing than this being a demon, or a De Feo child.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11827

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:49 am

I agree. We can't allow ourselves to be blinded by what we want to believe. It would have been nice if this really was a photo of a ghost, but the evidence (at least to me) just doesn't seem to be on the side of the supernatural here. And that is what I feel the purpose of this forum is -- to dig up evidence in search of the truth, no matter if we like that truth or not. In the end, it should ultimately be very satisfying no matter which way things turn...

User avatar
Matt9290
Oh My Goodness
Posts: 484
Location: Newcastle UK

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Matt9290 » Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:35 am

Dan the Damned wrote:I agree. We can't allow ourselves to be blinded by what we want to believe. It would have been nice if this really was a photo of a ghost, but the evidence (at least to me) just doesn't seem to be on the side of the supernatural here. And that is what I feel the purpose of this forum is -- to dig up evidence in search of the truth, no matter if we like that truth or not. In the end, it should ultimately be very satisfying no matter which way things turn...
Wise words Dan... As James Abram Garfield once said: "The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable."
I wish I had the nerve not to tip...

User avatar
tomspy77
Son of Davros
Posts: 885
Location: Haddonfield, IL.
Contact:

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by tomspy77 » Wed May 28, 2014 4:30 pm

Hey guys..have not been around as I had a lot of personal stuff going on, plus admittedly during that I felt shame as me and a member here had a agreement outside of this forum (which to his credit he does not seem to have talked about) that I failed to back up due to said personal stuff...which I plan to more then rectify but that is not why I am here.

Admittedly the same personal stuff put my para blog on the back burner but a year later I'm back on most of my horses and even do a paranormal podcast as well...but the reason I am here is a comment made yesterday on my blog about the Ghost Boy:
It just so happens I can actually let the cat out of the bag on this photo as many years ago, I became an acquaintance of Paul through mutual friends. While I am in no way attempting to speak for him, his opinion or on his behalf, I can tell you that he made it known to the group of folks I was with that he was quite certain beyond any shadow(pun intended) of a doubt that he was captured on film in this picture. He was in fact on the floor examining its surface directly under the key holes, and the camera happened to catch him in a candid moment of circumstance. The glasses on his face attest to this assertion, as anyone who truly knew Paul knew he was farsighted, hence the need to don his spectacles when working close range with the floor surface.

While I wholeheartedly believe in the Amityville experience, this picture is not anything to consider as a part of the genuine phenomena.

I have absolutely no reason or motive to be disingenuous in my words here, and am only relaying what I was told firsthand by Paul himself many years ago. No, I wasn’t there that night, none of us were. But Paul was, and if he believes it to be himself captured in the photo, I am certain this is the case.
This came from a commenter named Trace Feeling...now, while of course anybody can make these kinds of comments it does start to add up that Paul Bartz is the solution to this puzzle no?

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11827

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Thu May 29, 2014 2:17 am

Right. As you say, unfortunately we probably aren't in a position to really check this person out to see if they really do, in fact, know Paul Bartz (and/or if they are telling the truth, etc).

But yes, for the better part of a decade, I think most of us have been convinced that the ghost boy photo is actually just a mistaken photo of Paul Bartz.

Miz Kizzle
Amityville Addict
Posts: 203

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Miz Kizzle » Fri May 30, 2014 6:30 am

Given the right context, practically any old photograph could be passed off as a picture of a genuine ghost. I have a black and white photo of my grandmother and her sisters sitting on a front porch with a little dog trotting past in which the dog is a fuzzy white blur. I COULD say that the dog was a beloved family pet that had been run over and killed by a model T Ford a month before the picture was taken, and it was his ghost that was captured on film. That's not true, of course, but if I repeated it often and confidently enough, adding little details like the dog's name and the icy cold chill that he left in his wake as he ran past, I could get people to believe it.
People can be made to believe all kinds of clearly ridiculous things, under the right conditions.
The photo of the "ghost boy," viewed without the back story of mass murder, a haunting, possible demonic possession, and so on, just looks like a person with glowing eyes peering out of a doorway. It's creepy because eyes aren't supposed to glow like that, unless the subject of the photo is wearing eyeglasses. Then it become just a bad photo.
A picture of someone wearing eyeglasses looking out from around a door frame is nothing special, until you add murdered boys and "psychics" of dubious integrity who swear there was no one matching the person's description in the house at the time, and then you get GHOST BOY!
To me, it looks like a person kneeling in a doorway, looking up in surprise as his picture is taken. It could be a ghost, just as the thunder of approaching hooves could be a herd of zebra, but it's more likely its a living person and those hoofbeats belong to horses.

Victoria Principles
I Am Insane
Posts: 3101

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Victoria Principles » Fri May 30, 2014 9:21 am

Generally ghosts don't wear glasses that reflect light and has glass in them.

Housekeeper
Amityville Member
Posts: 16
Location: France

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Housekeeper » Sun Jun 22, 2014 6:41 am

Dan the Damned wrote: But yes, for the better part of a decade, I think most of us have been convinced that the ghost boy photo is actually just a mistaken photo of Paul Bartz.
There is no possible doubt about this considering these 3 following elements :

- Some photos zooming on the face show clearly (well, nearly) the structure of the glasses around the eyes.
- The hair going down on the right eye of the face, the same as we can see on Bartz' photograph while sitting in the sofa in another picture.
- The shirt has nearly the same design, at least we can guess it, based on this same picture of Bartz sitting in the sofa.

Despite this evidence, some people are still trying to argue it can't be possible 'cause the face is, according to them, the face of a very young child. But we all have some pictures as teenagers or young adults, where we look like much younger than the age we were when the photograph was taken. Those people are in a serious denial about this photograph because admitting the evidence would put down the main element they had during 40 years to pretend there were ghosts in this house.

Post Reply