The article I put up did not mention Kaplan outside of the house during this "garage sale", you just threw it in. My point was about the Lutz/Hoffman admission.Dan the Damned wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 6:02 pmThen don't paste a link and tell me to pay attention to the last paragraph. That last paragraph has a lot of content. If you wanted me to ignore the majority of the content of that last paragraph and only focus on the "virtually everything was fiction" line, then say so! I'm not a mind reader...
The Lutzes did not "admit" that TAH was fiction. They admitted that Jay Anson included some fictional elements without their consent.
When you say "it was fiction," the connotation is that everything in the book was fictionalized. And that is not the case. Have some integrity. You don't need to twist words around in order to fit your agenda. Well, maybe you do, but it just shows how weak your argument is.
Wrong. Rick was not answering my question, he was avoiding my question. He did not give me one answer and then stick by it -- he kept giving me different answers -- none of which were the truth.jimmysmokes wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:09 pmThe same scenario of what you were doing with Rick here is the same thing you're doing now! And I just listened to that clip again and he did answer your questions! "But why didn't you bring out what Hoffman said"? "It would've been gold"! Once again, I guess he or I have to state the same points over and over to make them legit?
The first answer he gave me was "it was Paul's story to write."
This is bullsh*t. Rick and Peter were running around and doing all this research on the book TAH, compiling lists and "carefully comparing newspaper and magazine accounts" for possible discrepancies, interviewing all the local repairmen and locksmiths in Amityville to ask if they've done work at the house, interviewing neighbors and others familiar with the house, etc. All the while they had a close friend who allegedly claimed to have PROOF of the haunting being a hoax! They decided to go with the following circumstantial evidence for the article rather than mention the HARD PROOF they had (because that was "Paul's story, not theirs"):
- Rick felt the book contained too many different kinds of psychic phenomenon to be a true story.
- Rick found discrepancies between various newspaper and magazine articles about the Lutzes' story.
- Rick found that the windows in the house (which supposedly opened on their own) did so due to faulty counterweights.
Who in their right mind ignores PROOF of a hoax in favor of weak evidence like that? Who in their right mind runs around town interviewing locksmiths and repairmen and neighbors, but decides NOT to interview their close friend WHO HAPPENS TO HAVE PROOF OF THE HOAX?!? That makes NO sense!!!
- Rick states that Father Ray claims he never even stepped foot in the Amityville house (despite the priest appearing on "In Search Of" the following year and admitting it was real).
Okay that was the first excuse Rick gave me. But I kept pestering him about it because, as I just explained to you, I knew it was bullsh*t.
The second excuse Rick gives me was that he had a strict word count for the article. Fine. But that doesn't mean "oh, I can't reveal my best evidence of a hoax because I need space to write about how the windows have faulty counterweights or how the current owners are having problems with trespassers."
THAT makes absolutely no sense, either! If you have limited space, you cut out the unimportant items, not the most important ones! Duh!
The third excuse Rick gives me is that Paul's story (about him being hired to write the book and being a witness to Weber concocting the fake story with the Lutzes) was already published.
This is a flat-out lie.
The first time anyone heard of Weber's claim (that he and the Lutzes made up the story) was the following year -- in the summer of 1979 when William Weber tried to sue the Lutzes for a portion of the profits. A full year after Rick had his article published in FATE magazine!
Even afterwards, Paul Hoffman still hadn't written anything about him allegedly witnessing Weber and the Lutzes making-up fake stories for their book.
Still with me? Now let's continue to the fourth excuse Rick gave to me. He went back to it being "Paul's story to tell" and this time mentioned how it would be unethical for him to use it.
Now I didn't mention this to Rick at the time, but if you read his FATE magazine article, Rick actually DOES mention Paul Hoffman!
So if it's okay to quote Paul Hoffman on this, why couldn't he quote Paul Hoffman's claims that he had actual proof (in the form of recorded audio tapes) that the Lutzes created this hoax with William Weber???Similarly, in an article in the April 1977 issue of Good Housekeeping, journalist Paul Hoffman quotes George Lutz as saying that temperature changes in rooms did occur, black stains appeared on bathroom fixtures, and his wife slid across the bed one night "as if by levitation." Lutz says nothing about a horned creature, a marching band or the extensive damage supposedly done to the house.
What, it's unethical to quote Paul on one thing but not the other?
The obvious answer was that Paul was not quoted about it because:
- Rick Moran did not know Paul Hoffman at the time, or
- The claim about Paul being a witness to the "story sessions" between Weber and the Lutzes was a lie,
That is why I kept at him. I had him in a lie, and it ended with him hanging-up on me.
- Or both.
It wasn't a silly point. It was someone (like you) making a bullsh*t accusation regarding the haunting. And I proved him wrong. Maybe not in that phone call, but certainly in the article...
Okay, you claim that Lutzes are saying that some of the book is fictionalized. You show me right now what is real in that book and what did or did not happen! The burden of proof lies on you to provide this info. In the past when we discussed this you were unable to provide even the most minute details of anything. I've asked you time and time again to provide what is truth in this book of deceit. I'm still waiting!
There is no evidence this "priest" ever stepped foot in that house! You have an unidentified man on some fake show claiming he was there. That whole segment is crap start to finish. If that is what you are basing your beliefs on to use against a hoax, you're in a world of hurt.
There is nothing wrong with Rick and Peter interviewing the people they did to find out info. As for this person they claimed to have, well you have a point there!
Do you know for a fact that Weber never mentioned to anyone about his claim before the suing the Lutzes for profit, actually a countersuit. I don't know that. But okay?
And yeah, George never brought up that stuff you mentioned in these so-called original claims but rather played off that nonsense later on when the book & movie were hot to further that silliness. Then later on reneged on most of it.
And congrats on catching Moran in a lie. I didn't hear it in the phone call but just to give you some credit (I guess) you can have that. And btw even if Rick was lying about this Hoffman thing, it doesn't prove TAH was anymore real, does it?
Yeah, Hoffman never wrote about knowing of the Weber/Lutz lies. He didn't have to did he since he was involved with Weber from the get-go. That eventually got exposed didn't it. Not for one second do I not toss Hoffman & Weber in the same category as the Lutzes.