This isn’t the carefully crafted of a blog as I would like it to have been, but here it goes. (at some point later I will go in more depth)


There are many "holes" in an Amityville hoax theory, just as there is as some say discrepancies in the story itself. (As told by Jay Anson) Some will argue if Jesus ever existed because of the 20,000+ errors in the King James version bible.
I listen to anthgropoligist still try to say we evolved from Apes
, yet they have produced no "missing link". Let's face it Darwinism is over 100 years old time to set aside the old outdated atheistic theories as they require more of a leap of faith than creationism. (Another blog there entirely)

So, what I find is these points of logical thought regardling Amityville which is stated to be "Based on a true story" says it was based on a true story, Why do they persist in using the book as a template entirely?
Yeah, the Chevy Vega hood, no snow during the 23 days, no broken door, no police were called. (This is to say the hoax’sters didn’t fabricate some of that contradictory information, as I seen how some ‘Cynics’ work to enhance their case with outright lies, it wouldn’t surprise me here either the hoax’sters didn’t contact the right people for the information. And went with that.


William Webber, Defoe’s attorney is another "non-witness" to the validity of that case.
He makes his living on Untruth, does that man look in the least honest to you?  Since when do we trust a Lawyer anyway?
He name appears no where in the books and references to the house being really haunted. Correct?  Ask yourself, why would the Lutzes have gotten in touch with Weber if not to try to learn about the house, as one might research history of their haunted home?

Also,  William Weber, and Steven Kaplan have reason to be 'biased'.
Simple: Not included in any books deals, Steven was posted from the drama, and the only way to get his name out there
somehow synomonous with "Amityville" was to go off on a hoax angle.


Someone please tell me BTW where a Doctorate in "sociology" (from Pacific college) qualifies one for “Parapsychology”?, or “Theology” or “Metaphysics” even.
Did he ever step foot in the house? Years later doesn’t count. (A truly knowledge and experienced investigator and demonologist can tell you many  reasons why a house might be haunted for one family and not  others.)  

Things overlooked:

Their psychological profile.

George and Cathy took lie detector tests. Passed.

They left everything behind, even personal belongings like photo albums. They gave the keys to Lorraine and Ed a few blocks from the house. George was clearly afraid of that place.

The Defeo case was alone enough for reason to suspect a demonic presence would be there.

I can ensure that personality changes will result, bickering increase between spouses and between siblings. Such negative energy so to speak can be almost cut with a knife. No doubt it affect the Lutzes from the start!

With George, Kathy, Jay Anson, Ed Warren Deceased. The Hoax'sters look to Defeos
lawyer as some sort of Credible witness. Again, keep in mind a criminal lawyer, The guys lies for a living.
A Bias toward a hoax angle on the story means the anything to the
 contrary will be overlooked. They interview people whom had little or nothing to do with the story.
Quote them out of context, (Michael Moorisms), quote only portions that might hint towards you HOAX angle.
Example:
"He said he never saw anything in the house." refering to the priest that blessed the home.
Never saw anything is not only vague, it wasn't about what he saw but what he “heard”.
"GET OUT!"

Catholic church involvement would not have been documented unless a chruch sanctioned exorcism was performed a the place. And will all of the clergy (apparently) deceased, who can say even that more than the family priest was ever there?

As The Lutzes and Jay Anson have been accused of only wanting to fabricate this story to sell a book,
you have to ask yourself, what about the Hoax'sters?
They trying to get their gravy from the story, and a cross association from the Key word "Amityville" in google search.
Again the sway can go either way, both might have reason to have an interest in capitalizing on the story.

George was likely urged to not contradict publicly the things mentioned in Jay Anson’s book that are inaccurate.  I see how publicist can tell you to that.

Lorraine said the Amityville case had affected them the most of any Case, when I asked her which was the most haunted.
Now wouldn’t Lorraine want to distances herself if it was entirely cooked up, after all of the allegations of fraud. She would have not made mention of it. Think about it!

Best one can really say is that case had some media hype, maybe some embellishment by Anson.  I still don’t understand how it was PROVEN to be the hoax because of  Weber’s statement in saying it was - “cooked up over some bottles of wine”.  How is does that “proven” again?  How does his statement trump all other real witnesses to the case?

Again, why didn’t they interview the REAL witnesses? Instead of people who weren’t there whom are obviously biased towards a Hoax angel. Least we forget those who don’t even believe in demons can haunt us, or ghost even.
I think the only book discussed over bottles of wine were the books written calling Amityville a “hoax”.

Tags: Amityville The Warrens Steven Kraplin

Bookmark: