• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Haunting in Indiana

So... the child could walk backwards up walls while an adult had a firm grip of its hand? How could this miracle have been achieved? Call David Blaine at once for only someone with his depth of knowledge of illusion and the limits of the human body could possibly fathom such a mystery.
 
Problematic beliefs/perceptions/interpretations/and presentation

I find the amount of pro-demon and/or pro-paranromal information presented in the media, to be troubling.

I see this scenario as an aggregate of problematic beliefs, perceptions, interpretations, and presentations.

Why did this story even make it to the media?

Good deductive reasoning skills
At least some rational explanations are offered by some people with good deductive reasoning skills:

Clinical psychologist Stacy Wright, evaluated Ammons' youngest son, said very interesting things in The exorcisms of Latoya Ammons, including:

"This appears to be an unfortunate and sad case of a child who has been induced into a delusional system perpetuated by his mother and potentially reinforced" by other relatives, she wrote in her psychological evaluation.
Click to expand...

The article continues:
Clinical psychologist Joel Schwartz, who evaluated Ammons' daughter and older son, came to a similar conclusion.

"There also appears to be a need to assess the extent to which (Ammons' daughter) may have been unduly influenced by her mother's concerns that the family was exposed to paranormal experiences," Schwartz wrote.
Click to expand...


ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY: Improper paranormal portrayal
On the other hand, in the same article referenced above, I find it improper and troubling to include the police as an argument from authorityWP- which to me, presents an unfounded, paranormal bias. Gary, Indiana police captain, Charles Austin,
...believed in ghosts and the supernatural but said he didn't believe in demons.

Austin said he changed his mind after visiting the Carolina Street house.
Click to expand...

The article mentions that an officer's audio recorder "malfunctioned," which could give the appearance that a paranormal phenomenon drained the batteries because "...the officer had placed fresh batteries in the recorder earlier that day."

And what I inferred was a purported Electronic Voice PhenomenonWP (EVP) because another officer made a recording that was later played back and was quoted as saying he heard "an unknown voice whisper 'hey'"

The article mentioned Captain Austin took photos with his iPhone that had strange silhouettes in them.

As if that wasn't enough of a paranormal bent, the article also states that Austin's garage door wouldn't open even though the power was on every where else. And, there's mention that the driver's seat of Austin's personal car, a 2005 Infiniti, started moving back and forth on its own. Mechanic said the motor was broken.

I get the feeling that the way those issues happened, and that they happened to police, there's a correlation between the paranormal and the events mentioned. But I have a problem with seeing those items mentioned, because no scientificaly-reproduceable evidence supports any of those anecdotal accounts (evidence).
 
Last edited:
Dubious Dick said:
Far too little skepticism in this piece:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/25943051

Is the named Police Chief still in his job? If so, how? What about the so called medical practitioners?
Click to expand...

Going to the latest Indy Star article (with the important :boggled: news that the house has sold for 35 grand, apparently by the host of Ghost Adventures), we find this quote from Captain (not Chief) Austin:

"We know that there's evil in that house, and we know that evil is ever-present," Austin said. "Why go where evil possibly is there? You have no idea what you may run into."
Click to expand...

Oh, I dunno, Chuck . . . maybe because YOU'RE A COP AND IT'S YOUR GOD DARNED JOB to go where evil might be? What a penis.

(I do note that I can't find Captain Austin's name on the list of division heads on the GPD website. That suggests to me that he has seniority but no authority.)
 
Last edited:
mikeb768 said:
How so?
Click to expand...
I do not question the event, though I could; I take the initial report at its word.

I do question the explanations, both explicit and implied, as the event does not require a supernatural explanation. In that case, I do not take the posters on this forum at their word; instead, I recognize that the alternative explanations are more credible.

Now, I will offer a quick write up on this, but then before I answer any more of your questions, I would hope you do two things: (1) Read the actual incident report as linked in post #22. Have you done so? I have. (2) Read this thread for the alternative explanations, then tell me why they are less credible than supernatural ones.

===

Let's start with page two on the report. It is a marvelous example of conflating event and explanation. In the report "RS" means "Reporting Source":

from the incident report said:
RS states the mother has reported that there are demons in the home and they are attacking the children. RS states the mother reported that the children fight one another and are abusive to one another and then they pass out.
Click to expand...

Read the above carefully and you will find three events:

Event 1: Children fight
Event 2: Children are abusive to one another
Event 3: Children pass out

You will also find the mother's proffered explanation:

Explanation 1: Demons

Tell me honestly: Are demons a necessary component of an explanation for children fighting, being abusive to each other, and then passing out?

If the are not necessary, are they more credible than the children acting as children?

These are important questions. If you think demons are either necessary or more credible than a non-supernatural answer we need to start our discussion here. But let's assume that you, like me, do not think demons are either necessary or credible. Are they necessary or credible for the other events?

Without quoting the rest of the report, I will simply list the events (some happened more than once, but I will list them only once) that the report states:

Event 4: Child made growling noises
Event 5: Child's eyes rolled back in his head
Event 6: Child "had a physical outburst hitting and kicking"
Event 7: Child claimed ghosts were attacking
Event 8: Child made noises
Event 9: Child put other child in a headlock and choked him
Event 10: Child showed teeth while growling and rolling eyes back
Event 11: Child began to shake
Event 12: Child's facial expression changed
Event 13: Child had weird smile
Event 14: Child headbutted grandmother
Event 15: Child spoke threats in deep voice
Event 16: Child has bruise under wrist
Event 17: Child claims she has weird thoughts
Event 18: Child claims (without witnesses) she was thrown across the room
Event 19: Child claims (without witnesses) that dark shadows grabbed her
Event 16: Home gets cold after 11 pm
Event 17: Mother claims (without witnesses) spirits throw things
Event 18: Mother claims (without witnesses) spirits move things
Event 19: Mother claims (without witnesses) spirits touch her and children

There are two more events I have not listed, but I would like to you look at those above and answer the same question: Is a demon either necessary or more credible as an explanation for any of the above? The clear answer is no, it is not.


That leaves two events, one of which has been bandied about on this thread a bit:

Event 20: Child walked backwards up the while holding his grandmother's hand then flipped over her to land on his feet

Event 21: While at the doctor's, staff observed child "lifted and thrown into the wall with nobody touching him."



Frankly, I find the second event which no one has yet mentioned on this thread to be the more interesting, but let's start with Event 16 (walking up the wall).

I do not question that the event happened. I do not question that it happened as described. What I question is resorting to a demon as the explanation. It was the 7 year old who walked up the wall, a small child. The child was supported by his grandmother. His grandmother did not even need to be in on it; she could have been innocently trying to protect the child, yet she still offered a buttress for the child as he walked up the wall. No demon required.


The second event (in the medical office, being "lifted and thrown") is a bit more interesting as it was medical staff who observed it, yet it still requires no demon. Creating the illusion of being manhandled is frankly child's play, particularly when those observing you are not on the lookout for such happenings (even if they are, it remains simple to make it work). The medical staff was there for medical purposes. At most, one of them had eyes on the child while the others went about their related tasks. That one with eyes on the child did not have eyes on the child 100% of the time, and when the eyes were on the child they were focused on the relevant medical task, not on observation of a child for deceptive activities. What likely happened is that no one was actually looking at the child at the exact moment of the event but rather turned to look when they heard the disturbance; in doing so, they caught the tail end of an activity tailored to appear as if the child were lifted and thrown.


So there you have it. 21 different claims, 19 of which are firmly and clearly in the realm of normal behavior for both children and an adult with reported mental illness. One claim which requires nothing but an agile child willing to take advantage of the opportunity provided by a solicitous grandmother, and one that is mildly interesting until actually looked at slightly closely.

As I said: you're mixing event and explanation when you talk about me dismissing things.
 
It utterly disgusts me that the media would legitimize these medieval fairy tales. People, normally children, die in ******** exorcism rituals and it's part and parcel of the same mindset that tells parents that praying over their children is an acceptable response as they lie dying of a curable condition. I'm sick of it and wish these people would just grow the **** up.
 
Cool Hand Luke said:
Here's the long form report from the Indianapolis Star:

http://archive.indystar.com/article/20140125/NEWS/301250013/The-disposession-Latoya-Ammons

All I can do is marvel at how deliciously complex and inventive the human mind can be. What an amazing story of induced group psychosis this is.

But, in the end, all is well now that the local priest remembered to perform the exorcism in Latin. Apparently Beezlebub doesn't have access to Google Translate so the first two attempts in English didn't take.
Click to expand...

Care to share the method which you used to diagnose the various groups of people with "induced group psychosis", as you claim?
 
mikeb768 said:
Care to share the method which you used to diagnose the various groups of people with "induced group psychosis", as you claim?
Click to expand...

Does a group of people all claim to have witnessed an attack by a fictional creature?

[X] Yes
[ ] No
 
Garrette said:
I do not question that the event happened. I do not question that it happened as described. What I question is resorting to a demon as the explanation. It was the 7 year old who walked up the wall, a small child. The child was supported by his grandmother. His grandmother did not even need to be in on it; she could have been innocently trying to protect the child, yet she still offered a buttress for the child as he walked up the wall. No demon required.


The second event (in the medical office, being "lifted and thrown") is a bit more interesting as it was medical staff who observed it, yet it still requires no demon. Creating the illusion of being manhandled is frankly child's play, particularly when those observing you are not on the lookout for such happenings (even if they are, it remains simple to make it work). The medical staff was there for medical purposes. At most, one of them had eyes on the child while the others went about their related tasks. That one with eyes on the child did not have eyes on the child 100% of the time, and when the eyes were on the child they were focused on the relevant medical task, not on observation of a child for deceptive activities. What likely happened is that no one was actually looking at the child at the exact moment of the event but rather turned to look when they heard the disturbance; in doing so, they caught the tail end of an activity tailored to appear as if the child were lifted and thrown.
Click to expand...

What you are doing is called "speculating" and "distorting".

You also managed to mix up the 9 year old with the 7 year old who was claimed to have been thrown. Then, you (having not even been present) are able to tell us exactly where and what every member of the rooms focus was at the time, with your claim that "one of them had eyes on the child while the others went about their related tasks"? Seriously.

According to a Department of Children's Services (DCS) report: Medical staff stated that the youngest boy was "lifted and thrown into the wall with nobody touching him,"
Your response to hearing that a 7 year old kid was seemingly lifted and tossed into a wall is, "that kid deserves an Oscar"?


You were forced to reach even further into your bag of speculation when attempting to explain the claim of the 9 year old's seemingly supernatural acrobatic feats. The Grandmother acted as a "buttress" as you claim? Where is your proof for such a statement. The DCS employee (Valerie Washington), was asked by police "whether the boy had run up the wall, as though performing an acrobatic trick." She said no the boy "glided backward on the floor, wall and ceiling".

I have never in my life witnessed a 9 year old glide backwards on a wall, or ceiling, but if this is something that is quite common where you live, then maybe you would not mind providing us with some type of proof to backup your claims.

Hospital floors are known to be quite slick, but gliding on the ceiling? Come on. I'm going to assume that you believe "the kid was probably wearing Heelys at the time". :)

Sources:
The exorcisms of Latoya Ammons
How other outlets handled 'The exorcisms of Latoya Ammons'

Additional information for those who are interested:
Common symptoms of possession
 
Last edited:
mikeb768 said:
Does a group of people all claim to have witnessed an attack by an unseen entity?

[X] Yes
[ ] No
Click to expand...

How is the notion that there was an "entity" which carried out an "attack" any less "speculation" than that the kid braced himself against an adult while climbing up the wall? If nothing could be seen, where does the leap to "entity" come from?
 
Checkmite said:
How is the notion that there was an "entity" which carried out an "attack" any less "speculation" than that the kid braced himself against an adult while climbing up the wall? If nothing could be seen, where does the leap to "entity" come from?
Click to expand...

If you were attacked by something (with non physical features) that you could not see that had the ability to exert force against you, even inflict pain, what would you call that?

Now go ahead and replace the word "entity" with that word you just came up with.

Although we should note that Ms. Ammons also claimed to have witnessed something within her home manifest itself, in one of the interviews which she conducted. So maybe the idea that what we are trying to describe is something with only "non physical features" is not an entirely accurate.
 
Last edited:
mikeb768 said:
If you were attacked by something (with non physical features) that you could not see that had the ability to exert force against you, even inflict pain, what would you call that?

Then go ahead and replace the word "entity" with that word you just came up with.



Although we should note that Ms. Ammons also claimed to have witnessed something within her home manifest itself, in one of the interviews which she conducted. So maybe the idea that what we are trying to describe is something with only "non physical features" is not an entirely accurate.
Click to expand...

Well, certainly the ability to exert force is a physical feature.

But you're dodging the point, aren't you? The word "entity" suggests certain things above and beyond "invisible and exerts force", doesn't it? Wind is invisible and exerts force.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
Well, certainly the ability to exert force is a physical feature.

But you're dodging the point, aren't you? The word "entity" suggests certain things above and beyond "invisible and exerts force", doesn't it? Wind is invisible and exerts force.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with you, what the Ammons are describing seems to be something (or things) that are capable of more than just exerting force.

But I'm guessing that you were unable to come up with a better word, either that or maybe you just don't feel like sharing the word you did come up with.
 
Last edited:
mikeb768 said:
Yeah I agree with you, what the Ammons are describing seems to be something (or somethings) that are capable of more than just exerting force.
Click to expand...

Why do you say so? The only thing it's ever done (supposedly) is "exert force". What makes anyone think it's capable of doing more? What else, exactly, do we seem to think it's also capable of doing? Singing?
 
mikeb768 said:
If you were attacked by something (with non physical features) that you could not see that had the ability to exert force against you, even inflict pain, what would you call that?
Click to expand...
.
I would call that an excellent example of why we have mental health coverage as an Essential Health Benefit under Obamacare.
 
mikeb768 said:
What you are doing is called "speculating" and "distorting".

You also managed to mix up the 9 year old with the 7 year old who was claimed to have been thrown. Then, you (having not even been present) are able to tell us exactly where and what every member of the rooms focus was at the time, with your claim that "one of them had eyes on the child while the others went about their related tasks"? Seriously.

According to a Department of Children's Services (DCS) report: Medical staff stated that the youngest boy was "lifted and thrown into the wall with nobody touching him,"
Your response to hearing that a 7 year old kid was seemingly lifted and tossed into a wall is, "that kid deserves an Oscar"?
Ú

You were forced to reach even further into your bag of speculation when attempting to explain the claim of the 9 year old's seemingly supernatural acrobatic feats. The Grandmother acted as a "buttress" as you claim? Where is your proof for such a statement. The DCS employee (Valerie Washington), was asked by police "whether the boy had run up the wall, as though performing an acrobatic trick." She said no the boy "glided backward on the floor, wall and ceiling".

I have never in my life witnessed a 9 year old glide backwards on a wall, or ceiling, but if this is something that is quite common where you live, then maybe you would not mind providing us with some type of proof to backup your claims.

Hospital floors are known to be quite slick, but gliding on the ceiling? Come on. I'm going to assume that you believe "the kid was probably wearing Heelys at the time". :)

Sources:
The exorcisms of Latoya Ammons
How other outlets handled 'The exorcisms of Latoya Ammons'

Additional information for those who are interested:
Common symptoms of possession
Click to expand...
It would be speculation were I to say "this is how it happened." What I am saying is this is how it could have happened, strengthened by the facts that people, including children, can be acrobatic and eyewitness testimony is highly unreliable. So a better word for my post is parsimony.

On the other hand, you have decided it is supernatural, and you have done so traveling the same fallacious road you mistakenly accuse me of treading. Do you have proof the child was not executing an acrobatic trick? Do you have proof the witnesses saw exactly what they claim they saw? Do you have proof that, unique amongst all such claims, there is no exaggeration, no mistake, no deception, no misperception in this case? No. You do not, nor is it to be expected that such a circumstance pertains.

There is speculation here, but you are its source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom