wanderer33
Jedi
Thanks Vulcan, I'll have a look. :D
The Truth about "The Exorcist"
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
wanderer33
Jedi
That was highly enlightening. I was very interested in the fact that the entity preferred to identify the light as 'energy'. I published an image of a box today and identified it with my heart. A synchronicity. I need to think about this.
Thankyou for the link. :)
Thankyou for the link. :)
knowledge_of_self
The Living Force
This was a very interesting read.
I'm also currently reading Women Who Love Psychopaths By Sandra Brown. And in one of the chapters she talks about the similarities of descriptions of the Devil within the bible and traits of psychopathy. So in light of all that I've read recently, this story was a very fascinating.
Also there is a new Exorcist movie coming out… good grief..
I'm also currently reading Women Who Love Psychopaths By Sandra Brown. And in one of the chapters she talks about the similarities of descriptions of the Devil within the bible and traits of psychopathy. So in light of all that I've read recently, this story was a very fascinating.
Also there is a new Exorcist movie coming out… good grief..
Maia
Jedi
Wow, Laura, you should have gone into being a detective.
Honestly, some of the greatest detective work I've ever read.
Personally, I believe many of the people all over our planet that are in positions of power are more "possessed" than that mischievous boy.
And I do mean really possessed. But not by "Satan".
One man's devil is another man's being from another dimension.
One man's "god(s)" is another man's visiting astronaut, time and or multi-dimensional traveler.
It never ceases to amaze me we have the technological capability to blow up our entire planet and yet many of the people on the planet still cling to primitive beliefs.
The movie "Joe vs The Volcano" with Tom Hanks comes to mind.
Honestly, some of the greatest detective work I've ever read.
Personally, I believe many of the people all over our planet that are in positions of power are more "possessed" than that mischievous boy.
And I do mean really possessed. But not by "Satan".
One man's devil is another man's being from another dimension.
One man's "god(s)" is another man's visiting astronaut, time and or multi-dimensional traveler.
It never ceases to amaze me we have the technological capability to blow up our entire planet and yet many of the people on the planet still cling to primitive beliefs.
The movie "Joe vs The Volcano" with Tom Hanks comes to mind.
obyvatel
The Living Force
Hi 1melissa3,
Welcome to the forum. We encourage new members to post an introduction in the Newbies board . You can take a look at how others have done it there.
Welcome to the forum. We encourage new members to post an introduction in the Newbies board . You can take a look at how others have done it there.
Steve Erdmann
A Disturbance in the Force
SOME UNKNOWN FACTS ON THE 1949 DEMON CASE:
(Edited and Updated Comments on the 1949 St. Louis Possession Case)
By:
Steve Erdmann
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBdRrNQm3LQ
The outreach to darken and besmirch this man's character, family history, innocence - not just in his adulthood but also as a child - continued with innuendo and incantations.
QUESTION FROM INTERVIEWER:
Do you believe that the boy in the book and the movie ‘The Exorcist’ was possessed? I understand his real name was mentioned on the Net and that he later worked for the space program. What do you hear?
STEVE ERDMANN AND EVENTS
My history on this case goes back much earlier when I first discovered the case around 1973. The late Father Eugene Gallagher of Georgetown University sent me a copy of an original “The Exorcist Diary”. Consequently, I wrote about three articles (One article: “The Truth behind the Exorcist,” FATE Magazine, January, 1975; “The Real Story Behind ‘The Exorcist,’” OCCULT Magazine, April, 1975) and one booklet (“Anatomy of a Demon Possession”): available from Luminist Publications, P.O. Box 20256, Minneapolis, MN, 55420. info @ luminist.org) based on my initial encounter with the environment back in the 1970s. Through the years, I attempted to be impartial as I could, though I had previous knowledge of poltergeist and other paranormal incidents which tended to sway my sympathies. Later scientific findings seemed to confirm these feelings. Two books, among a few, have stood out in the library: People of the Lie, M. Scott Peck, M.D., 1983 and Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology, Cooper and Epperson, 2008.
THE MEDIA AS A PROBLEM
(An aside: words in ‘quotations’ may be for journalistic ‘emphasis,’ and may not be a direct quote; in another case, we are talking about a paraphrase of the critic’s quote, i.e., about the relatives’ ‘chatting’ on an Internet blog. This would have been an “unofficial” remark from my [poor] memory. [The direct quote will be forthcoming].)
I had personal experience with a male nurse from Alexian Brother’s Hospital psychiatric ward who worked around the ‘boy’ in 1949; I will go into that briefly.
The remainder of my comments would center around the media, in general, but also concern a few selected media “hounds” that had ulterior and hidden agendas in tracing down and, more or less, ‘intruding and almost badgering’ the ‘victim’ in the possession case. There are some investigators that fell into a “Good, The Bad and the Ugly” ranking, in as much as some media comments have been fair and sober and even scientific. Others were suspect because of certain inherent treatments and fallacious attitudes that actually meant (despite their outward structure) the 1949 “victim” psychological and emotional harm.
ON THE TRAIL OF ‘DIRTY LAUNDRY’
My experiences in this case were similar to what you had heard in the media. The case had been fairly well covered; and “some” of the press had torn into this man’s private life like alley-dogs fighting over trashed meat. Do ‘I’ believe in demon-possession? It depends on several factors. I have known the ‘boy's’ name for some time. In the earlier years, many writers refrained from openly mentioning the “victim’s” name out of some respect or humility concerning his privacy. What bothers me are the wide-eyed 'investigators' that just want to hound him to death and try to get bits and pieces of dirty little secrets about his past and present life. They appeared to view him as a criminal or a dirty little lab specimen (I noted one writer’s attitude and comments meandered from outright accusatory hostility towards the ‘victim,’ on the one hand, and seeming placation and conciliation, on the other). The lyrics of Don Henley’s “Dirty Laundry” can be good background music. (The fact that our “victim” has not [as far as I know, to date] come out with a tell-all book to gain some monetary goal, might be considered interesting.)
While many people exhilarated beneath the on-going discovery of sensational and personal facts in the life of “the boy” and his family, the public should be equally aware, or, at least contemplate, some of the hardships this mongering may have created for the family.
(I will be alternating between speaking of some skeptics collectively and specifically of one particular skeptic as a special example.)
ANOTHER SIDE TO THE STORY
I actually started out with one of these ‘hounds’ on an investigation of ‘the boy’ because I thought the investigator was sincerely objective. I thought he wanted to conduct a 'scientific' investigation - only to find out he was a classical debunker who wanted to make a name for himself and replicate another debunker who made a name for himself - which will probably lead to another (on and on)...he sort of tricked me somewhat. He later vacillated between remarks that he might get the man to “confess” and somehow acknowledge that the “victim” was influenced by his relatives (to fabricate), or that he was a teenage hoaxer (or some confused combination of the above). Nice.
I did not gather the “full” status of this critic’s cynical approach and background until, up unto, and more recent when I examined the various stages of his career and his inquiry into this and other matters.
I did not “refuse” to work with him, rather, I let my somewhat sympathetic views on demons, and my realization as to what Christ said on that matter, be known to him (which he resented somewhat, as it was not part of his ‘mission’), and that led to a gulf in cooperation. I did suggest a committee or panel of “experts” or “professionals” get together and plan a trek to Maryland and various connected sites to investigate.
However, I also suggested that this investigation be done in a rather objective and impartial way (having read and being concerned about the mentality of die-hard debunkers); that idea did not go over so well, to say the least, as that did not fit into his pattern of inquiry.
(It was no wonder this critic had a hard time working with me, in as much as I was not a dedicated cynic and debunker in matters parapsychological, paranormal or religious [it worried me some times that he referred to me as a ‘partner’ in his research, in as much as I could not endorse his entire approach]. I had no radio show promoting ridicule of various religious ideas. More recently, this critic had visited almost every name connected with the case, often, I suspect, in hopes of gleaning pieces and comments of information that he could use to bolster his cynical premise [probably unbeknownst to his interviewees].)
THE CONSTITUTION SAID I COULD!
His latest pieces on the topic were a long list (a composite of other ‘hounds’ who searched out the victim and contributed gossip and pulp) of 'dirty laundry' about the man (once the 'boy'), prying into the man’s girlfriend’s life, relatives' lives, parents' secrets and besmirching him and his family; Innocent until proven guilty? These skeptics shrouded themselves beneath descriptions of being “scientific” investigators, “skeptical” rectifiers, or some other type of lone wolf private eyes. In addition, there were a few other media tormentors in which I had to question their intentions (the heralding of the Constitution, as some did, as to its purporting allowance for those to rampage about in the private lives of individuals: this did not seem correct; and what if their privacy became obtusely invaded?). Were these “'investigators’'' backgrounds were so pristine, holy and perfect that they could set themselves up as Papal authorities to judge this man and his family? Sounds like this masquerade also had evil intentions.
SEVERAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED
The other problem or area was the question: what ‘is’ EVIL? These debunkers said the kid was just a mean, snotty, bully of a kid who hoaxed it: but by their very descriptions of him, they described someone that was mentally ill, sadistic, cruel and---evil. It seemed like the pot calling the kettle 'black'.
I suggested to this 'researcher' that an independent, open, scientific, objective and impartial panel - not a monger-headlines-group - be set up to check out the facts. He said he did not want to set around with a bunch of psychic mumbo-jumbo. That kind of talk sounded more dark than light to me; I had in the past (post 1975) - and I was afraid now - of people crashing into the life of this man - now nearing 80 years-of-age - like a bunch of snarling wolves; which they did.
They also left out many 'facts' that needed to indicate something paranormal happened - and they used only statements and opinions that would support their apriori and preconceived belief. This is why I felt that experts that are more fair-minded should handle the inquiries...including other information such as…
THE TRUE REMARKS OF ERNEST “SCHAFFER”
The male nurse who attended the boy's room at the time and saw many strange things...it does not fit their 'pattern' so they say it is a fiction...but I heard this man lecture on his involvement!
My first wife, myself, several St. Anthony of Padua church parishioners, Father Steve Yxxxxx and another priest, attended a monthly religious discussion group at the home of Vxxxxxx and Nxxxx Axxxxxxx, parishioners. Another parishioner (I called a Mr. “Schaffer” in my booklet) was also attendant and very quiet. When a speaker eventually finished speaking on the topic of the myth of Satan (it was a ruse to see if they could get a reaction from Ernest), Ernest became quite upset and fidgeted, telling the group that what the speaker was saying was not true. Ernest said that he had been kept to a vow of silence on the matter but that he would speak out that one time because he felt the speaker was not truthful. Ernest then went into a telling of what he physically saw and did in the time he worked at Alexian Brothers’ (Psychiatric) Hospital, and his encounters with the supposedly possessed boy. As far as I know, Ernest never spoke on it again up to the time of his death.
Ernest spoke of the ‘boy’ demonstrating some paranormal abilities and leaving an unusually large amount of bodily fluids, similar to classical poltergeist activity in other noted cases (in his website, our ‘investigator’ downplays my remarks to him on Ernest by saying I told him Ernest’s only complaint was cleaning up the boy’s vomit, which staffers had to do often in psychiatric wards; however, Ernest had told us that he saw and heard much more than this).
Our investigator uses the same ploy when I told him about actor Max Von Sydow’s remarks in a letter to me stating skepticism of paranormal events on the movie sets; the ‘investigator’ suddenly seems to know everything said in the letter [he doesn’t] and, In fact, he has never seen the letter.
In another instance, again, our skeptics vacillate between having the ‘boy’ being a mere ‘prankster’ as compared to a deeply diseased victim – who should it be? Rather, they figure in equal psychological semantics, to be safe than sorry.
Latest advances in quantum physics and neuroscience, indicate indeed there are chemistries involved that transcend our ‘accepted’ or ‘known’ world.
SOME ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
I told this person, at one time, that I did not really believe in demon-possession. I misspoke! What I really was trying to say was: I rather ‘not’ really believe in it! However, after seeing some cases up close and personal - and realizing that Christ, Himself, treated Satan and demons as very real - I cannot say I have a total disbelief. This debunker claimed to be Baptist and a firm Bible student, yet he failed to see his own encounter with this evil in his own life. He tended to switch, back and forth, from saying, the boy was a cruel and mischievous “hoaxer” (a favorite theory of his “hero”), to a boy that had a mental illness, or some combination of both, rather than being evil incarnate. In addition, while I did not totally exclude a critical or skeptical approach to the incident, I did think the topic should also include symmetrical evidence from all avenues. From the tone and demeanor of this lone wolf, he was not out to be fair.
SEMANTIC GAMES AND MISPEAKING
It was interesting to note that this particular critic said he was a devout Baptist and believed in Satan and the Bible: but I believe this was a ruse to get more information out of me. There was some doubt that this critic was as grounded in real religious reality as he was saying. In his 2007 letters he spoke of his firm belief in the Biblical Satan, yet in his website he almost ridicules his once-stated belief and even present his father as a skeptic of sorts (not likely for a confirmed Baptist).
I discovered later that his past and some current actions denoted his non-benign and even cruel remarks on religion. From time to time, he had made comments about his religiosity and paranormal belief (letters of 2007), though other mentions he made [see below and other] would tend to contradict and question that.)
This skeptic, instead, was avidly trying to follow in the shoes of a fellow skeptic who he worshipped and wanted to create his own trail of publicity like his ‘hero’. A whole Cult has arisen on the Internet also zealously defending the so-called investigation of his “hero,” much like the insinuated vigor and stentorian defenses of those who feel the 1949 case to be genuine.
This “wannabe” went so far as to misquote me about information he witnessed of the boy’s relatives on an Internet “chat room” [I will quote in a few paragraphs forward; an aside, more recently, this critic began splitting thin-hairs as to whether he used the words 'chat room' or just mentioned seeing the relatives talk on an Internet 'blog'. Please note: the expression “chat room” was my best recollection, spoken colloquially, about his remark on tracing a conversation down from the family on the Internet [which did happen and he did mention {see below}]).
OFF THE RECORD REMARK
What is important here is that, in essence, the relatives “were” mentioned by the skeptic as making comments on a blog on the Internet and that he did mention this to me, and then said that I, mysteriously, was the one who invented the remark. (Now, in a November, 2014 email, this critic stated he “did” speak of seeing the family converse on the Internet and he “did” mention it to me: “…Axxxx Bxxxx posted a public message for RH on the ZabaSearch message board (it has since been removed, but it did confirm that all RH’s Hxxxxxxx cousins were still alive at that time).…I never participated or interfered with the message except to print it out (maybe I sent you one?) and the blog.” (When he originally spoke of it in 2007, he merely referred to a chat session on the Internet without all the identifying details. Without those details, it was hard for me to speak correctly and scientifically about it.)
THE ACTUAL QUOTE AND MY EXPLANATION
In the critic’s letter of September 18, 2007, he “did” tell of the family trying to converse on the Internet:
“Secondly, I’ve tapped into an attempted line of communication from Axxxxx to Rxx. I discovered this fact accidentally – she used a public, on-line bulletin board to leave the message. She may not have known that her message could be seen by the general public. So much for her ‘privacy’…”
As already mentioned, not having this quote directly in front of me at one time (and buried out of sight, stored deeply away in a garage), I remarked to him in 2007 that he had mentioned a ‘chat room’. I colloquially misspoke: An online “bulletin board” is not necessarily a private chat room; though there is some Internet, similarities (see footnotes). Having captured me in an awkward misquote, our flamboyant “hound” used it against my veracity. The remark, however, was a casual remark and used in private, unofficial conversation; the importance of my outlining this “sparing” came clearer as one explored his background and his attacks on religiosity.
The impetus behind this debate, at that juncture, was his reluctance to send copies of his printouts and emails (he spied the relative’s email address on the Internet), as we had agreed upon. Perhaps I wanted to see if all this was true. However, as one can see from his November 2014 quote, even ‘he’ was unclear as to what he actually did and what he actually sent to me.
(In the early stages of his investigation, I did much to help him with copies and photos of the late aunt's gravesite and her house [and a lot of other data, addresses, and information]. None of these endeavors had I received credit for, but discovered, belatedly, his disparaging, somewhat condescending, erroneous and fallacious remarks about my mentioning the boy’s family speaking in a “chat room” {which, as shown above, he actually did speak about. It was no invention}.)
Yet, it is ironic and quizzical that he pivoted around, usually in private correspondence, and paraded himself as some crusader for decency or decorum if he felt it would topple, block or chastise those who are critical of his comments.
A CERTAIN TYPE OF MENTALITY
Because a majority of the people who were attracted to this critic's websites had no real knowledge of the similar paranormal cases, or the other details involved in this case, most would have no real complaints with the critic. People with intimate knowledge of parapsychology would probably take issue with many aspects of the debunking more readily than the public; perhaps this is one reason the critic said he was taken to task very seldom or hardly ever-received criticism. Having seen the various "stages" of his inquiry--and his formation of how he accepts evidence or rejects it (most recently, he has rejected any corrections from me on his erroneous statements, outright, and tends to shy away from support of any paranormal theory)--a person, such as myself, would be more adept at spotting his modus operandi.
ARE MEANT TO STAY THAT WAY
So also did the family relatives suspect his “inquiring mind” when Axxxxx (Hxxxxxxxx) Bxxxx said on April 18, 2007: “You say you are not writing or publishing anything, yet you say that some of pictures you sent were taken as early as 1975. I would be interested in knowing just why this research is so important to you and/or others. Do you have a connection with these families? What ARE your intentions for requesting this information?
“Younger family members such as my nephew, Gxxx Hxxxxxxxx, also have very little knowledge on this subject. He told me that you had written him as well, but he said he is not going to reply to your letter at all. I would request that you refrain from contacting other relatives on the subject because you will not obtain anything new.
“Family problems or secrets are meant to stay that way. The years have not changed the information you have gathered. Further information that you have requested is not and will not be available to you or others who are looking for sensationalism or monetary rewards. The family does not wish to dredge up old stories from yesterday that may be hurtful to the younger generations today.”
What was also interesting, upon reception of that letter, that, unrelentingly, our “hound’ went on to analyze this ladies’ handwriting; he even attempted to diagnosis that she had an unspecified illness (of course, needless to say, our ‘hound’ was trying to gather information for publication and publicity, despite what he told the “boy’s” relative).
It remained somewhat surprising to me that in his letters of May, June and September 2007 (and others), he “chastised” me for being critical of his style of investigation (I was being hostile), but practically in the same breath, made suspicious, curious and unkind remarks about the family.
Letter after letter, he meandered over the families’ private, psychological and intimate situation when there is no way he could possibly have that kind of knowledge of their personal affairs, nor did he have an expert or clinical background to make those judgments. The victim’s father was a “whimp,” “a weakling,” that the victim’s grandfather was also “henpecked,” (“…and let those two women run all over him.”). He commented that a daughter referred to her mother by her first name and that meant a sinister connotation (stated in a series of 2007 letters from our superfluous biographer). He spoke intimately and fluidly about members of the family contributing to child molestation, abuse, and other private family problems. Our amateur biographer alluded to family situations that he said allegedly indicated foul play by the parents or relatives. In general, he claimed personal knowledge or insight into the families’ background (often in the above-mentioned disparaging and mocking tones) which, in no way, he could have had such accurate or intimate knowledge; other than vainglorious gossip and rumor, no one could.
Also in his 2007 letters, said investigator laid out plans to entice family members, often with seeming compliments, in order to obtain their confidence and sympathy so that they would give him private and personal information. Several times, he mentioned to the family or about the family that he had no intention to write a book or article: yet, in essence and effect, the multiple websites he created on the topic served the same purpose (one had a visitor-counter).
“I’d kind of like to know how long the molestation was going on; I guess we might be able to figure that out if/when we learn how long Oma…Axxxx stayed with the Hxxxxxxxs. A clue might be derived if I can find out when Jxxxx Cxxxxxx died….” (January 24, 2007) In addition, the marauding continued.
INNOCENT AFTER ALL
Our “biographer” recently sucked-up some new gossip that would tend to dispel the child molestation theory: “Regarding Axxxxx: not to me (but I can’t reveal to whom she told this), but she confirmed that her mother, in the last years of her life, had crippling MS and was confined to a wheelchair. Therefore, she would not have even been able to sexually manhandle RH (as has been theroized in the past).” (Emphasis added.) ( 6:27am. November 7, 2014.)
Interestingly, sexual abuse may not have been prohibited by a physical ailment on the part of a perpetrator (in this case, the suspected Aunt Tillie), as capability would extend beyond not only “healthy” people being capable of doing this type of crime. The further question is: why is our mongering inquisitor dabbling into the private life of the ‘victim’ in such a brazen way? He was not an authentic journalist in the full sense of the word, nor a professional detective or physician.
USING PROTEST AND IRONY
(The last "exchange" between this particular critic and myself resembled a Tic-Tac-Toe game of traded insults, with this “investigator” insisting his comments were error-free and my comments were totally faulty [and deluded] and that he was refusing any further discussion, often because he saw disagreement as some type of furious, personal anger by his opponent. Some examples:
- The critic mentioned the awesomeness of standing in the Bel Nor, Missouri house where some of the activity took place: I countered, to point out his extravagant thinking, as to why it would be so ‘awesome’ if the “boy” was just an ordinary prankster and liar? The critic took that remark to mean that I somehow held “jealousy” of his having entrance to the house.
- The critic mentioned that 97% his website audiences approved of his remarks and that he felt his writing was as ingenious as Peter Blatty’s. As a point of protest and irony, I increased his complimentary readers to 99% and said some were probably “selected”. Whoops, he didn’t like my sarcasm or the point I was making. He closed off all future discussion. Point-Counter-Point debate only worked well if you feel you have complete control.
FURTHER GLIMPSES OF THE CRITIC’S SANCTUM
(Unavoidable)
Our critic had opened several websites on the Internet (in an unchivalrous pursuit of publicizing and parading his interest in the 1949 case) all of them garnered to his private style of trashing the background of “the boy” and, sometimes, religion in general. One website referred to itself as a big blog to be read on a rainy day just for fun, and warned readers that the reader will encounter the critic’s “flippant” opinions; and that if you don’t like it he will show you the door (2010).
The websites usually were decorated by his regular mischievous and scornful comments. He had a dictionary of favorite jabs: “childish, contradictory”, etc. Yet it is he who instituted websites full of sardonic bards (referring to the 1949 victim as “Ronnie,” “the Ron-ster,” “little-puke”, and other persons’ comments as “thingies”: hardly mature and stoic, scientific comments). True to his “style,” our biographer referred to a world-famous and bestselling author on UFOs as “whack-ass” (January 22, 2014).
(Our critic, in continued glimpses through the demonstrated performances and formats on his late radio show [headlined by The Three Stooges: “Continually fulfilling your need for all things stupid” {from the promotion marquee}], used ridicule and attack on a host of paranormal and religious beliefs, denoting a bias and preference for sacrilege that prefaced his media mentality. This was 2007, and aimed at a somewhat sympathetic audience [those who are entertained by such carnival sarcasm], but the same ribald attitude and comments were available on his Facebook sites and other of his dialogue [often in reference to ‘farting’ and other, sometimes erotic, anatomical exercises. I noted that a “spasm” of carnality by his readers on the ‘art’ of ‘farting’ {about April 11, 2014} has either been removed or hidden]. On his Facebook Timeline [December 2, 2013] he heralded Benny Bell’s recording of “goosing”, and Tony Cabanell spoke of “I am nostalgic for brain sandwich farts” (September 19, 2014). The “farting” joking-fad was, in part, due to the 1949 ‘victim’s’ forensic act of smelling foully while under alleged demonic attack [if not just rabid humor on our biographer’s part]).
Placards and slogans that typified his sardonic approach headlined the radio program:
“Where good music goes to die…The Wonderful World of Stupid…The Splatting Nun! Vintage Idiocy…House of Whacks…Songs for Fart Lovers!”
The following are just a few notations and excerpts from a “composite” of previous radio broadcasts (which filled almost the entirety of his regular broadcasts):
- 6:28 a.m., CST, “Satan Call”, October moon song “Son of Satan”: having sex on the altar to a “one-eyed goat,” missionary style.
- 6:57 a.m., CST, Sound-tract: a drive-in “Facts of Life” featured Madonna. Co-host mentioned erotic areas of a women’s body and said, “Honey, let’s play windshield wiper.”
- 7:05 a.m. CST, The host Played Gilbert O’Sullivan’s song Alone Again, meshing it with conversation about razor blades and suicide. 7:10 a.m., the host said to his audience: “You shouldn’t be surprised I’d play something like that.” The host asked his audience if they had gotten out their razor blades yet. “I’ll talk you down, I’ll talk you down” (7:14 a.m.)
- 7:20 a.m., CST, song Why You Love Me – anywhere we could, in the front yard, in the woods, in the rear, long and hard – going into various erotic descriptions.
- 7:34 a.m. CST. Announcer began the topic about Rat stomping. Switched from talk of Steve Austin’s movie Condemned to talk about the missing pilot, Steve Fassett: “Frankly, I don’t care what happened to him…go down the drain….so what, he’s got money.” The host said he could care less if Fassett disintegrated.
A review of the many months of radio transcripts would show a plethora of such dedicated bias:
The “I don’t care” attitude was prevalent through several of his remarks, such as this one in 2014: “You can say or think what you want about what I say or have written in the past…I can’t say, truthfully, that I really care what people think. I lose no sleep over it one way or another.” The critic’s basic approach is one of carnival and sardonic ridicule of religious and Sacred Cow beliefs (and there probably “is” an exclusive audience for this type of approach and spectacle. I have noted the critic is happiest around this sympathetic audience).
ADDITIONAL STEPHEN ERDMANN COMMENTS
(The ‘male nurse’ mentioned above was not the late Brother Greg Holwinski, but an entirely different hospital employee.)
(Troy Taylor’s book and video production seemed to be an objective rendering of the case, quoting psychoanalyst Professor Terry Cooper and others, though Taylor tended to deal in exclusivity. As a paranormal researcher, to his great credit, however, Taylor was too professional to damn all parapsychological happenings.)
(I confessed to having fallen into the ‘monger’ syndrome back in 1973-1975, when having been sent Father Eugene Gallagher’s copy of the “diary,” it led to a ‘spree’ of published articles on the diary by Steve Erdmann. I did not feel such an ‘event’ should be singled out to one and only one publication [against the wishes of an editor that wanted complete and total control], and I wrote about it in two other magazines.)
A HUMANE AND SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
The topic of the Demon Possessed boy of 1949 was a cat well “out of the bag” for some time now. It had raised some questions in my mind as to the welfare and true caring for “the victim” by me and other extravagant media mongers. It had raised the question of privacy, publicity and human caring in my mind, several times; some media agencies, more than others, have fared better in delicacy and balanced promotion. I had planned some time back to try to gather a cross-section of the comments on the case and sometime before, or, on my deathbed, to present the file to historical societies here in St. Louis.
The late Father William S. Bowdern, S.J., wrote author William Blatty on October 17, 1968, and I quote: “My hesitancy in giving you the details of the case of possession is due to two facts. First, Archbishop Ritter (later, Cardinal Ritter), who delegated me as the exorcist, instructed me not to publish the case. I have been faithful to his instructions. Secondly, it would be most embarrassing, and possibly painfully disturbing to the young man, should he be connected in any way with a book detailing events that took place in his life some years ago…I can assure you of one thing: the case in which I was involved was the real thing. I had no doubt about it then and I have no doubt about it now.”
It had been many years since I ventured into this topic. If I am to gather files together on this topic, this would seem to be the best time. What information have you uncovered? Can you download to me? I am preparing a paper promised to a Historical Society; any contributions are welcomed. Do have an email address I can download some files to you? (You can reach Steve Erdmann at _dissenterdisinter@yahoo.com or _independenterdmann@gmail.com. You can friend him at Facebook _https://www.facebook.com/stephen.erdmann1 or visit the Dissenter/Disinter Group at _https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/171577496293504/. His Facebook email is _http://facebook.com/stephen.erdmann1.)
(Feel free to publish or use the above, provided you make appropriate grammar and spelling corrections.)
Footnotes:
Chat rooms and Bulletin boards:
“An online discussion forum for a particular topic via keyboard (see chat). Everyone who is logged in sees what everyone else is typing, although two people can decide to break off and have a private chat. Individual Chat Sessions: Chat rooms hosting general discussions often run continuously; however, chat sessions between two parties are often initiated as needed for customer service.” (_http://www.yourdictionary.com/chat-room.)
“Unlike bulletin boards, live chats provide immediate live communication. Depending on the need, chat rooms can be open all the time or at only scheduled times. Just like bulletin boards, chat rooms have varying degrees of moderation, privacy, and feature controls. Chat rooms can be a bit risky, but the payoff can be high. The risk is in the open, live nature of the communications, which allows the presentation of any topic in any language.” (_http://precisepangolin.com/read~53da8a3a35ad43f4648b456d.) (Stephen Erdmann’s added emphasis)
Personal Debate:
Philosophical and political debates often ran in “either – or” circles; some in “Mine – no other” type of arguments. It made one wonder if there was a loss of humanity somehow in the debates. One would only hope – as our “victim” approached the end of his life -- that the public would view him in a more fair-minded and accurate light. From what I have learned, he has remained a productive and even religious man and been kind and loving to his family and their children. I do not believe he had had any criminal history (as if that should have any importance when it comes to forgiveness). Is there another human being that spoke for him? I wonder if, in everyday life, we all are just a thin hair away from the microscope vision of our neighbor if not our government.
I visualized – and shuddered in doing so – of the media circus that might ensue at the time of this 1949 ‘victim’s’ funeral.
My comments, herein, were promoted primarily in self-defense. I very belatedly discovered – almost by accident – what our critic had said about me. I obtained the further haunting feeling that our “victim” may never get a fair hearing {or even was aware of some of the cruel and questionable comments about him} in this lifetime; in addition, when do the ‘judges’ become “judged”?
(As a caveat: be sure to constantly guard every word you use in front of him, even in casual, colloquial conversation with him, as, should there arise some debate, you will find yourself in his world of “confessions”, “contradictions,” and “I’ve got you on this one” adolescent parlance.)
I had been sympathetic to our “critic’s” stance on authority and the government, he appeared as an iconoclast at times; but then there were crueler elements that I questioned.
Fortunately, I have viewed equitable and sober comments on the case by other ‘reviewers” (such as those by the late Ian Stevenson in The Journal of Parapsychology, March 1, 1995.) that appeared kinder and more balanced.
Copies of the 1975 FATE Magazine article mentioned above are available from me for a small $.50 copying charge.
I am in the process of developing a list of items I will be happy to mail out soon and in the future..
Mod edit: deactivated links
(Edited and Updated Comments on the 1949 St. Louis Possession Case)
By:
Steve Erdmann
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBdRrNQm3LQ
The outreach to darken and besmirch this man's character, family history, innocence - not just in his adulthood but also as a child - continued with innuendo and incantations.
QUESTION FROM INTERVIEWER:
Do you believe that the boy in the book and the movie ‘The Exorcist’ was possessed? I understand his real name was mentioned on the Net and that he later worked for the space program. What do you hear?
STEVE ERDMANN AND EVENTS
My history on this case goes back much earlier when I first discovered the case around 1973. The late Father Eugene Gallagher of Georgetown University sent me a copy of an original “The Exorcist Diary”. Consequently, I wrote about three articles (One article: “The Truth behind the Exorcist,” FATE Magazine, January, 1975; “The Real Story Behind ‘The Exorcist,’” OCCULT Magazine, April, 1975) and one booklet (“Anatomy of a Demon Possession”): available from Luminist Publications, P.O. Box 20256, Minneapolis, MN, 55420. info @ luminist.org) based on my initial encounter with the environment back in the 1970s. Through the years, I attempted to be impartial as I could, though I had previous knowledge of poltergeist and other paranormal incidents which tended to sway my sympathies. Later scientific findings seemed to confirm these feelings. Two books, among a few, have stood out in the library: People of the Lie, M. Scott Peck, M.D., 1983 and Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology, Cooper and Epperson, 2008.
THE MEDIA AS A PROBLEM
(An aside: words in ‘quotations’ may be for journalistic ‘emphasis,’ and may not be a direct quote; in another case, we are talking about a paraphrase of the critic’s quote, i.e., about the relatives’ ‘chatting’ on an Internet blog. This would have been an “unofficial” remark from my [poor] memory. [The direct quote will be forthcoming].)
I had personal experience with a male nurse from Alexian Brother’s Hospital psychiatric ward who worked around the ‘boy’ in 1949; I will go into that briefly.
The remainder of my comments would center around the media, in general, but also concern a few selected media “hounds” that had ulterior and hidden agendas in tracing down and, more or less, ‘intruding and almost badgering’ the ‘victim’ in the possession case. There are some investigators that fell into a “Good, The Bad and the Ugly” ranking, in as much as some media comments have been fair and sober and even scientific. Others were suspect because of certain inherent treatments and fallacious attitudes that actually meant (despite their outward structure) the 1949 “victim” psychological and emotional harm.
ON THE TRAIL OF ‘DIRTY LAUNDRY’
My experiences in this case were similar to what you had heard in the media. The case had been fairly well covered; and “some” of the press had torn into this man’s private life like alley-dogs fighting over trashed meat. Do ‘I’ believe in demon-possession? It depends on several factors. I have known the ‘boy's’ name for some time. In the earlier years, many writers refrained from openly mentioning the “victim’s” name out of some respect or humility concerning his privacy. What bothers me are the wide-eyed 'investigators' that just want to hound him to death and try to get bits and pieces of dirty little secrets about his past and present life. They appeared to view him as a criminal or a dirty little lab specimen (I noted one writer’s attitude and comments meandered from outright accusatory hostility towards the ‘victim,’ on the one hand, and seeming placation and conciliation, on the other). The lyrics of Don Henley’s “Dirty Laundry” can be good background music. (The fact that our “victim” has not [as far as I know, to date] come out with a tell-all book to gain some monetary goal, might be considered interesting.)
While many people exhilarated beneath the on-going discovery of sensational and personal facts in the life of “the boy” and his family, the public should be equally aware, or, at least contemplate, some of the hardships this mongering may have created for the family.
(I will be alternating between speaking of some skeptics collectively and specifically of one particular skeptic as a special example.)
ANOTHER SIDE TO THE STORY
I actually started out with one of these ‘hounds’ on an investigation of ‘the boy’ because I thought the investigator was sincerely objective. I thought he wanted to conduct a 'scientific' investigation - only to find out he was a classical debunker who wanted to make a name for himself and replicate another debunker who made a name for himself - which will probably lead to another (on and on)...he sort of tricked me somewhat. He later vacillated between remarks that he might get the man to “confess” and somehow acknowledge that the “victim” was influenced by his relatives (to fabricate), or that he was a teenage hoaxer (or some confused combination of the above). Nice.
I did not gather the “full” status of this critic’s cynical approach and background until, up unto, and more recent when I examined the various stages of his career and his inquiry into this and other matters.
I did not “refuse” to work with him, rather, I let my somewhat sympathetic views on demons, and my realization as to what Christ said on that matter, be known to him (which he resented somewhat, as it was not part of his ‘mission’), and that led to a gulf in cooperation. I did suggest a committee or panel of “experts” or “professionals” get together and plan a trek to Maryland and various connected sites to investigate.
However, I also suggested that this investigation be done in a rather objective and impartial way (having read and being concerned about the mentality of die-hard debunkers); that idea did not go over so well, to say the least, as that did not fit into his pattern of inquiry.
(It was no wonder this critic had a hard time working with me, in as much as I was not a dedicated cynic and debunker in matters parapsychological, paranormal or religious [it worried me some times that he referred to me as a ‘partner’ in his research, in as much as I could not endorse his entire approach]. I had no radio show promoting ridicule of various religious ideas. More recently, this critic had visited almost every name connected with the case, often, I suspect, in hopes of gleaning pieces and comments of information that he could use to bolster his cynical premise [probably unbeknownst to his interviewees].)
THE CONSTITUTION SAID I COULD!
His latest pieces on the topic were a long list (a composite of other ‘hounds’ who searched out the victim and contributed gossip and pulp) of 'dirty laundry' about the man (once the 'boy'), prying into the man’s girlfriend’s life, relatives' lives, parents' secrets and besmirching him and his family; Innocent until proven guilty? These skeptics shrouded themselves beneath descriptions of being “scientific” investigators, “skeptical” rectifiers, or some other type of lone wolf private eyes. In addition, there were a few other media tormentors in which I had to question their intentions (the heralding of the Constitution, as some did, as to its purporting allowance for those to rampage about in the private lives of individuals: this did not seem correct; and what if their privacy became obtusely invaded?). Were these “'investigators’'' backgrounds were so pristine, holy and perfect that they could set themselves up as Papal authorities to judge this man and his family? Sounds like this masquerade also had evil intentions.
SEVERAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED
The other problem or area was the question: what ‘is’ EVIL? These debunkers said the kid was just a mean, snotty, bully of a kid who hoaxed it: but by their very descriptions of him, they described someone that was mentally ill, sadistic, cruel and---evil. It seemed like the pot calling the kettle 'black'.
I suggested to this 'researcher' that an independent, open, scientific, objective and impartial panel - not a monger-headlines-group - be set up to check out the facts. He said he did not want to set around with a bunch of psychic mumbo-jumbo. That kind of talk sounded more dark than light to me; I had in the past (post 1975) - and I was afraid now - of people crashing into the life of this man - now nearing 80 years-of-age - like a bunch of snarling wolves; which they did.
They also left out many 'facts' that needed to indicate something paranormal happened - and they used only statements and opinions that would support their apriori and preconceived belief. This is why I felt that experts that are more fair-minded should handle the inquiries...including other information such as…
THE TRUE REMARKS OF ERNEST “SCHAFFER”
The male nurse who attended the boy's room at the time and saw many strange things...it does not fit their 'pattern' so they say it is a fiction...but I heard this man lecture on his involvement!
My first wife, myself, several St. Anthony of Padua church parishioners, Father Steve Yxxxxx and another priest, attended a monthly religious discussion group at the home of Vxxxxxx and Nxxxx Axxxxxxx, parishioners. Another parishioner (I called a Mr. “Schaffer” in my booklet) was also attendant and very quiet. When a speaker eventually finished speaking on the topic of the myth of Satan (it was a ruse to see if they could get a reaction from Ernest), Ernest became quite upset and fidgeted, telling the group that what the speaker was saying was not true. Ernest said that he had been kept to a vow of silence on the matter but that he would speak out that one time because he felt the speaker was not truthful. Ernest then went into a telling of what he physically saw and did in the time he worked at Alexian Brothers’ (Psychiatric) Hospital, and his encounters with the supposedly possessed boy. As far as I know, Ernest never spoke on it again up to the time of his death.
Ernest spoke of the ‘boy’ demonstrating some paranormal abilities and leaving an unusually large amount of bodily fluids, similar to classical poltergeist activity in other noted cases (in his website, our ‘investigator’ downplays my remarks to him on Ernest by saying I told him Ernest’s only complaint was cleaning up the boy’s vomit, which staffers had to do often in psychiatric wards; however, Ernest had told us that he saw and heard much more than this).
Our investigator uses the same ploy when I told him about actor Max Von Sydow’s remarks in a letter to me stating skepticism of paranormal events on the movie sets; the ‘investigator’ suddenly seems to know everything said in the letter [he doesn’t] and, In fact, he has never seen the letter.
In another instance, again, our skeptics vacillate between having the ‘boy’ being a mere ‘prankster’ as compared to a deeply diseased victim – who should it be? Rather, they figure in equal psychological semantics, to be safe than sorry.
Latest advances in quantum physics and neuroscience, indicate indeed there are chemistries involved that transcend our ‘accepted’ or ‘known’ world.
SOME ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
I told this person, at one time, that I did not really believe in demon-possession. I misspoke! What I really was trying to say was: I rather ‘not’ really believe in it! However, after seeing some cases up close and personal - and realizing that Christ, Himself, treated Satan and demons as very real - I cannot say I have a total disbelief. This debunker claimed to be Baptist and a firm Bible student, yet he failed to see his own encounter with this evil in his own life. He tended to switch, back and forth, from saying, the boy was a cruel and mischievous “hoaxer” (a favorite theory of his “hero”), to a boy that had a mental illness, or some combination of both, rather than being evil incarnate. In addition, while I did not totally exclude a critical or skeptical approach to the incident, I did think the topic should also include symmetrical evidence from all avenues. From the tone and demeanor of this lone wolf, he was not out to be fair.
SEMANTIC GAMES AND MISPEAKING
It was interesting to note that this particular critic said he was a devout Baptist and believed in Satan and the Bible: but I believe this was a ruse to get more information out of me. There was some doubt that this critic was as grounded in real religious reality as he was saying. In his 2007 letters he spoke of his firm belief in the Biblical Satan, yet in his website he almost ridicules his once-stated belief and even present his father as a skeptic of sorts (not likely for a confirmed Baptist).
I discovered later that his past and some current actions denoted his non-benign and even cruel remarks on religion. From time to time, he had made comments about his religiosity and paranormal belief (letters of 2007), though other mentions he made [see below and other] would tend to contradict and question that.)
This skeptic, instead, was avidly trying to follow in the shoes of a fellow skeptic who he worshipped and wanted to create his own trail of publicity like his ‘hero’. A whole Cult has arisen on the Internet also zealously defending the so-called investigation of his “hero,” much like the insinuated vigor and stentorian defenses of those who feel the 1949 case to be genuine.
This “wannabe” went so far as to misquote me about information he witnessed of the boy’s relatives on an Internet “chat room” [I will quote in a few paragraphs forward; an aside, more recently, this critic began splitting thin-hairs as to whether he used the words 'chat room' or just mentioned seeing the relatives talk on an Internet 'blog'. Please note: the expression “chat room” was my best recollection, spoken colloquially, about his remark on tracing a conversation down from the family on the Internet [which did happen and he did mention {see below}]).
OFF THE RECORD REMARK
What is important here is that, in essence, the relatives “were” mentioned by the skeptic as making comments on a blog on the Internet and that he did mention this to me, and then said that I, mysteriously, was the one who invented the remark. (Now, in a November, 2014 email, this critic stated he “did” speak of seeing the family converse on the Internet and he “did” mention it to me: “…Axxxx Bxxxx posted a public message for RH on the ZabaSearch message board (it has since been removed, but it did confirm that all RH’s Hxxxxxxx cousins were still alive at that time).…I never participated or interfered with the message except to print it out (maybe I sent you one?) and the blog.” (When he originally spoke of it in 2007, he merely referred to a chat session on the Internet without all the identifying details. Without those details, it was hard for me to speak correctly and scientifically about it.)
THE ACTUAL QUOTE AND MY EXPLANATION
In the critic’s letter of September 18, 2007, he “did” tell of the family trying to converse on the Internet:
“Secondly, I’ve tapped into an attempted line of communication from Axxxxx to Rxx. I discovered this fact accidentally – she used a public, on-line bulletin board to leave the message. She may not have known that her message could be seen by the general public. So much for her ‘privacy’…”
As already mentioned, not having this quote directly in front of me at one time (and buried out of sight, stored deeply away in a garage), I remarked to him in 2007 that he had mentioned a ‘chat room’. I colloquially misspoke: An online “bulletin board” is not necessarily a private chat room; though there is some Internet, similarities (see footnotes). Having captured me in an awkward misquote, our flamboyant “hound” used it against my veracity. The remark, however, was a casual remark and used in private, unofficial conversation; the importance of my outlining this “sparing” came clearer as one explored his background and his attacks on religiosity.
The impetus behind this debate, at that juncture, was his reluctance to send copies of his printouts and emails (he spied the relative’s email address on the Internet), as we had agreed upon. Perhaps I wanted to see if all this was true. However, as one can see from his November 2014 quote, even ‘he’ was unclear as to what he actually did and what he actually sent to me.
(In the early stages of his investigation, I did much to help him with copies and photos of the late aunt's gravesite and her house [and a lot of other data, addresses, and information]. None of these endeavors had I received credit for, but discovered, belatedly, his disparaging, somewhat condescending, erroneous and fallacious remarks about my mentioning the boy’s family speaking in a “chat room” {which, as shown above, he actually did speak about. It was no invention}.)
Yet, it is ironic and quizzical that he pivoted around, usually in private correspondence, and paraded himself as some crusader for decency or decorum if he felt it would topple, block or chastise those who are critical of his comments.
A CERTAIN TYPE OF MENTALITY
Because a majority of the people who were attracted to this critic's websites had no real knowledge of the similar paranormal cases, or the other details involved in this case, most would have no real complaints with the critic. People with intimate knowledge of parapsychology would probably take issue with many aspects of the debunking more readily than the public; perhaps this is one reason the critic said he was taken to task very seldom or hardly ever-received criticism. Having seen the various "stages" of his inquiry--and his formation of how he accepts evidence or rejects it (most recently, he has rejected any corrections from me on his erroneous statements, outright, and tends to shy away from support of any paranormal theory)--a person, such as myself, would be more adept at spotting his modus operandi.
ARE MEANT TO STAY THAT WAY
So also did the family relatives suspect his “inquiring mind” when Axxxxx (Hxxxxxxxx) Bxxxx said on April 18, 2007: “You say you are not writing or publishing anything, yet you say that some of pictures you sent were taken as early as 1975. I would be interested in knowing just why this research is so important to you and/or others. Do you have a connection with these families? What ARE your intentions for requesting this information?
“Younger family members such as my nephew, Gxxx Hxxxxxxxx, also have very little knowledge on this subject. He told me that you had written him as well, but he said he is not going to reply to your letter at all. I would request that you refrain from contacting other relatives on the subject because you will not obtain anything new.
“Family problems or secrets are meant to stay that way. The years have not changed the information you have gathered. Further information that you have requested is not and will not be available to you or others who are looking for sensationalism or monetary rewards. The family does not wish to dredge up old stories from yesterday that may be hurtful to the younger generations today.”
What was also interesting, upon reception of that letter, that, unrelentingly, our “hound’ went on to analyze this ladies’ handwriting; he even attempted to diagnosis that she had an unspecified illness (of course, needless to say, our ‘hound’ was trying to gather information for publication and publicity, despite what he told the “boy’s” relative).
It remained somewhat surprising to me that in his letters of May, June and September 2007 (and others), he “chastised” me for being critical of his style of investigation (I was being hostile), but practically in the same breath, made suspicious, curious and unkind remarks about the family.
Letter after letter, he meandered over the families’ private, psychological and intimate situation when there is no way he could possibly have that kind of knowledge of their personal affairs, nor did he have an expert or clinical background to make those judgments. The victim’s father was a “whimp,” “a weakling,” that the victim’s grandfather was also “henpecked,” (“…and let those two women run all over him.”). He commented that a daughter referred to her mother by her first name and that meant a sinister connotation (stated in a series of 2007 letters from our superfluous biographer). He spoke intimately and fluidly about members of the family contributing to child molestation, abuse, and other private family problems. Our amateur biographer alluded to family situations that he said allegedly indicated foul play by the parents or relatives. In general, he claimed personal knowledge or insight into the families’ background (often in the above-mentioned disparaging and mocking tones) which, in no way, he could have had such accurate or intimate knowledge; other than vainglorious gossip and rumor, no one could.
Also in his 2007 letters, said investigator laid out plans to entice family members, often with seeming compliments, in order to obtain their confidence and sympathy so that they would give him private and personal information. Several times, he mentioned to the family or about the family that he had no intention to write a book or article: yet, in essence and effect, the multiple websites he created on the topic served the same purpose (one had a visitor-counter).
“I’d kind of like to know how long the molestation was going on; I guess we might be able to figure that out if/when we learn how long Oma…Axxxx stayed with the Hxxxxxxxs. A clue might be derived if I can find out when Jxxxx Cxxxxxx died….” (January 24, 2007) In addition, the marauding continued.
INNOCENT AFTER ALL
Our “biographer” recently sucked-up some new gossip that would tend to dispel the child molestation theory: “Regarding Axxxxx: not to me (but I can’t reveal to whom she told this), but she confirmed that her mother, in the last years of her life, had crippling MS and was confined to a wheelchair. Therefore, she would not have even been able to sexually manhandle RH (as has been theroized in the past).” (Emphasis added.) ( 6:27am. November 7, 2014.)
Interestingly, sexual abuse may not have been prohibited by a physical ailment on the part of a perpetrator (in this case, the suspected Aunt Tillie), as capability would extend beyond not only “healthy” people being capable of doing this type of crime. The further question is: why is our mongering inquisitor dabbling into the private life of the ‘victim’ in such a brazen way? He was not an authentic journalist in the full sense of the word, nor a professional detective or physician.
USING PROTEST AND IRONY
(The last "exchange" between this particular critic and myself resembled a Tic-Tac-Toe game of traded insults, with this “investigator” insisting his comments were error-free and my comments were totally faulty [and deluded] and that he was refusing any further discussion, often because he saw disagreement as some type of furious, personal anger by his opponent. Some examples:
- The critic mentioned the awesomeness of standing in the Bel Nor, Missouri house where some of the activity took place: I countered, to point out his extravagant thinking, as to why it would be so ‘awesome’ if the “boy” was just an ordinary prankster and liar? The critic took that remark to mean that I somehow held “jealousy” of his having entrance to the house.
- The critic mentioned that 97% his website audiences approved of his remarks and that he felt his writing was as ingenious as Peter Blatty’s. As a point of protest and irony, I increased his complimentary readers to 99% and said some were probably “selected”. Whoops, he didn’t like my sarcasm or the point I was making. He closed off all future discussion. Point-Counter-Point debate only worked well if you feel you have complete control.
FURTHER GLIMPSES OF THE CRITIC’S SANCTUM
(Unavoidable)
Our critic had opened several websites on the Internet (in an unchivalrous pursuit of publicizing and parading his interest in the 1949 case) all of them garnered to his private style of trashing the background of “the boy” and, sometimes, religion in general. One website referred to itself as a big blog to be read on a rainy day just for fun, and warned readers that the reader will encounter the critic’s “flippant” opinions; and that if you don’t like it he will show you the door (2010).
The websites usually were decorated by his regular mischievous and scornful comments. He had a dictionary of favorite jabs: “childish, contradictory”, etc. Yet it is he who instituted websites full of sardonic bards (referring to the 1949 victim as “Ronnie,” “the Ron-ster,” “little-puke”, and other persons’ comments as “thingies”: hardly mature and stoic, scientific comments). True to his “style,” our biographer referred to a world-famous and bestselling author on UFOs as “whack-ass” (January 22, 2014).
(Our critic, in continued glimpses through the demonstrated performances and formats on his late radio show [headlined by The Three Stooges: “Continually fulfilling your need for all things stupid” {from the promotion marquee}], used ridicule and attack on a host of paranormal and religious beliefs, denoting a bias and preference for sacrilege that prefaced his media mentality. This was 2007, and aimed at a somewhat sympathetic audience [those who are entertained by such carnival sarcasm], but the same ribald attitude and comments were available on his Facebook sites and other of his dialogue [often in reference to ‘farting’ and other, sometimes erotic, anatomical exercises. I noted that a “spasm” of carnality by his readers on the ‘art’ of ‘farting’ {about April 11, 2014} has either been removed or hidden]. On his Facebook Timeline [December 2, 2013] he heralded Benny Bell’s recording of “goosing”, and Tony Cabanell spoke of “I am nostalgic for brain sandwich farts” (September 19, 2014). The “farting” joking-fad was, in part, due to the 1949 ‘victim’s’ forensic act of smelling foully while under alleged demonic attack [if not just rabid humor on our biographer’s part]).
Placards and slogans that typified his sardonic approach headlined the radio program:
“Where good music goes to die…The Wonderful World of Stupid…The Splatting Nun! Vintage Idiocy…House of Whacks…Songs for Fart Lovers!”
The following are just a few notations and excerpts from a “composite” of previous radio broadcasts (which filled almost the entirety of his regular broadcasts):
- 6:28 a.m., CST, “Satan Call”, October moon song “Son of Satan”: having sex on the altar to a “one-eyed goat,” missionary style.
- 6:57 a.m., CST, Sound-tract: a drive-in “Facts of Life” featured Madonna. Co-host mentioned erotic areas of a women’s body and said, “Honey, let’s play windshield wiper.”
- 7:05 a.m. CST, The host Played Gilbert O’Sullivan’s song Alone Again, meshing it with conversation about razor blades and suicide. 7:10 a.m., the host said to his audience: “You shouldn’t be surprised I’d play something like that.” The host asked his audience if they had gotten out their razor blades yet. “I’ll talk you down, I’ll talk you down” (7:14 a.m.)
- 7:20 a.m., CST, song Why You Love Me – anywhere we could, in the front yard, in the woods, in the rear, long and hard – going into various erotic descriptions.
- 7:34 a.m. CST. Announcer began the topic about Rat stomping. Switched from talk of Steve Austin’s movie Condemned to talk about the missing pilot, Steve Fassett: “Frankly, I don’t care what happened to him…go down the drain….so what, he’s got money.” The host said he could care less if Fassett disintegrated.
A review of the many months of radio transcripts would show a plethora of such dedicated bias:
The “I don’t care” attitude was prevalent through several of his remarks, such as this one in 2014: “You can say or think what you want about what I say or have written in the past…I can’t say, truthfully, that I really care what people think. I lose no sleep over it one way or another.” The critic’s basic approach is one of carnival and sardonic ridicule of religious and Sacred Cow beliefs (and there probably “is” an exclusive audience for this type of approach and spectacle. I have noted the critic is happiest around this sympathetic audience).
ADDITIONAL STEPHEN ERDMANN COMMENTS
(The ‘male nurse’ mentioned above was not the late Brother Greg Holwinski, but an entirely different hospital employee.)
(Troy Taylor’s book and video production seemed to be an objective rendering of the case, quoting psychoanalyst Professor Terry Cooper and others, though Taylor tended to deal in exclusivity. As a paranormal researcher, to his great credit, however, Taylor was too professional to damn all parapsychological happenings.)
(I confessed to having fallen into the ‘monger’ syndrome back in 1973-1975, when having been sent Father Eugene Gallagher’s copy of the “diary,” it led to a ‘spree’ of published articles on the diary by Steve Erdmann. I did not feel such an ‘event’ should be singled out to one and only one publication [against the wishes of an editor that wanted complete and total control], and I wrote about it in two other magazines.)
A HUMANE AND SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
The topic of the Demon Possessed boy of 1949 was a cat well “out of the bag” for some time now. It had raised some questions in my mind as to the welfare and true caring for “the victim” by me and other extravagant media mongers. It had raised the question of privacy, publicity and human caring in my mind, several times; some media agencies, more than others, have fared better in delicacy and balanced promotion. I had planned some time back to try to gather a cross-section of the comments on the case and sometime before, or, on my deathbed, to present the file to historical societies here in St. Louis.
The late Father William S. Bowdern, S.J., wrote author William Blatty on October 17, 1968, and I quote: “My hesitancy in giving you the details of the case of possession is due to two facts. First, Archbishop Ritter (later, Cardinal Ritter), who delegated me as the exorcist, instructed me not to publish the case. I have been faithful to his instructions. Secondly, it would be most embarrassing, and possibly painfully disturbing to the young man, should he be connected in any way with a book detailing events that took place in his life some years ago…I can assure you of one thing: the case in which I was involved was the real thing. I had no doubt about it then and I have no doubt about it now.”
It had been many years since I ventured into this topic. If I am to gather files together on this topic, this would seem to be the best time. What information have you uncovered? Can you download to me? I am preparing a paper promised to a Historical Society; any contributions are welcomed. Do have an email address I can download some files to you? (You can reach Steve Erdmann at _dissenterdisinter@yahoo.com or _independenterdmann@gmail.com. You can friend him at Facebook _https://www.facebook.com/stephen.erdmann1 or visit the Dissenter/Disinter Group at _https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/171577496293504/. His Facebook email is _http://facebook.com/stephen.erdmann1.)
(Feel free to publish or use the above, provided you make appropriate grammar and spelling corrections.)
Footnotes:
Chat rooms and Bulletin boards:
“An online discussion forum for a particular topic via keyboard (see chat). Everyone who is logged in sees what everyone else is typing, although two people can decide to break off and have a private chat. Individual Chat Sessions: Chat rooms hosting general discussions often run continuously; however, chat sessions between two parties are often initiated as needed for customer service.” (_http://www.yourdictionary.com/chat-room.)
“Unlike bulletin boards, live chats provide immediate live communication. Depending on the need, chat rooms can be open all the time or at only scheduled times. Just like bulletin boards, chat rooms have varying degrees of moderation, privacy, and feature controls. Chat rooms can be a bit risky, but the payoff can be high. The risk is in the open, live nature of the communications, which allows the presentation of any topic in any language.” (_http://precisepangolin.com/read~53da8a3a35ad43f4648b456d.) (Stephen Erdmann’s added emphasis)
Personal Debate:
Philosophical and political debates often ran in “either – or” circles; some in “Mine – no other” type of arguments. It made one wonder if there was a loss of humanity somehow in the debates. One would only hope – as our “victim” approached the end of his life -- that the public would view him in a more fair-minded and accurate light. From what I have learned, he has remained a productive and even religious man and been kind and loving to his family and their children. I do not believe he had had any criminal history (as if that should have any importance when it comes to forgiveness). Is there another human being that spoke for him? I wonder if, in everyday life, we all are just a thin hair away from the microscope vision of our neighbor if not our government.
I visualized – and shuddered in doing so – of the media circus that might ensue at the time of this 1949 ‘victim’s’ funeral.
My comments, herein, were promoted primarily in self-defense. I very belatedly discovered – almost by accident – what our critic had said about me. I obtained the further haunting feeling that our “victim” may never get a fair hearing {or even was aware of some of the cruel and questionable comments about him} in this lifetime; in addition, when do the ‘judges’ become “judged”?
(As a caveat: be sure to constantly guard every word you use in front of him, even in casual, colloquial conversation with him, as, should there arise some debate, you will find yourself in his world of “confessions”, “contradictions,” and “I’ve got you on this one” adolescent parlance.)
I had been sympathetic to our “critic’s” stance on authority and the government, he appeared as an iconoclast at times; but then there were crueler elements that I questioned.
Fortunately, I have viewed equitable and sober comments on the case by other ‘reviewers” (such as those by the late Ian Stevenson in The Journal of Parapsychology, March 1, 1995.) that appeared kinder and more balanced.
Copies of the 1975 FATE Magazine article mentioned above are available from me for a small $.50 copying charge.
I am in the process of developing a list of items I will be happy to mail out soon and in the future..
Mod edit: deactivated links
Re: The Truth about \
Interesting read, but regarding the book 'The Exorcist', it really isn't surprising, perhaps most of these stories as they all have an intent to sell product, not truth, which just gets in the way.
When that last writer in search of 'the facts' interviewed Thomas Allen of 'Possessed', it reminded me of Laura's question to that writer of the Rennes... story, though she seemed a believer, while Allen seemed to know some of the truth, but not want to hurt his sales... or future sales, again like the BBC treatment of the Rennes thing.
The kid sounded like 'Frank' a little, but when that last writer got to the family that actually knew/played with him.... the whole story seemed to morph in a totally different direction, and the follow-up interviews with that talkative priest who seemed to want to please his audience... .funny.
Then one of those later descriptions in a journal? about how the book had to be used as the only publicly available source
That sounds like all the centuries with the bible... which, like most false flag ops, global warming, improving economy etc all seem to follow the same process of the need to sell and believe the 'official' version of events, no matter how nonsensical they may be. :D The same pattern everywhere you look. It seems that when we were told to look to nature to understand the nature of our existence, the emphasis should have been on the need to look at human nature to really understand our purgatorial existence, as flora and fauna don't seem to show this side of life to us, we only find it in the mirror of our own lives.... or those around us anyway.
Interesting read, but regarding the book 'The Exorcist', it really isn't surprising, perhaps most of these stories as they all have an intent to sell product, not truth, which just gets in the way.
When that last writer in search of 'the facts' interviewed Thomas Allen of 'Possessed', it reminded me of Laura's question to that writer of the Rennes... story, though she seemed a believer, while Allen seemed to know some of the truth, but not want to hurt his sales... or future sales, again like the BBC treatment of the Rennes thing.
The kid sounded like 'Frank' a little, but when that last writer got to the family that actually knew/played with him.... the whole story seemed to morph in a totally different direction, and the follow-up interviews with that talkative priest who seemed to want to please his audience... .funny.
Then one of those later descriptions in a journal? about how the book had to be used as the only publicly available source
That sounds like all the centuries with the bible... which, like most false flag ops, global warming, improving economy etc all seem to follow the same process of the need to sell and believe the 'official' version of events, no matter how nonsensical they may be. :D The same pattern everywhere you look. It seems that when we were told to look to nature to understand the nature of our existence, the emphasis should have been on the need to look at human nature to really understand our purgatorial existence, as flora and fauna don't seem to show this side of life to us, we only find it in the mirror of our own lives.... or those around us anyway.
He's backkkkk!
Aside, I wounder if this is a cover ( this newest article), as a distraction. As the veil thins, and the GP experiences the manifestation of bleed through of denizens of 4DSTS. Just saying
.
PopPolitics: William Friedkin on His Return to DC for ‘The Devil and Father Amorth’ (Listen)
April 22, 2018 5:42PM PT
WASHINGTON —
Aside, I wounder if this is a cover ( this newest article), as a distraction. As the veil thins, and the GP experiences the manifestation of bleed through of denizens of 4DSTS. Just saying
.PopPolitics: William Friedkin on His Return to DC for ‘The Devil and Father Amorth’ (Listen)
April 22, 2018 5:42PM PT
WASHINGTON —
mikemotorbike
The Force is Strong With This One
knowledge protects
know yourself
get to know yourself
What is consciousness: can another consciousness possess you?
Everything is composed of 'consciousness units', a la Seth, and everything is 'conscious' in varying shades.
the difference is a coalesced consciousness, let's be specific, a self identified state, usually brought on by extreme agony when the unlikely decision is made to continue living your life regardless of the circumstances. This is self determination, which happily frees you from the soul recycling factory. I AM
It is my beleif, after reading Lauras accounts at attachment removal, and Alba's as well, that we coexist in synergy with other agglomerations of consciousness units called souls. These are mostly semi self conscious of feeling, but not responsible or capable of determining the generative processes of their existence.
We cohabit the body in the same way we do with probiotics.
So, its normal, no hard edges to your soul, you know what you know but don't really own it, not really, unless *snaps fingers* buddy you OWN IT.
You can remove energy attachments on yourself. Laying down, follow Alba's meditations, raise your vibration, scan for grey areas, ask them to find the light in themselves,call for angel help, and/or send to the light. Up your spine out yer head to Gawd.
I am not really clear on why we send them to the light, in the manner of soul rescue, because the whole purpose of having a light of coalesced consciousness is so I don't have to 'go to the external light' of the soul recycling factory. Oh I suppose others don't have a coalesced soul, so no banana for them monkeys.
If you only you knew what this Lamborghini soul cost me... for freedom from reincarnation? yes/no was it worth the price of my life dyu think? I mean, I had to exorcise my own soul with this procedure and send it to the light so I could be empty. Ready to start anew, an ugly slimy little black black bear fetus abortion of a soul, just waiting to be nurtured by me to earn my/it's salvation. Ima be a big bear trucker when I grows up!
I will just toddle along into the great cosmos on my own when I die thank you very much. I'll have terrific adventures with my loony tune friends.
Alba Weinman - regressor and attachment tormentor
www.youtube.com
know yourself
get to know yourself
What is consciousness: can another consciousness possess you?
Everything is composed of 'consciousness units', a la Seth, and everything is 'conscious' in varying shades.
the difference is a coalesced consciousness, let's be specific, a self identified state, usually brought on by extreme agony when the unlikely decision is made to continue living your life regardless of the circumstances. This is self determination, which happily frees you from the soul recycling factory. I AM
It is my beleif, after reading Lauras accounts at attachment removal, and Alba's as well, that we coexist in synergy with other agglomerations of consciousness units called souls. These are mostly semi self conscious of feeling, but not responsible or capable of determining the generative processes of their existence.
We cohabit the body in the same way we do with probiotics.
So, its normal, no hard edges to your soul, you know what you know but don't really own it, not really, unless *snaps fingers* buddy you OWN IT.
You can remove energy attachments on yourself. Laying down, follow Alba's meditations, raise your vibration, scan for grey areas, ask them to find the light in themselves,call for angel help, and/or send to the light. Up your spine out yer head to Gawd.
I am not really clear on why we send them to the light, in the manner of soul rescue, because the whole purpose of having a light of coalesced consciousness is so I don't have to 'go to the external light' of the soul recycling factory. Oh I suppose others don't have a coalesced soul, so no banana for them monkeys.
If you only you knew what this Lamborghini soul cost me... for freedom from reincarnation? yes/no was it worth the price of my life dyu think? I mean, I had to exorcise my own soul with this procedure and send it to the light so I could be empty. Ready to start anew, an ugly slimy little black black bear fetus abortion of a soul, just waiting to be nurtured by me to earn my/it's salvation. Ima be a big bear trucker when I grows up!
I will just toddle along into the great cosmos on my own when I die thank you very much. I'll have terrific adventures with my loony tune friends.
Alba Weinman - regressor and attachment tormentor
Alba Weinman
This channel is about understanding your spiritual awakening through hypnosis and promoting kindness and encouraging conversation and awareness. Alba Weinman...
www.youtube.com
knowledge protects
know yourself
get to know yourself
What is consciousness: can another consciousness possess you?
Everything is composed of 'consciousness units', a la Seth, and everything is 'conscious' in varying shades.
the difference is a coalesced consciousness, let's be specific, a self identified state, usually brought on by extreme agony when the unlikely decision is made to continue living your life regardless of the circumstances. This is self determination, which happily frees you from the soul recycling factory. I AM
It is my beleif, after reading Lauras accounts at attachment removal, and Alba's as well, that we coexist in synergy with other agglomerations of consciousness units called souls. These are mostly semi self conscious of feeling, but not responsible or capable of determining the generative processes of their existence.
We cohabit the body in the same way we do with probiotics.
So, its normal, no hard edges to your soul, you know what you know but don't really own it, not really, unless *snaps fingers* buddy you OWN IT.
You can remove energy attachments on yourself. Laying down, follow Alba's meditations, raise your vibration, scan for grey areas, ask them to find the light in themselves,call for angel help, and/or send to the light. Up your spine out yer head to Gawd.
I am not really clear on why we send them to the light, in the manner of soul rescue, because the whole purpose of having a light of coalesced consciousness is so I don't have to 'go to the external light' of the soul recycling factory. Oh I suppose others don't have a coalesced soul, so no banana for them monkeys.
If you only you knew what this Lamborghini soul cost me... for freedom from reincarnation? yes/no was it worth the price of my life dyu think? I mean, I had to exorcise my own soul with this procedure and send it to the light so I could be empty. Ready to start anew, an ugly slimy little black black bear fetus abortion of a soul, just waiting to be nurtured by me to earn my/it's salvation. Ima be a big bear trucker when I grows up!
I will just toddle along into the great cosmos on my own when I die thank you very much. I'll have terrific adventures with my loony tune friends.
Alba Weinman - regressor and attachment tormentor
Alba Weinman
This channel is about understanding your spiritual awakening through hypnosis and promoting kindness and encouraging conversation and awareness. Alba Weinman...
is it the cookies 
