yeh i find this POV highly suspect to be honest. i'm quite happy saying the kid didn't walk backwards up the wall, because he probably didn't. but to say he might have done but it still doesn't lend any weight to the demon possession hypothesis is verging on sticking your fingers in your ears and humming really loudly.

if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and all that.

Ah so all non explainable phenomenon means Yahwehs demons are real. Meh...

Also i said probably not. Which means i not sure how i would react. Just dont think i would go to demons form the bible as an auto call.

not what i said. and you know using the word yahweh is mega tilting right?

I disagree with you. I don't think walking backwards up a wall lends credibility to demonic possession, I think it lends credibility to him being part of the X-men.

great. nice one. prime example of why this forum is so ridiculous.

"demonic possession is a load of bullsh*t"

"no, but look, this apparently demon-possessed child is actually walking backwards up a wall, see that?!?"

"oh yeh. well demonic possession is still a load of bullsh*t, clearly the fact he is walking backwards up a wall whilst apparently possessed by demons isn't even remotely related to the notion that he is apparently possessed by demons"

right.

ppl need to get real. call bull all you like on a lack of evidence for demon possession but if a kid is blaspheming and claiming to be the devil in an old man voice and making animal howls and turning lights on and off without going near a light switch and walking backwards up a wall, i'd be inclined to believe there is a correlation. but hey, that's just me.

You said im sticking my fingers in my ears when i said probably not. Im not sure how would react.

Probably not does not mean i dismiss demons out of hand. It means without more info id probably reserve judgment about something unexplained.


Its the biblical Gods name. Its important to use it to define what we are talking about when we are taking about demons. So tilting or not when i think i need to write it i will.

of course, write whatever you want a case of demonic possession that you witnessed and decided was genuine wouldn't push you any closer to a belief in "yahweh" then? or that x men are real?

You know you are the one reading what you want so. Ok.

From the IndyStar

'Clinical psychologist Stacy Wright, who evaluated Ammons' youngest son, said the boy tended to act possessed when he was challenged, redirected or asked questions he didn't want to answer. In her evaluation, Wright wrote that he seemed coherent and logical except when he talked about demons.

It was then that the 8-year-old's stories became "bizarre, fragmented and illogical," Wright said. His stories changed each time he told them.

He also changed the subject, quizzing Wright on math problems and asking her about outer space.

"Can you die if you go to space?" he asked. "How do you get to space? Do you have to wear a helmet and suit?"

Wright believed the 8-year-old did not suffer from a true psychotic disorder.

"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.

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

Ok, I have changed my mind. I'm switching from "member of X-men" to "disguised member of ancient alien race".

well done

Pics of demon child moonwalking up wall or GTFO

Sent from my SM-N9005 using 2+2 Forums

You cite this as if this is the conclusion of the story. There's still another 1/3 of the page left to go. Is that why you didn't link it? Or did you just read until you found something you agreed with and then stop?

http://archive.indystar.com/article/...-Latoya-Ammons

The DCS reports listed in the article recommends the children be removed from their mother, which the newspaper "forgets" to mention.

Omissions like that make it fairly clear this is very likely sensationlism more so than sombre journalism.

You mean this?

If that is what you're referring to, then this claim:

Puts you on the side of sensationalizing and not doing somber reporting of your own.

It was fairly clear that I was referring to how the article used the DSC report as a source.

They use the report to support the story of the child walking "backwards up a wall while holding his grandmother", but fail to mention that the health professionals they are implicitly using as witnesses recommend the child be taken away from his mother in that very report. This is not something that is made clear by noting a later court request from the DCS. Such a request isn't necessarily made by the same individuals or written in the same state of mind as the report.

I mean, flip the coin. I could write this: "Child displays signs of hysteria after mother and grandmother claim he is possessed by demons, witnessing health professionals recommend child be taken into temporary custody", and it would do the source just as much (and likely more) justice.

in aaron's defence, if there really was a demonic infestation in the house, social care would probably be removing the children for reasons of domestic abuse and unsafe home environment etc. so it doesn't necessarily discount the "demon possession hypothesis". just saying... (:

To discount something, you need criteria for its discounting. I haven't seen any offered and I very much doubt any will be.

So my point was not about that. I'm merely noting that the article contains a discrepancy in how it uses a source and in what the source states. Not as in a misquote, but as in lack of context.

Right................. Just like "Then I have no idea what OP you have been reading" is explains something.

And it's not three paragraphs later, they go into further detail about the psychological evaluations. The accusation of sensationalism is really odd. It's like you are seeing what you want to see in the reporting.

I just realized that you were referring to the part previous to the part I quoted, where the article says

Clearly, the article is sensationalism, but your rendering is somber.

Where do I start with this?

I thought the portion I posted was relevant with regards to some of the prior posts. I didn't have anything to hide, hence the reason I cited the source. It's easy for anyone to check the article. I could easily have included other information from the article if I was merely looking to discredit the idea of demonic possession, i.e. the mother's mental health problems, the fact the children were removed from the mother's care, the fact the police captain admits he believes in ghosts prior to getting involved in this case, the children being returned to the mother with he conclusion that she is no longer fixated on religion to explain the childrens behavioural problems.

My apologies. It came across to me as: "Look. The kids are crazy. The mom is crazy. End of story." I didn't see it as a response to anything previous in the thread, just as a brand new post trying to provide an oversimplified explanation for what happened.

No probs

It is a more accurate portrayal yes.

The wall-walking is the big claim of the article, and the reporter if course is very well aware that the mother's and grandmother's accounts of events are not enough.

And it works. Which this thread is a fine proof of. The wall-walking has been touted as the "big thing" in the story.

Sure... but calling the other one sensationalism?

Right... which is why the article cited the nurse and the DCS family case manager (Washington).

At this point, you've made so many inaccurate portrayals of the article that I'm inclined to believe that you didn't even read it.