Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

On Corks 96fm this morning, they were talking about Hollyhill again

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    what i dont understand is if stuff happens so often, then why it isnt video'd. If they got enough on video and audio, then even if the council wouldnt listen, then the press would - except there'd be something to back up the claims.

    This is not happening, so I assume these things DONT happen as regularly as we're being led to believe, which in itself leads to suspicions on what the real issues are.


  • Options
    #33
    MrMojoRisin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭MrMojoRisin


    maccored wrote: »
    what i dont understand is if stuff happens so often, then why it isnt video'd. If they got enough on video and audio, then even if the council wouldnt listen, then the press would - except there'd be something to back up the claims.

    This is not happening, so I assume these things DONT happen as regularly as we're being led to believe, which in itself leads to suspicions on what the real issues are.

    I don't think aural evidence would be much good for a situation like this one because it seems to be more visually-based.

    I agree that video is obviously the best way to capture any so-called phenomena. I just think that people on the lower end of the socio-economic scale sometimes can't afford to buy video cameras - that might explain why there have only been photographs of what happened in the house, which isn't any good. Or maybe they can't be bothered to buy video cameras. I don't know. Then again, I'm sure a member of 96fm could have easily lent them a camcorder to capture something.


  • Options
    #34
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    which leads back to the question of why they dont let a group in there so do the video capture for them. feck the council.

    personally i think if this was genuine - these people really did feel they had a paranormal thing going on and they felt the council didnt believe them, then they would have tried to capture something on video by now, one way or another, or at least let in a group who would have the gear.


  • Options
    #35
    MrMojoRisin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭MrMojoRisin


    maccored wrote: »
    which leads back to the question of why they dont let a group in there so do the video capture for them. feck the council.

    personally i think if this was genuine - these people really did feel they had a paranormal thing going on and they felt the council didnt believe them, then they would have tried to capture something on video by now, one way or another, or at least let in a group who would have the gear.

    Richie and Laura do want to let in a paranormal investigation group - they're very eager for that group I mentioned to enter the house and capture video evidence. The City Council are all for it - it's the goddamn housing corporation that won't budge.

    I think the parents would have caught some of the activity on video themselves already if, 1) they had had a camcorder, and 2) they hadn't been so scared sh*tless to do the logical thing (video the activity there and then if they had the means to do so).

    So that group could take a chance and enter - and possibly face the wrath of the law - but that's entirely up to them.


  • Options
    #36
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    theres no reason why the couple cant invite a group of people over to their house, and while they're there, do an investigation. the corporation cant stop residents inviting guests over, nor can they dictate what the guests can or cannot do.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    MrMojoRisin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭MrMojoRisin


    maccored wrote: »
    theres no reason why the couple cant invite a group of people over to their house, and while they're there, do an investigation. the corporation cant stop residents inviting guests over, nor can they dictate what the guests can or cannot do.

    Actually there is a reason why they can't do that - the housing corporation own the house now, not Richie and Laura. They can go into it and have a look around, but they can't exactly hold informal paranormal investigation soirees with 'friends'. The house belongs to the corporation, so they call the shots now.

    Another thing I meant to say about the absence of video evidence on the part of the family was that they said they simply thought they were imagining the activity for all those months. They dismissed it as the workings of their imaginations until it really escalated, and when that happened, they freaked out royally.


  • Options
    #38
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    they cant move back even if they wanted to?

    If the corporation has taken over the house, then they must have put forward reasons for doing so. If the couple abandoned the house completely, then they've lost out.

    I dont understand how its at a stage where the couple cant live in the house regardless of the poltergiest. If thats the case then they'll have a problem with the corporation letting them live there no matter if theres an apparent ghost of not.

    Wouldnt that tend to point to the corporation having its own reasons for not letting them back there?


  • Options
    #39
    MrMojoRisin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭MrMojoRisin


    maccored wrote: »
    they cant move back even if they wanted to?

    Yes, they can if they want to.
    maccored wrote: »
    If the corporation has taken over the house, then they must have put forward reasons for doing so. If the couple abandoned the house completely, then they've lost out.

    The reason is simple - the house is unoccupied, which leads to the corporation automatically re-claiming ownership of the property.
    maccored wrote: »
    I dont understand how its at a stage where the couple cant live in the house regardless of the poltergiest. If thats the case then they'll have a problem with the corporation letting them live there no matter if theres an apparent ghost of not.

    Obviously the family view the situation differently. To the best of my knowledge, they had no issue with living there for the first six months or so.
    maccored wrote: »
    Wouldnt that tend to point to the corporation having its own reasons for not letting them back there?

    Again, nobody is living in the house, so its ownership is automatically transferred back to the corporation. It's the same protocol in any case where a house suddenly becomes unoccupied.


  • Options
    #40
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    then the simple answer is reoccupy the house and invite over a team of investigators and try to catch things on video with the investigators as witnesses.

    That would give the whole thing a bit more credibility. If they dont want to do something to at least back up their claims, then you have to wonder.


  • Options
    #41
    MrMojoRisin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭MrMojoRisin


    maccored wrote: »
    then the simple answer is reoccupy the house and invite over a team of investigators and try to catch things on video with the investigators as witnesses.

    That would give the whole thing a bit more credibility. If they dont want to do something to at least back up their claims, then you have to wonder.

    Yeah, that's the obvious thing to do, and I'd love to see their claims either quashed or substantiated. But that's up to them.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement