CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 21 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I don’t see why it has to be a hoax/prank on the one hand and an authentic possession on the other. The kid could have “enhanced” his symptoms, sure. But there are eyewitness reports of paranormal activity and the kid’s use of more or less sophisticated Latin. It comes down to one’s subjective belief threshold. For those who completely dismiss the paranormal, then prank/hoax must suffice. For those who don’t dismiss the paranormal, then the manifestations can be viewed as genuine – with or without “assistance” from the kid.
I don’t believe it was a hoax. I have faith that the priests involved in this case knew exactly what they were dealing with.
I might have been a hoax *by the priests* not the kid. As for money from the movie, Hunkler should had sued!
If you go back and read what Halloran said when he was interviewed, he said that he thought the boy was mimicking the Latin they (the priests) were using. Makes me think perhaps Ronald wanted some more attention to get out of school. Since there is no scientific evidence that the priests can point to, I guess it’s really up in the air as to whether Hunkeler was playing a trick. I believe that even Halloran (or Bowdern) said he knew of physical symptoms, like blushing, that could create the marks on the boy’s body that the priest (Bowdern) reported. I wish the diary had not been burned and that it could have been analyzed more thoroughly … even if it did contain only brief bullet points versus a full-flesh daily description.
Has anyone seen the diary online (in scans)? The only one I can find is a typed copy of one page and you can’t even read that one because of the resolution. I don’t even know if that page is real. Of course, the diary does not prove anything except what the priests believed was the real deal.
I think that a lot of people ignore some pretty obvious considerations when analysing Hunkler. First, we have to consider where he ended up working: NASA. Obviously he was a very, very intelligent individual. Who is to say he didn’t know latin, or have the ability to fool the priests.
Second, who is to say that all priests are not guilable. Yes, they are supposed to go into these cases with a degree of scepticism, but one has to consider that many religious people spend their entire lives looking for authentic cases that confirm their faith and finding Hunkler’s they may have been all too eager to declare this to be the miracle they were looking for.
Third, look at the number of converts that the Church gained through the Exorcist movie. The catholic church has long been accused of using hoax miracles to sell their religion.
As for the diary, I’m not convinced it was burned. I think the priests just said it was to deter the media from bothering them after the Exorcist emerged as a pop culture phenomena, and perhaps to protect Ronald’s privacy. Wouldn’t surprise me if the Church still has it in their archives!
Good points, dsea.
I know there is a Ronald Hunkeler that worked for NASA, but are we sure it’s “the” Ronald Hunkeler. I haven’t read anything that confirms this yet. If it is indeed “the” Hunkeler (on the flip side of the coin regarding his intelligence) Hunkeler could have “played out” a long and fake scenario of possession that he got “stuck” in once he was transferred to St. Louis. Of course, because his family was not Catholic, it doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have known about possession from his Ouija-board-wielding aunt that he so loved in St. Louis.
On religious individuals, I’m one and I’ve never tried to confirm my faith by believing in the painting that has St. Mary bleeding “real blood” from her eyes, as an example, is a miracle of faith … it’s as bogus as the Mary figure burned into the piece of toast that sold on eBay for a fortune.
As for the diary, you’re right, we’ll never know if the diary was really burned and it may be in archive. Of course, we’ll never know …
I believe it was a prank. The kid wanted out of school and he played along till it wasn’t fun anymore. I think he is probably ashamed of it and that is most likely why he won’t discuss it.
The diary is online and I copied it to my hard drive. I just can’t remember where the link is.I posted it on the old Bloody Disgusting Exorcist board a few years ago.(When tha Cap went on hiatis)
Most of the more unquestionably surpernatural events were told to the priests by the boy’s family.
The only thing you could consider supernatural in the case was the welts on the boys skin. There is one point in the diary that isn’t played up tto much. The priests actually caught him scratching his own skin.
There is a trick you can do yourself much like this. Take your thoubnail and scratch the fleshy part of your forearm. (Not enough to bleed or make a strong mark even.) Wait about a minute and then rub the area. Whatever you scratched will raise up a bit and turn red. (There are some magic tricks that use this bit.)
“The only thing you could consider supernatural in the case was the welts on the boys skin. There is one point in the diary that isn’t played up tto much. The priests actually caught him scratching his own skin.”
Very interesting point that’s been overlooked and I never heard it before.
I’d love to analyze the diary objectively. I think that’s what Thomas B. Allen was supposed to do. However, to me, he only wrote a very shallow-thinking book followed by a 2000 Showtime Cable TV movie with an even crappier screenplay. His “objective” was to make money by having a new and improved and “true” version of The Exorcist. Tsk, tsk. He “ain’t” no Blatty.
Cap, do you know where the diary may be located on the net? Anyone?
This is from page 16 and 17. Pay attention to bullet point #5.
Thursday, April 7.
At Cottage City, R was normal all day. He worked in the afternoon, spaded a little and cut the lawn. But the evening spell lasted for five hours, from 9:15 PM to 2:15 AM.
1)Branding: R was awake. During the exorcism at the “Praecipio” at least 20 brands appeared on R’s body. Many occurred at name of Jesus as we recited the Hail Mary. The first mark was clearly a number “4”. Some other marks may have been the number “4” a1so, but were obscure. Mother marks: single stroke, double strokes, seemingly a pitch fork, several times four strokes or claw marks of various lengths on belly or 1egs.
One set of such claw marks from thigh to ankle tearing off a scab near the ankle.
When these marks occurred, the boy’s hands were kept away from his body
One branding occurred on his leg just as he started to lie down after the preceding mark had been observed. Most of the branding occurred under his clothing or at least under the sheet covering him.
2) Spitting, violence. Shitting in his underwear.
3) Singing: humming the “Ave Maria.”
4) Filthy talk.
5) Writing on his own body with fingernail the words “HELL” and “CHRIST” in large capital letters.
6) Through R the devil said he would keep the Priests until 6:00 AM. He made this statement at 2:00 AM when everyone was fagged out. He said he would prove his threat by having R awaken immediately. R awoke with a start, but the Fathers were relieved when sleep came fifteen minutes after 2:00. It seemed throughout the possession that whenever R was completely exhausted God permitted him to go off to sleep and commanded the devil to be quiet.This is very strange language: “Fagged out”, “Shitting in his underwear”. This is supposed to be an official document of the Catholic church. Can you imagine if a physician wrote this?
It was 1949. Priests are fine with a little blue language apparently. I did notice a couple of 1’s where l’s should be though. It may be the difference in word programs. I don’t know…..
I also don’t really know how “official” it actually was.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.