Crosswords28 mins ago
Ouija Boards......What do we think?
75 Answers
Been following the ghosts and the paranormal thread with interest, so I thought we'd like a heated debate about this!
When I was about 17, (long, long time ago), I was persuaded to take part in consulting an ouija board. This took place at a flat converted from an Edwardian terraced house, which one of my friends had recently moved to with his new bride. She wanted nothing to do with it, and left us to it. One of our number had done this before, and took on the role of questioner. Immediately, he'd asked if any spirits were present, the glass shot to "Yes", and the 5 of us doing it s**t ourselves. When we'd calmed down, we continued, asking questions, and getting replies. When asked "When did you die" we got 5J as the answer, over and over, on asking "Do you mean January", the glass shot to Yes. We then decided that we would check whether our host was pushing the glass around by asking him to sit out. We then asked "What is the colour of the wallpaper in the bedroom". The glass stopped, as though someone had gone to have a look, and came back to spell out, not only the colour, but the pattern of the wallpaper. None of us at the table had ever been in that room. The glass then spelt "Tired" twice, and stopped dead. I have an open mind as to what might have happened that night, but I never want to try the ouija again. What do you think, AB'ers?
When I was about 17, (long, long time ago), I was persuaded to take part in consulting an ouija board. This took place at a flat converted from an Edwardian terraced house, which one of my friends had recently moved to with his new bride. She wanted nothing to do with it, and left us to it. One of our number had done this before, and took on the role of questioner. Immediately, he'd asked if any spirits were present, the glass shot to "Yes", and the 5 of us doing it s**t ourselves. When we'd calmed down, we continued, asking questions, and getting replies. When asked "When did you die" we got 5J as the answer, over and over, on asking "Do you mean January", the glass shot to Yes. We then decided that we would check whether our host was pushing the glass around by asking him to sit out. We then asked "What is the colour of the wallpaper in the bedroom". The glass stopped, as though someone had gone to have a look, and came back to spell out, not only the colour, but the pattern of the wallpaper. None of us at the table had ever been in that room. The glass then spelt "Tired" twice, and stopped dead. I have an open mind as to what might have happened that night, but I never want to try the ouija again. What do you think, AB'ers?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by regulo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Birdie, You misunderstand me. Unlike others, I don't see this as a battle for intellectual supremacy between those who claim to have witnessed this and those who dismiss those claims, and therefore this isn't an example of my alleged inverted logic. The fact is none of us know the truth, and that, to my mind, is what we should be seeking. I would just like someone - anyone - to shed some positive light on this. Whereas you might see it as 'valid' for science to dismiss these claims as fantastic, and therefore unworthy of further serious investigation, that is no way to find answers. I want answers - and in my opinion, since this is something that is yet to be explained, so should science.
Actually, I think a major stumbling block to investigations is that the so-called 'supernatural' is, by most people, generally aligned in some way with religious belief, but I don't believe that for a moment, and therefore I don't believe the answer can, or will ever, be elicited from that source - which leads me to ellette's post. Since she appears to have been quoting me, I presume her answer was addressed to me, but it seems she hasn't read or understood my post properly. I've already said I don't believe that anything is 'supernatural', and therefore I don't attribute this phenomenon to the 'supernatural' either.
Actually, I think a major stumbling block to investigations is that the so-called 'supernatural' is, by most people, generally aligned in some way with religious belief, but I don't believe that for a moment, and therefore I don't believe the answer can, or will ever, be elicited from that source - which leads me to ellette's post. Since she appears to have been quoting me, I presume her answer was addressed to me, but it seems she hasn't read or understood my post properly. I've already said I don't believe that anything is 'supernatural', and therefore I don't attribute this phenomenon to the 'supernatural' either.
Naomi24 - “you might see it as 'valid' for science to dismiss these claims as fantastic, and therefore unworthy of further serious investigation”
I have never suggested that the paranormal is unworthy of serious scientific investigation. In fact, I'm all for it! I would actually love it (the paranormal) to be true because it appeals to my sense of wonder and let's be frank, who doesn't like the idea of ghosts? I certainly enjoy the concept. I watched a very good film called “Paranormal Activity” recent and I enjoyed it immensely. Scared the pants off me but it was fun to watch!
The disappointing thing is that when the paranormal is investigated with any scientific rigour it fails time and time again to mesh with the reality we experience every day.
I have never suggested that the paranormal is unworthy of serious scientific investigation. In fact, I'm all for it! I would actually love it (the paranormal) to be true because it appeals to my sense of wonder and let's be frank, who doesn't like the idea of ghosts? I certainly enjoy the concept. I watched a very good film called “Paranormal Activity” recent and I enjoyed it immensely. Scared the pants off me but it was fun to watch!
The disappointing thing is that when the paranormal is investigated with any scientific rigour it fails time and time again to mesh with the reality we experience every day.
Yes, that's true, Birdie. Personally, I wouldn't mind if a rational explanation could be offered for every experience, but it isn't, so perhaps it really is something that is completely outside our current understanding, and perhaps our methods and equipment aren't yet capable of detecting the cause. We could be looking at it from entirely the wrong angle. That's not to say I know what the right angle is, you understand. If only! :o)
Welcome to the club, birdie. This is a subject on which naomi and I (who agree on many things) have disagreed on many times before. What it amounts to is that naomi has a much more liberal view of what an open mind is than I have. (Better, though, than having a closed mind.)
I agree with you that if something fantastic and incredible is not supported by a scintilla of evidence then, until it is, we should put it on one side and devote our energy to investigating more important things.
I agree with you that if something fantastic and incredible is not supported by a scintilla of evidence then, until it is, we should put it on one side and devote our energy to investigating more important things.
this is written by someone close to me.
"One lunch hour at work myself and two other girls decided to play about with a makeshift Ouija board. We set the letters of the alphabet and the words Yes and No out on a desk, and like you do when you’re really not taking things very seriously asked if there was anyone there.
The tumbler, which we were each touching with one finger, moved to Yes.
We then asked for a name.
The tumbler moved round the circle until it had spelled out the name Hanratty. This was nearly forty years ago and everybody knew the name Hanratty then, so at that point each one of us thought one of the others was messing about.
Stupidly we asked “Did you do it?”
The tumbler spelled out “Go away”
We asked again “Did you do it?” and again the tumbler told us to go away.
We asked the same question a third time.
The tumbler set off at such a speed we couldn’t really take in what it was saying. It had actually spelled out “Kill you three”
As it finished we all let go. One of the girls was hysterical, the other one was praying. I know it wasn’t me guiding the tumbler and the other two girls were so frightened it’s hard to believe one of them was responsible.
We later tried making the tumbler go where we wanted but it was impossible to push it without it either tipping over or juddering. It had glided effortlessly to each letter and at a speed that wasn’t possible to reproduce. "
"One lunch hour at work myself and two other girls decided to play about with a makeshift Ouija board. We set the letters of the alphabet and the words Yes and No out on a desk, and like you do when you’re really not taking things very seriously asked if there was anyone there.
The tumbler, which we were each touching with one finger, moved to Yes.
We then asked for a name.
The tumbler moved round the circle until it had spelled out the name Hanratty. This was nearly forty years ago and everybody knew the name Hanratty then, so at that point each one of us thought one of the others was messing about.
Stupidly we asked “Did you do it?”
The tumbler spelled out “Go away”
We asked again “Did you do it?” and again the tumbler told us to go away.
We asked the same question a third time.
The tumbler set off at such a speed we couldn’t really take in what it was saying. It had actually spelled out “Kill you three”
As it finished we all let go. One of the girls was hysterical, the other one was praying. I know it wasn’t me guiding the tumbler and the other two girls were so frightened it’s hard to believe one of them was responsible.
We later tried making the tumbler go where we wanted but it was impossible to push it without it either tipping over or juddering. It had glided effortlessly to each letter and at a speed that wasn’t possible to reproduce. "
that same person went on to set up a ouija years later with her husband. They contacted a spriti but again each thought the other person was messing so they asked a 3rd person in the room to give a question. The 2 doing the oujia had no idea of the answer bu the glass answered correctly.
I have tried using a glass and paper recently for experiments following movement on a few investigations. It is possible for a glass to be moved by one person without other present feeling it. Even if just little finger is touching.
I have tried using a glass and paper recently for experiments following movement on a few investigations. It is possible for a glass to be moved by one person without other present feeling it. Even if just little finger is touching.
Late at night, my sister, brother & I used to experiment using Mum's mirror off the wall, cut up paper & a glass.
I can tell you now, we had some very scary moments. At one time we asked who the spirit was & it spelled out my Dad's full name. That really frightened me as he was upstairs asleep in bed. We crept up there & quietly opened the door & thankfully, he was peacefully snoring his head off.
Haven't done this for years, but feel that Doc is right in what he says. There would be many more crimes solved if a spirit could tell us who committed murders....
I can tell you now, we had some very scary moments. At one time we asked who the spirit was & it spelled out my Dad's full name. That really frightened me as he was upstairs asleep in bed. We crept up there & quietly opened the door & thankfully, he was peacefully snoring his head off.
Haven't done this for years, but feel that Doc is right in what he says. There would be many more crimes solved if a spirit could tell us who committed murders....
Dear Chakka, //Naomi ........Please give us more details so that we can see why you think it can't be explained.//
I have given you the details you asked for, so what is your explanation?
The problem is, as I've said before, if we all put it to one side and abandon the search for evidence, then we will never find that evidence - if indeed it is there to be found.
I have given you the details you asked for, so what is your explanation?
The problem is, as I've said before, if we all put it to one side and abandon the search for evidence, then we will never find that evidence - if indeed it is there to be found.
naomi, I have never suggested that we abandon the search for evidence. But when that evidence fails to emerge we cannot sit there for ever waiting. Otherwise I would have spent most of my life waiting for evidence for astrology, angels, alien abductions... fairies, fortune-telling...homeopathy...levitation, ley-lines... magic crystals/bracelets/charms/spells...psychother
apy...tarot
cards, telepathy... and all those other things in my alphabetical list which I have omitted.
I hunted for decades for evidence for the haunting of Borley Rectory, even having correspondences with Harry Price who called it The Most Haunted House in England and who was then my hero. In the end nothing convinced me and now we know (through Robert Wood) exactly how the 'hauntings' were faked and by whom.
Except in those cases where the matter is impossible (such as squaring the circle and perpetual motion) I never assume that won't ever be evidence, merely that there is none for the moment and therefore, for the moment, we can dismiss the idea.
apy...tarot
cards, telepathy... and all those other things in my alphabetical list which I have omitted.
I hunted for decades for evidence for the haunting of Borley Rectory, even having correspondences with Harry Price who called it The Most Haunted House in England and who was then my hero. In the end nothing convinced me and now we know (through Robert Wood) exactly how the 'hauntings' were faked and by whom.
Except in those cases where the matter is impossible (such as squaring the circle and perpetual motion) I never assume that won't ever be evidence, merely that there is none for the moment and therefore, for the moment, we can dismiss the idea.
Coming back to this after a few days out of touch, I think there is something to be said for both sides of the debate. Some people have had very mysterious results, others equally have had no effect. What brings me to favour the "collective subconcious" theory, is that, if the dead can contact us, why do so few do so? I would give everything I have to speak to my late mother again, and I know if she could contact me she would have done so. But nothing. Interesting views from all, thanks for sharing them.
Chakka, I can only assume then, that you dismiss that which I have related here, along with all the other incidents I've posted over the years.
You have to understand that unlike you, people who have experienced these things know they have happened, they cannot deny it, and therefore they cannot dismiss them. It's impossible. That would be tantamount to digging their heads into the sand - and no one ever found an answer to anything by doing that.
You have to understand that unlike you, people who have experienced these things know they have happened, they cannot deny it, and therefore they cannot dismiss them. It's impossible. That would be tantamount to digging their heads into the sand - and no one ever found an answer to anything by doing that.
Yes, naomi, I take and respect that point absolutely. But such things can never be more than hugely strong evidence for the person having experienced them - and that evidence could turn out to be equally strong for the rest of us if only we could get at it.
Alas, we can't after the event. That leaves the rest of us, perhaps, in a weak position but it is the only one we can rationally take.
Alas, we can't after the event. That leaves the rest of us, perhaps, in a weak position but it is the only one we can rationally take.
Chakka, I understand what you're saying completely - of course I do - but bringing it to a more personal level, surely if you know the person making the claim wouldn't lie, that has to sway your judgement at least a little - doesn't it? For example, I know without doubt that my mother wouldn't lie about this, so what valid reason could I possibly have to doubt her account? As far as I can see, none - hence I have no alternative - I have to believe it.
Regulo, I know exactly what you mean, but I don't think these things are available 'on tap' despite what the majority of the so-called 'mediums' would have us believe. Interesting thread. Thanks for posting the question.
Regulo, I know exactly what you mean, but I don't think these things are available 'on tap' despite what the majority of the so-called 'mediums' would have us believe. Interesting thread. Thanks for posting the question.
Smudge - “... There would be many more crimes solved if a spirit could tell us who committed murders...”
Oh... please! You're not serious are you?
Naomi24 – I'm actually quite astonished at your take on this and your rationale for believing. You recently said, “... people who have experienced these things know they have happened, they cannot deny it, and therefore they cannot dismiss them. It's impossible”.
The problem with a statement like that is two-fold. Firstly you're assuming that the stories you hear are genuine honest stories that have not been embellished or exaggerated in any way and secondly you're assuming that there has been no subversion or deliberate falsification involved.
What's impossible and illogical is that you believe that people who are dead somehow hang around the living waiting for an opportunity to speak to us and when the living get out a Ouija ™ board, they suddenly have a conduit through which they can 'speak' to us. If the dead are capable of telekinesis, why don't they speak to us using much simpler methods such as writing on chalk-boards, in snow, in condensation encrusted mirrors and windows, typing on a keyboard, etc.?
No; there has to be a human invented ritual involved. They insist on 'speaking' to us using one of the most impractical methods possible. They chose to speak to us via a Ouija ™ board (a living, human invention) – a method of communication which is so fraught with the possibility of human foul play that it scarcely merits reasoned debate.
Oh... please! You're not serious are you?
Naomi24 – I'm actually quite astonished at your take on this and your rationale for believing. You recently said, “... people who have experienced these things know they have happened, they cannot deny it, and therefore they cannot dismiss them. It's impossible”.
The problem with a statement like that is two-fold. Firstly you're assuming that the stories you hear are genuine honest stories that have not been embellished or exaggerated in any way and secondly you're assuming that there has been no subversion or deliberate falsification involved.
What's impossible and illogical is that you believe that people who are dead somehow hang around the living waiting for an opportunity to speak to us and when the living get out a Ouija ™ board, they suddenly have a conduit through which they can 'speak' to us. If the dead are capable of telekinesis, why don't they speak to us using much simpler methods such as writing on chalk-boards, in snow, in condensation encrusted mirrors and windows, typing on a keyboard, etc.?
No; there has to be a human invented ritual involved. They insist on 'speaking' to us using one of the most impractical methods possible. They chose to speak to us via a Ouija ™ board (a living, human invention) – a method of communication which is so fraught with the possibility of human foul play that it scarcely merits reasoned debate.
Naomi24 -
“... For example, I know without doubt that my mother wouldn't lie about this...”
No you don't. You do not and cannot know that your mother wouldn't lie about this. I'm not saying she did, but you cannot know categorically that she didn't.
“... so what valid reason could I possibly have to doubt her account?”
It is possible that she was mistaken or that the information received from the 'supernatural' was sequentially reinterpreted so that it fit the official MOD narrative. This happens all the time – people who want to believe will often unconsciously intermingle the so-called supernatural and the real world into an intertwined self reinforcing delusion. The supernatural reinforcing the real and the real reinforcing the imaginary.
There's no deliberate intention to mislead, just a misinterpretation of reality.
“... I have to believe it...”
No you don't. You can actually think for yourself. Your mother wasn't telling lies. She was mistaken.
“... For example, I know without doubt that my mother wouldn't lie about this...”
No you don't. You do not and cannot know that your mother wouldn't lie about this. I'm not saying she did, but you cannot know categorically that she didn't.
“... so what valid reason could I possibly have to doubt her account?”
It is possible that she was mistaken or that the information received from the 'supernatural' was sequentially reinterpreted so that it fit the official MOD narrative. This happens all the time – people who want to believe will often unconsciously intermingle the so-called supernatural and the real world into an intertwined self reinforcing delusion. The supernatural reinforcing the real and the real reinforcing the imaginary.
There's no deliberate intention to mislead, just a misinterpretation of reality.
“... I have to believe it...”
No you don't. You can actually think for yourself. Your mother wasn't telling lies. She was mistaken.
Birdie, // Firstly you're assuming that the stories you hear are genuine honest stories ........and secondly you're assuming that there has been no subversion or deliberate falsification involved. //
You're wrong. I don't assume anything, least of all that the dead //hang around waiting for an opportunity .... // and neither do I assume there has been 'no subversion or deliberate falsification.' Those possibilities, together with that of potential delusion, are my initial consideration in any report of this nature.
The simple fact is I have had personal experiences that cannot be explained. Now whether you believe me or not, that is the truth. You, however, having had no experience whatsoever in this area, presume to tell me with unjustifiable conviction that I'm mistaken - and you question my rationale? You ask why don't 'they' do it this way, or that way, and the simple answer to that is, firstly, I don't know who or what 'they' are, and secondly, I have no idea why 'they' don't 'do it' another way. For all I know, 'they' might. You may well be determined to believe that every single one of these reports is in some way mistaken, or dishonest, but frankly it's your rationale I would question, because you're assuming you know the answers, and that your answers are the only ones possible, when in reality you know nothing of the sort. Where is the rationale in forming a definite judgement upon something about which you know nothing? The only astonishing thing here is your assumed intellectual superiority.
cont...
You're wrong. I don't assume anything, least of all that the dead //hang around waiting for an opportunity .... // and neither do I assume there has been 'no subversion or deliberate falsification.' Those possibilities, together with that of potential delusion, are my initial consideration in any report of this nature.
The simple fact is I have had personal experiences that cannot be explained. Now whether you believe me or not, that is the truth. You, however, having had no experience whatsoever in this area, presume to tell me with unjustifiable conviction that I'm mistaken - and you question my rationale? You ask why don't 'they' do it this way, or that way, and the simple answer to that is, firstly, I don't know who or what 'they' are, and secondly, I have no idea why 'they' don't 'do it' another way. For all I know, 'they' might. You may well be determined to believe that every single one of these reports is in some way mistaken, or dishonest, but frankly it's your rationale I would question, because you're assuming you know the answers, and that your answers are the only ones possible, when in reality you know nothing of the sort. Where is the rationale in forming a definite judgement upon something about which you know nothing? The only astonishing thing here is your assumed intellectual superiority.
cont...
