Host's story of a witch caller who left him an old Ouija board
Art Bell tells a short story about a night when he was broadcasting in Las Vegas and a woman telephoned claiming to be a witch. According to him, she gave disconcerting personal information about him, which he bleeped off the air, and said she would come and leave something for him. He says an old Ouija board was later left for him. He declines to describe what happened to the board and closes with a general warning that Ouija boards are an opening and should not be used.
This clip comes from the source recording. AI chose where it starts and ends, so it may start or end a little early or late. The word-for-word transcript is not published. You can hear the source recording on the Internet Archive (file “Ghost to Ghost 1995.mp3”, starting at 44:30). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The host says that during the years he worked in Las Vegas and broadcast his program from the Union Plaza Hotel, a woman telephoned one night [quote withheld] According to him, she gave him [quote withheld] about him, which he bleeped from the air. He says he could not believe she could know those things. Toward the end of the call, he says, she told him she was going to come and leave something for him. What was left, he says, was a Ouija board that he describes as very old. At that point he stops. He says he has never told, and will not tell, what happened to that Ouija board. He gives no date, no name for the caller, no description of how or where the board was left, and no detail of anything that happened later. He then turns to general advice. He says that calling on spirits or “the dark side” through an instrument is dangerous, and that Ouija boards are “an opening” into a world containing things one may not wish to meet. His advice is [quote withheld] and he compares it to opening a door without knowing what will walk through. The story ends there, and the host moves to the next caller.
Reported events, in order
- 0:01
The host says he worked in Las Vegas and did his program from the Union Plaza Hotel.
- 0:21
One night during a broadcast, a woman telephoned and said she was a witch.
- 0:24
She gave him personal information about himself, which he found disconcerting and bleeped from the air.
- 0:42
Toward the end of the call, she told him she was going to come and leave something for him.
- 0:48
A Ouija board, which he describes as very old, was left for him.
- 0:58
He says he will never tell what happened to that Ouija board.
- 1:17
He warns that Ouija boards are an opening into a world of things one may not wish to meet and advises listeners not to use them.
Claims
Each claim is labeled as something the person telling the story noticed (observation), what they made of it (interpretation), something others told them (hearsay), or something the host said (host statement).
- observation· 0:21
A woman telephoned the host's Las Vegas program and said she was a witch.
- observation· 0:24
The caller gave personal information about the host that he found disconcerting and bleeped from the broadcast.
- hearsay· 0:42
The caller told him she would come and leave something for him.
- observation· 0:48
He says an old Ouija board was left for him.
- host statement· 0:58
Something connected with that Ouija board happened, which he says he will never describe.
- interpretation· 1:17
Ouija boards are an opening into a world containing things one may not wish to meet, and calling on spirits or “the dark side” through an instrument is dangerous.
- host statement· 1:26
The full story of the board is “frightening” (the detail itself is not given).
Scores, with reasons
An AI model gave these scores using a fixed set of scoring rules (scoring-v1). They are editorial judgments and rough guides, not the odds that anything paranormal happened. How scoring works.
A brief firsthand anecdote, partly cut short, with a named city and venue but no date, no named caller, and no described event. The central content is left out on purpose. That places it in the scoring guide's range for a [quote withheld] and holds the score at the cap of 40, rather than a theoretical total in the mid-50s.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand: the host says the call came to his own program and the board was left for him (0:44:51, 0:45:18).
- A concrete, named venue for the program ([quote withheld]) and a city (0:44:32, 0:44:40).
- He clearly marks the woman's status as her own claim ([quote withheld]), not as established fact (0:44:51).
- No date, no name for the caller, no first or last name for any witness, and no description of how or where the board was left.
- The central event is deliberately withheld, so the story cannot be tested for whether it hangs together.
- A prank, or a listener with advance knowledge of the host, is a simple ordinary fit for a caller claiming personal knowledge (inferred from 0:44:54).
- Several lines are marked in the automatic transcript as having low confidence in the words (0:45:09–0:45:25), so the wording of key sentences is uncertain.
- The phrase [quote withheld] (0:44:45) is unclear in the transcript. It may refer to an anniversary of the night. This is not resolved.
- The labels showing who is speaking are unreliable: a few stray lines labeled as the caller are mixed into the host's story.
- 0:01
- 0:21
- 0:58
What the model inferred (not said on air): The fragment cap (a score of 0 to 40) is applied because the host removes the main event from the story. The scores for each part are my reading of the transcript, not statements in it. The prank-caller idea is my inference about the events, not the host's.
This rests entirely on the host's word, with a little context that could be checked in principle (a city and a venue) and a claimed physical object that is never produced or examined. That places it in the low range: above a bare claim, but well below any range for evidence that was examined.
Evidence for and against
- Details that could be checked in principle are given: a city (Las Vegas), a named broadcast venue (Union Plaza Hotel), and the claim that the program was carried there for years (0:44:32–0:44:40).
- A physical object (an old Ouija board) is claimed to have existed and to have come into his possession (0:45:18).
- No recording, transcript, log, or document of the call is presented.
- The board itself is never produced, described in detail, photographed, or examined on air.
- No second witness speaks, and nothing in the story can be checked in the transcript.
- This part of the broadcast does not say whether the board still exists, or ever existed.
- Low-confidence markers in the automatic transcript, on the lines about the board, reduce confidence in the exact wording.
- 0:10
- 0:48
What the model inferred (not said on air): The venue and city could in principle be checked against broadcast records. The transcript provides no such check, and no outside check was supplied, so the score comes nowhere near the cap of 50.
The reported elements are unsettling: an unknown caller with personal knowledge, a ritual object no one asked for, and a frightening outcome that is held back. The holding back itself carries dread. No harm or steady escalation is described, which keeps the score in the middle range.
Evidence for and against
- A caller claiming to be a witch who allegedly knew private details about the host (0:44:54).
- An object arriving unasked after a promise to leave something (0:45:12–0:45:25).
- Ominous framing of what is held back: an object he will not discuss, described as “frightening” (0:45:28, 0:45:57).
- A clear warning about a [quote withheld] (0:45:51).
- No physical contact, no threat aimed at a person, no child involved, and no sensory horror described.
- The story is delivered as advice, not as the telling of a frightening scene.
- The allegedly frightening part of the board story is never revealed, so how far the story's effect could go is unknown.
- 0:34
- 1:21
- 1:38
What the model inferred (not said on air): This is a judgment about how the story lands for a listener. It is not evidence about whether anything happened.
The elements are common (a Ouija board, a warning, a nighttime radio call), but the host's deliberate holding back of the central event is an unusual framing device. The provisional score from content alone is set at the middle of the range. The value compared with the rest of the archive cannot be computed here.
Evidence for and against
- The distinctive element is in the structure: the host announces a frightening personal outcome and then openly refuses to describe it (0:45:28, 0:45:57).
- The board is said to have been promised in advance during the same call ([quote withheld] 0:45:12).
- A caller claiming occult powers and a Ouija board left behind are familiar elements of radio ghost stories.
- The host's warning about Ouija boards as a “door” is a stock phrase (0:46:09).
- The score is provisional, based on content alone, without comparison with the rest of the archive.
- 0:42
- 1:26
What the model inferred (not said on air): This is only a provisional estimate based on content. The published originality figure requires comparison with the rest of the archive, which is not available.
Scoring confidence 0.40 · analysis confidence 0.60 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The host's firsthand story (he says the call came to his own program and that the board was left for him).; A claimed physical object (a Ouija board) said to have been left, never produced or examined.; No recording, document, photograph, or second witness. The details of what allegedly followed are deliberately withheld.. The originality score blends the model's score (50) with how rare the story's details are across the archive. This method is still provisional.
Ordinary explanations to consider
These are possibilities only. None is a finding about what happened.
- A prank caller, or one seeking attention, who had found out personal details about the host in advance. · The host says the caller gave “personal knowledge” about him that he bleeped. In principle, a listener or prank caller could gather such information before a live call-in show.
- A listener delivered an ordinary, mass-produced Ouija board to the station or the host. The “ancient” description is the host's own, not a verified fact about the object. · The story gives no detail of how, when, or where the board was left. It says only that the caller said she would [quote withheld] and that a board was later in his possession.
- No event is described, only one he says happened. The claim cannot be judged from the transcript. · The host openly declines to describe what, if anything, happened with the board ([quote withheld]), so no described event needs explaining.
What stands out
The story is unusual because the host names how it began (a caller claiming to be a witch, an old board left behind) and then openly refuses to describe the outcome. So the heart of the story is an announced omission, not a told event.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.