Ouija board session in 1964 matching a deceased family friend named [name withheld]
A caller who gives their name as [name withheld], from Long Beach, California, describes a 1964 Ouija board session with their wife-to-be, her girlfriend, and a friend who owned the board. According to [name withheld], the board brought up something said to be from Texas that had died some time earlier and had lost money in silver and gold investments. They say this matched a family friend named [name withheld], who had committed suicide a couple of years before and had lost money in a silver mine. The call ends with [name withheld] mentioning Art Bell’s books and the host promoting them.
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 1999.mp3”, starting at 1:44:55). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
[name withheld], calling from Long Beach, California, tells Art Bell that in 1964 they were sitting with their wife-to-be, her girlfriend, and a friend when the friend produced a Ouija board. They say the friend was someone they had only just met and who [quote withheld] [name withheld] says they then worked the board with the friend, and that they [quote withheld] According to [name withheld], they asked questions back and forth, and it said it had died some time ago and had lost a lot of money, including investments in silver and gold. Art interrupts to ask how they could sit there while such a cogent story came through the board. [name withheld] answers that they were young at the time and “also curious.” [name withheld] says it turned out that they, their wife-to-be, and their families had a family friend named [name withheld], who had committed suicide a couple of years before and who had lost money in a silver mine. Art responds, [quote withheld] and wonders aloud whether such a thing is communicating from some other side or is present in the room. [name withheld] then tells Art they own both of Art’s autograph books but have not yet read them. Art promotes his books, including The Art of Talk, The Quickening, and The Source, and moves on to the next caller.
Reported events, in order
- 0:16
[name withheld] says that in 1964 they, their wife-to-be, and her girlfriend were sitting having a conversation when a friend produced a Ouija board.
- 0:30
[name withheld] says the friend with the board had only just met them and knew nothing about their families or backgrounds.
- 0:43
[name withheld] says they worked the board with the friend and they made contact with something said to be from Texas.
- 0:58
According to [name withheld], it said it had died some time ago and had lost a lot of money, including investments in silver and gold.
- 1:21
Art asks how they could continue as such a cogent story of a person’s life came through the board. [name withheld] answers that they were young and curious.
- 1:42
[name withheld] says it turned out they had a family friend named [name withheld] who had committed suicide a couple of years before and had lost money in a silver mine.
- 2:04
Art comments [quote withheld] and wonders whether such a thing communicates from another side or is present in the room.
- 2:15
[name withheld] says they own both of Art’s autograph books but have not read them yet. Art names his books and ends the call.
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· 0:16
A Ouija board session took place in 1964 with the caller, their wife-to-be, her girlfriend, and a friend who owned the board.
- observation· 0:43
The caller and the friend who owned the board worked the board and made contact with something said to be from Texas.
- observation· 1:02
It said it had died some time ago and had lost money in silver and gold investments.
- observation· 1:42
The life circumstances described matched a family friend named [name withheld], who had committed suicide a couple of years earlier and had lost money in a silver mine.
- observation· 1:54
The family friend [name withheld] had committed suicide a couple of years before the board session.
- observation· 2:00
[name withheld] had lost money in a silver mine, which the caller treats as matching the board’s statements about silver and gold.
- host statement· 2:04
Art Bell says the presence was [name withheld]: [quote withheld]
- host statement· 2:08
Art Bell raises the possibility that such a communicator is either from some other side or present in the room.
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.
This is a firsthand but brief and somewhat loosely reported story. It gives a year and several concrete details (Texas, [name withheld], silver mine, suicide), but not the setting, and there is a small mismatch between the board’s “silver and gold” and the silver mine. The caller does not address ordinary explanations such as the ideomotor effect, and they present the board’s output as fact rather than separating what they saw from what they inferred.
Evidence for and against
- A stated year for the event: “1964.”
- Concrete named detail: a family friend [quote withheld] and [quote withheld]
- The caller explains why they kept going, answering Art’s question directly.
- The setting and other circumstances are not described. The location given is only where the caller is phoning from in 1999.
- The board’s output ([quote withheld]) is not an exact match for the silver mine.
- No attempt is made to address an ordinary way the board could have moved.
- Whether the 1964 session took place in Long Beach or elsewhere is not stated.
- The labels showing who is speaking are inconsistent in this part of the broadcast, so some lines cannot be attributed with certainty.
- 0:16
- 2:00
What the model inferred (not said on air): Component estimates: closeness to the source about 18 (firsthand but brief and partial); detail about 10; internal consistency about 12; alternative explanations about 8; calibration about 9. The sum is 57, adjusted down to 52 for the brevity of the story and the loose match.
The only support is the caller’s own word plus claimed second witnesses (their wife-to-be, her girlfriend, the friend with the board) who do not speak on air. No document, photograph, recording, or independent check is presented or examined.
Evidence for and against
- A stated year and a named dead person are details that could in principle be checked.
- Other participants are claimed to have been present.
- No witness other than the caller speaks on air.
- No physical evidence or documentation is offered or examined.
- The “match” rests entirely on the caller’s own memory.
- The transcript has no independent verification of the 1964 event, the participants, or [name withheld].
- 0:16
- 1:42
What the model inferred (not said on air): Placed at 11 to 25 because details that could be checked (a year, a name) are given and other witnesses are claimed, but nothing is checked and no second witness speaks.
The story is mildly eerie rather than frightening: an ordinary social gathering and a board session that supposedly produced details later linked to a family friend’s suicide. There is no threat, contact, or escalation, and the call ends in book promotion and chat.
Evidence for and against
- Details of a death by suicide are attached to the supposed communicator.
- Art suggests the communicator may be present in the room.
- The event is presented as a youthful, casual session ([quote withheld]).
- No ill will, physical contact, or ongoing activity is reported.
- The call ends with the caller and host discussing books.
- The tone and mood of the gathering are not described beyond the caller’s own framing.
- 0:16
- 2:08
What the model inferred (not said on air): Rated above a harmless encounter because of the detail about a death and the unresolved ending, but well below the middle of the range because there is no threat, intrusion, or sensory horror.
The Ouija board setup and a message that later matches a dead person are familiar motifs. But the specific matching detail (a family friend named [name withheld], suicide, and money lost in a silver mine) and the fact that the match is recognized rather than researched give the story some distinctiveness.
Evidence for and against
- Matching content recognized rather than researched: [quote withheld]
- An unusual concrete detail: money lost in a silver mine.
- Ouija contact with a dead person is a stock ghost-story setup.
- The story is a brief anecdote without any other unusual events.
- The refinement compared with the rest of the archive has not been applied here. This is the model’s provisional judgment from the content.
- 0:26
- 2:00
What the model inferred (not said on air): Set at the upper end of the [quote withheld] range because the identification comes from personal recognition rather than research.
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.68 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand word.; Claimed second witnesses who do not speak on air.; No physical evidence, documents, or recordings offered.. The originality score blends the model's score (45) 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.
- The ideomotor effect, meaning unconscious muscle movement by the participants on the planchette, followed by reading the unclear output as a match for [name withheld]. · The board was worked by two people, the caller and the friend, and the caller describes being “young and dumb” and “also curious” at the time.
- Prior knowledge or suggestion among those present, despite the caller’s statement that the friend knew nothing about their families and backgrounds. · The caller states the friend [quote withheld] which they present as the notable part of the match.
- The match is loose. The board referred generally to lost money, “silver and gold,” whereas the caller’s memory of [name withheld] concerns a silver mine, so the match is somewhat unclear. · What the board said mentions [quote withheld] while the family friend is described as having [quote withheld]
What stands out
What sets this story apart is that the board’s supposed communicator is matched not by later research but by the caller recognizing the details of a named family friend who had died by suicide after losing money in a silver mine. The caller says their youth at the time is the reason they kept going with the session.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.