Staged Ouija board prank and an improvised number reported correct
A self-described first-time caller from Idaho tells Art Bell about an Ouija board session they say they staged with their brother at a mid-1980s Halloween party. The caller admits they fed the board phone numbers they already knew while their brother made ghost noises in another room. The caller says the one number they were asked for and did not know, a local lingerie shop, they improvised on the spot. Their brother told them the next day it was correct. The call ends with the host’s remark that the Ouija board “unfortunately worked.”
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 2007.mp3”, starting at 1:53:34). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
A self-described first-time caller says they are from Idaho and that the events happened in the mid-1980s, when they were “quite a youngster.” They say they and their brother were troublemakers and decided to use an Ouija board to frighten friends at a Halloween party. Their stated plan was that their brother would slip into another room and make ghost noises. Meanwhile the caller would rely on their memory for phone numbers they had dialed and move the planchette to produce correct answers. They say there were [quote withheld] and that a “head skeptic” named [name withheld] had a phone book and checked the numbers. They say they got them right, including numbers they had to “stretch my mind” to recall, such as the grocery store’s. They say their brother made noises from the other room and that they had to [quote withheld] at the guests’ shocked faces. At one point they heard a “blood-curdling scream.” The caller says they rushed in and found their brother speechless, then they exchanged winks and their brother rejoined the group. They say [name withheld] then asked for a number they [quote withheld] a local women’s lingerie shop. They say they [quote withheld] and that the next day their brother verified it was the correct number in the book. They say they first assumed their brother was pranking them by agreeing, [quote withheld] The host closes with [quote withheld]
Reported events, in order
- 0:11
The caller places the events in the mid-1980s, when they say they were “quite a youngster,” and says they and their brother were troublemakers from Idaho.
- 0:26
They say they decided to get an Ouija board and scare their friends at a Halloween party.
- 0:49
They describe the plan: their brother would make ghost noises from another room while the caller moved the board to phone numbers they remembered.
- 1:05
They say there were [quote withheld] present. Asked for numbers, they produced the correct ones, and [name withheld], the head skeptic, checked them against a phone book.
- 1:46
They say their brother slipped into the other room and made noises while the caller had to choke back laughter at the guests’ frightened faces.
- 2:11
They say they heard a blood-curdling scream. The caller rushed in and found their brother speechless, then the two exchanged winks and their brother rejoined the group.
- 2:41
They say [name withheld] asked for a number they had no way of knowing, for a local women’s lingerie shop.
- 2:56
They say they improvised a number and that the next day their brother told them it was the correct number in the book.
- 3:15
The host closes the call by saying the Ouija board “unfortunately worked.”
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· 0:26
The caller says they and their brother deliberately set up an Ouija board session at a Halloween party to frighten friends. That is, the caller staged the board activity themself.
- observation· 0:49
The caller says they produced the correct phone numbers from their own memory of numbers they had dialed, while their brother made noises from another room. This is the caller's own account of how the effect was faked.
- observation· 2:56
The caller says that when asked for a number they did not know (a local women’s lingerie shop), they improvised a number.
- hearsay· 2:56
The caller reports that their brother told them the following day that the improvised number was the correct one in the phone book. The caller did not check this themself on air.
- interpretation· 3:08
The caller says their first explanation for the verification was that their brother was playing a prank on them.
- host statement· 3:15
The host states as his own conclusion that the Ouija board worked.
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.
The story is a prank the caller says they carried out themself, so under the scoring guide it is capped at 15 or lower. On content it is a specific, easy-to-follow story. Its only strange element is a single improvised number whose correctness is reported secondhand, and an ordinary explanation is readily available.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand story by a participant, with a concrete occasion, plan, and named participant: [quote withheld]
- The caller separates what they knew from what they did not: [quote withheld]
- The caller states the whole session was their own deliberate hoax: [quote withheld] and [quote withheld]
- The remaining strange element rests on the caller’s own improvised guess and a secondhand verification from the person who was, by the caller’s account, helping run the prank: [quote withheld]
- An ordinary explanation (coincidence, or the brother still playing along) fits easily.
- The automatic transcript of the second half is fragmentary and smoothed, and the sequence around the scream is unclear.
- The lingerie shop’s number is never stated, so the claimed match cannot be assessed.
- It is not clear why the brother was found “speechless” after the scream, or what, if anything, the caller thinks happened.
- The labels showing who is speaking are partly smoothed, and several lines are very short, so the sequence may be divided wrongly.
- 0:26
- 0:49
- 2:41
- 3:08
What the model inferred (not said on air): Without the cap, the component scores would land in the mid-50s (firsthand, moderately specific, coherent, low on calibration of the guess). The explicit prank framing triggers the cap of 15 or lower. I apply it at the top of that range because the caller does treat the final number as truly unexplained.
The evidence is the caller’s word plus a few unchecked particulars. The one claimed verification comes from another person who is not on air, so the story falls in the 0 to 10 range rather than the “other witnesses claimed” range.
Evidence for and against
- Some details could in principle be checked: mid-1980s, Idaho, a Halloween party, a named “head skeptic jim,” a local women’s lingerie shop.
- No documentation, recording, or physical trace is claimed.
- No second witness speaks on air. The brother’s verification is relayed by the caller.
- The number, the town, and the shop are not stated, so nothing can be checked.
- The caller’s location is given only as a state (“Being from Idaho”), and the town is never named.
- No outside check was done.
- 2:56
- 2:41
What the model inferred (not said on air): The brother is described as the verifier and is not heard, so I do not treat him as a claimed independent witness in the 11 to 25 range. The information is secondhand from a person with a stake in the prank.
This is a lighthearted confession of a hoax rather than a frightening story. The only unsettling notes are the unexplained scream and the closing coincidence, both brief and resolved.
Evidence for and against
- There is a reported “blood-curdling scream,” and the caller says their brother was found “speechless.”
- The final detail, an improvised number reportedly turning out correct, leaves a small unsettled question.
- The caller presents the episode as a practical joke and reports their own amusement: [quote withheld]
- The story ends with a stated verification and the host’s wry sign-off rather than an ominous ending.
- The transcript does not say what caused the scream or what the caller made of it.
- 1:46
- 2:11
What the model inferred (not said on air): This rates the mood of the story as told, not the caller’s sincerity or state of mind.
This is a familiar Ouija board story with one distinctive twist: an admitted hoax in which an improvised, supposedly unknown number was reportedly confirmed. The score is provisional. The comparison with the rest of the archive is computed separately and carries little weight in the pilot.
Evidence for and against
- The story is told as a confession of the hoax, with the caller as the one moving the planchette.
- The distinctive turn is that the single number the caller says they did not know and improvised was reported correct the next day.
- An Ouija board used with friends at a Halloween gathering is a familiar ghost-story setup.
- A skeptic checking answers against a phone book is a stock “test” device in such stories.
- How rare a story's elements are in the archive is unstable with few stories, so the published originality score is provisional.
- 1:24
- 2:56
What the model inferred (not said on air): Originality here is an editorial estimate from content only. It is not a claim about whether the events occurred.
Scoring confidence 0.55 · analysis confidence 0.65 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand story, which is in large part a confession that the caller staged the Ouija board readings themself; Claimed verification by the caller’s brother, reported secondhand by the caller and not examined; No physical evidence, recording, document, or photograph; No second witness speaks on air: neither the brother nor [name withheld] is heard. 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.
- Coincidence: an improvised seven-digit number matched a local business by chance. · The caller says they had [quote withheld] the lingerie shop’s number and [quote withheld] That is consistent with a chance guess against a limited local listing.
- The brother, still playing along with the evening’s hoax, told the caller the number was correct whether or not it was. · The caller themself raises it: [quote withheld] The brother is the only source of the verification and does not speak on air.
- For the earlier readings, the correct answers came from the caller’s own memory, as the caller describes. Nothing unseen is needed to explain them. · The caller says they [quote withheld] and [quote withheld] and that they moved the planchette “with my friends.”
What stands out
The caller openly identifies as the hoaxer. The caller says the correct Ouija answers came from their own memory. The only unexplained element is a number they say they invented on the spot and never checked themself. The confirmation is reported entirely through the caller's brother, the person the caller says was helping run the prank.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.