The Real Dangers of the Ouija Board: Ignorance and Delusion.

 Steve Huff is upsetting folks again, so I'm going to take some time out of my busy day (that beer isn't going to drink itself you know) to rubbish his latest bullshit claim or despicable lack of respect for the dead. Let's see what Huff has said now (highlighting not added by me):

 Wait.... I wasn't expecting this, but I agree with much of that statement. What's going on? I agree with Steve Huff... What's the expression for such an event? Oh yeah...

Of course, I disagree with the specifics of why Huff believes the Ouija board is harmless, and we shouldn't give Huff too much credit, a broken clock is right twice a day after all. Huff believes that the devices he uses are much more powerful, and therefore more dangerous than the Ouija board as it opens "larger portals". Whilst I hold, that neither the Ouija board nor any other ITC or spirit communication device opens a "portal" of any kind. Further to this, there's no reason to believe any such portals exist in the first place.

This implication of "my portal is bigger than your portal" one-upmanship" isn't what has upset some in the paranormal community, however, it's the idea that Huff could suggest that Ouija boards pose no danger to users beyond the dangers of suggestibility. Here's an example of the furious reaction that suggesting the Ouija board isn't dangerous can illicit from Facebook page "The Paranormal Archives":

Hmmm... I'd actually agree with the opening statement: Demon communication is not an option. Demons don't exist. Also, there are some great reasons for owning a Ouija board even if you don't believe them to be a spirit communication device. How about to admire the craftsmanship of a particular talking board? Many of these boards are very aesthetically pleasing, is it any wonder that some people would want to collect such things? Or perhaps to admire the historical aspect? Or for the purposes of displaying the curious nature of the ideomotor effect? The board can certainly be an interesting curio. Or what about using the board for it original purposes, as a game or parlour trick?

The rage that implying a talking board is not a deadly spirit summoning device can cause is not restricted to social media of course. Take a look at some of the hilarious reviews that the sale of a pink ouija board designed for children (left) elicited on Amazon.com.

Many of the reviewers hit on a particular theme. The irresponsibility of allowing a child to use a Ouija board, the potential harm that could result from this. Let's be clear here: a Ouija board cannot hurt either a child or a vulnerable adult, or anyone else for that matter. What can hurt these individuals, is the ignorance, fear and superstition surrounding the talking board. The only antidote to this is educating people regarding the actual mechanism behind the movement of a planchette on the board.

The problem is that the only debates that are currently raging with regards to Ouija boards is "Are they dangerous are they not? Do they contact ghosts or demons?" The truth is that these debates are the equivalent of two bald men fighting over a comb. The debate is settled by the fact that there's a very rational mechanism behind the Ouija effect.

The only actual mystery behind the Ouija board is how an explanation can be so straight forward, confirmed and tested and widely known yet not be "common knowledge" amongst believers. The ideomotor effect isn't a new phenomenon,  William Benjamin Carpenter, a British physiologist, introduced this theory in 1852. As Scott G Eberle explains in a 2012 article for Psychology Today:

"The planchette may seem to drag our hands along as it selects letters that spell out words, but it happens that muscular action does not always arise out of deliberate will or volition, or in fact, even upon our awareness. Our keen expectations for a certain outcome will sometimes direct the movements of our arms and hands as the planchette glides easily on felt-covered feet. This happens at a level that lies below our conscious attention. “Dousing” sticks or “divining” rods which also appear to move strangely on their own work in exactly this way by amplifying muscle movements. Whether we’re looking for buried pipes or for answers, though, subtle unacknowledged suggestions, not spirits, guide our actions. Yes, we select the letters ourselves in this game; it’s just that sometimes we don’t quite know that we do it or how we do it."-Scott G Eberle, Psychology Today(2012)

 So why are many believers unaware of this rational explanation of the Ouija phenomena?

I believe one of the main reasons for this is the popularity of a Ouija board as a paranormal Mac Guffin (a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or another motivator that the protagonist pursues, often with little or no narrative explanation. The specific nature of a MacGuffin is typically unimportant to the overall plot.-Wikipedia) in popular culture. Think of the amount of horror films that use the concept of a protagonist using a Ouija board and inadvertently triggering a sequence of paranormal events. Whilst it's become something of a lazy cliche, one has to credit the incredible social influence of the movie The Exorcist in almost single-handedly creating such a powerful and widespread, and widely believed for that matter, trope. It wasn't the first movie to use the Ouija board in such a way, but it is by far the most influential and is responsible for much of the fear around the board.  Sorry Koko, you might have been in the first piece of film to show a Ouija board but that's what you get for being the star of a massively racist cartoon.

This trope doesn't just effect the movies. The Ouija effect is part of the cultural zeitgeist. Everyone and their Aunt in the paranormal community has a Ouija story, the board is often introduced to many more mundane haunted house or ghost tales as a Mac Guffin or often as the very denouncement to the tale itself. My Childhood was filled with many a boring tale of moving pint glasses and cold spots and ghostly voices ending with "...And then they found a Ouija board in the attic/cellar/outside lavatory..." guaranteed to elicit an "Oooooh" from many listening. In fact, many skeptics, myself included, held on to the mystique of the Ouija long after we've abandoned other supernatural beliefs.

So how does this pop-culture influence prevent believers from exposure to the truth, i.e: the non-supernatural explanation behind the Ouija board? It could be that the prevalence of the board in pop-culture and word of mouth tales means that many feel they don't actually have to do any actual research to learn everything they need to know about the board. Certainly any time it's mentioned on social media, believers come in droves to share diabolical warnings of demons, evil spirits and such nonsense, contacted through the board. Rarely is a dissenting skeptical or rational voice heard and often such opinions are drowned out or the comments are removed altogether. Again, as mentioned above, generally the only dissent is in the form of questioning the exact paranormal nature of the Ouija Board.

Youtube and various video hosting sites feature thousands of Ouija Board videos with comment sections dominated by credulous posts, many of which remark on what "rules" should be followed, what it's acceptable to do, what it's not acceptable to do. And of course, the dire warnings abound. Few commentators indicate what the source is for their information, many citing personal experience as their guide.

Even if a curious believer was to attempt to find more information about Ouija boards, a cursory Google search leads to more rules, guidelines and warnings. Try the question "Are Ouija boards safe?" for example. Not one of the sites from the first page features the word "ideomotor" once as the comparsion below shows.

















The significance of this is that a believer curious as to whether a Ouija Board is dangerous or not simply won't be exposed to the correct answer: "No, they rely on the ideomotor effect." unless they are already aware of the ideomotor effect to begin with. Of course, a more direct question like "How do Ouija Boards work" will yield more rational results, but having the mindset to pose this question likely means the believer is on the way to rejecting the phenomena anyway.

You may have noticed the most popular result for the ideomotor-less search request, Wiki-how. Not a paranormal site. Would you expect at least some rationality from a seemingly sensible site that people usually visit to learn how to unclog a drain or repair an iPad? If so, you'd be mistaken. The Wiki-how page is filled with the usual rubbish that propagates paranormal pages. Here's a quick sample:
















Is it any wonder that so much ignorance surrounds the Ouija board, when, for a better word, a mainstream site publishes such utter fucking horse-shit as "Sometimes, the spirit will end the session first. If it doesn't, you will need to move the pointer to the word GOODBYE. This is important. If you don't do this, you will leave the doorway to the spirit world open. Other spirits might use this to enter your house."? The page even has a question and answer section where visitors can request more nonsensical information.

Perhaps the mystique of the Ouija board remains partially because it gives some believers the opportunity to claim expertise. Pretending to have access to some arcane and forbidden knowledge, or some terrible secret gives some a sense of self-worth. They may even begin to believe this themselves. But a false sense of self-worth is not worth the propagation of ignorance. While these prognosticators issue their dire warnings of "Zozo" and other such rubbish the people who listen to them go misinformed, they spread this misinformation further.

In his Psychology Today article mentioned above Scott G. Eberle, Ph.D suggests an interesting experiment to demonstrate the ideomotor effect and expose how Ouija board works. It's very easy to do and stunningly effective if done correctly without the sitters knowledge:

"Try inviting the Ouija believer to wear a blindfold (I'd suggest having a test run before the blindfolding, then one with the blindfold and the board the right way up before flipping the board);(then quietly rotate the game a half turn. Then ask some mischievous questions of your own devising. (Be nice, now.) If your subject has memorized the position of the letters or the YES and NO answers (on purpose or not) I promise you amusing and instructive results."-Scott G. Eberle Ph.D, Psychology Today (2012)

 Every time you're at a social gathering and a Ouija board comes out, insist on trying this out. Let's get a few Ouija stories in circulation that show the Ouija board for what it truly is: a demonstration of a harmless physiological quirk. Let's change the discussion.

*I tried to find an example of this test performed by Penn and Teller for their show Bullshit a few years ago, unfortunately it appears to have disappeared from Youtube. Luckily Willie Kay posted a great alternative to the Bad Psychics FB page which is on the left. Thanks Willie.

I'm saying goodbye now, I don't want to leave a channel open.

Defending the Warrens: Distort, Ignore and Disregard.

I wrote a post back in January regarding the about to be released movie The Conjuring 2, the story line of which concerns "Paranormal Investigators" Ed and Lorraine Warren investigating the so-called Enfield Poltergeist case of the 1970's. The post  was in direct response to the comments of Guy Lyon Playfair, one of the main investigators on the Enfield case. Playfair was understandably aggrieved that the Warrens were presented as central to the case, when he states, that there only involvement was to turn up and tell Playfair what money was to be made from exploiting the supposed haunting. I won't repeat Playfair's comments as they are available in the above link, the post also links to the original source, so you can follow that if you're interested.

What I want to focus on is the reaction to the notion that filmakers involved in the making of the conjuring maybe *gasp* massively over-exaggerating the extent of the Warrens involvement with Enfield. As an example here's what an admin at website Paranormal Soup had to say about the issue:





Jim suggests that what I write should be disregarded because I use the word "Skeptic" in the title of my blog. That's a classic example of the genetic fallacy, Jim wants to disregard my argument because of it's source not due to its validity. Jim also states

" if the Warrens weren't involved with this case it will come out big time when the movie is released. Everyone will be interviewed includes existing family members involved in the haunting. So if this story is not related accurately, it will come out."

Psst.... Jim.... It HAS come out, and you've found a lame reason to disregard it.

Even if you want to brush what I've said under the rug because I'm a nasty Skeptic, if you'd actually read what I wrote you'd have to find a reason to disregard what Playfair has said too. He most certainly isn't a skeptic, what is his reason for casting aspersions on the Warrens?

Jim goes on to state:

"I do have to wonder though, why a Movie Studio would risk their reputation on a lie, if that were the case.

Jim, is this a joke? Have you ever read about the "artistic licence" film studies take with supposedly true stories? Ever heard of Braveheart? The film depicts William Wallace having sex with Isabelle of France, she was four at the time of Wallace's death. Was the film studio's reputation ruined by this distortion of the truth? No of course not. No one cared. No one's reputation suffered. The film was a huge success.

Several people have commented on the validity of the claim that the Warrens were majorly involved with the Enfield case resulting in Tony Spera(left), one of Ed and Lorraine's proteges and current curator of their Museum of the Occult, to post a lengthy defence on the museum's facebook page (reposted in full at the end of the post). Now I'd normally post a screen cap of that response but unfortunately, the post has been deleted. In fact, the museum's page is completely gone. What I can do, in the interest of fairness and in an effort not to misquote, is take sections of the response reproduced on Paranormal Soup and Google search them to confirm that Spera actually wrote them. If the post has been removed due to inaccuracies, as I believe may be the case, Spera may regret beginning it by requesting that all "friends of the Warrens" share it where ever possible!

Spera states:

"Ed Warren and Lorraine Warren were at the house, and conducted an investigation into the supernatural and preternatural phenomena that had been occurring in that small counsel house. I have in my possession, hours of audio recordings of Ed Warren interviewing Peggy, Janet, and Margaret Hodgeson, and in those tapes, audio of voices frequently responding to questions from Ed Warren, and even interrupting him at times. These voices would issue from thin air."

Great, and you can evidence this by just issuing the tapes surely? Why hasn't Spera done this?

He also states:

"There were two other investigators in the house, accompanying the Warrens, Paul Bartz ( since deceased ) and John Kenyhercz, alive and well, who will testify to this fact. John was witness to much phenomena; one incident involved a huge lump of excrement plopping ( materializing ) on the floor right in front of him. John also supplied to me dozens of photographic slides he had taken in the house."

 Again, where are these slides? And again, Why not just release them?

"This occurred in 1979..... In 1981 Ed Warren and Lorraine Warren returned to the house...."

This could be the reason Spera's post was removed, you see the Conjuring 2 isn't set in 1979 or 1981, it's set in 1977, the time of the original events surrounding the family. The film also clearly depicts the Warrens alongside lead investigator Maurice Grosse, portrayed by Simon McBurney (left). Spera does not mention Grosse as being with the Warrens during their 1979 investigation. But Grosse was still with the family until at least August of that year. He continues:

"Also, keep in mind that Ed Warren visited the house in 1979.
The British investigators supposedly were there in 1977 for more than a year. Did they solve anything or help the family in any way? Apparently not, as the phenomena was still occurring when Ed went to the house in 1979."

This is directly contradictory to the few interviews Janet Hodgson, the 11-year-old girl around which the haunting seem to be centred (or who was the main hoaxer depending on your stance), has given since 1978. She states that the paranormal events more or less ended in 1978 after an exorcism by a local priest:

"Janet reports that it was a priest’s visit to Green Street that resulted in the incidents ‘quietening down’ in autumn 1978, although the occurrences did not stop entirely, she says, with her mother continuing to hear noises in the house." Janet Hodgson, Daily Mail, 2012. 

That doesn't sync with Spera's defence of the Warrens at all, with him claiming that Janet was still levitating and emitting strange voices at this point.... there was even a case of shit materialising from thin air apparently:

 "...one incident involved a huge lump of excrement plopping ( materializing ) on the floor right in front of him."

Hmmm.... I wonder if it was bullshit?

Anyway, also contradictory is Janet's alleged reaction to meeting Lorraine Warren on the Conjuring 2 set last year, with Spera stating:

"Fast forward to October of 2015. Lorraine was invited to the set of " The Conjuring 2: Enfield Poltergeist "While on the set, Janet and Margaret Hodgeson arrived and were met by Lorriane. The two woman immediately began crying while hugging and kissing Lorraine. They both remarked that " Lorraine and her husband were the " Only ones that helped us ".... Let that sink in. " The Warren's were the ONLY ones that helped us "...."

Yet, despite this gratitude Janet has NEVER mentioned Ed or Lorraine in a single interview. Not Once, so she's certainly never publicly indicated any gratitude to the Warrens. As quoted above, she credits a local priest with ending the haunting effectively. Let THAT sink in Spera. Also, she told the Mail again in 2012 this that she was less than thrilled  with the idea of the film:

"I wasn't very happy to hear about the film," she said. "I didn't know anything about it. My dad has just died, and it really upset me to think of all this being raked over again."-Janet Hodgson, The Daily Mail, 2012. 

Hardly a ringing endorsement, and the only public comment she's made about the film.

*Inserted update* I've been pointed to the following promotional interview for the Conjuring 2 with Janet where she does indeed endorse the Warrens. This is quite literally the first time I've heard her mention them. She also thanks the filmmakers for giving her the chance to "tell her families story". According to the Express Janet is now also claiming that it was not the spirit of "Bill" that possessed her but a "creature".


This is quite a backtrack from the quotes above and the story she has previously told as the above quotes show, and this has the whiff of a cynical move by Warner Bros to protect the legitimacy of the film's claims. I include it (above) for clarity.

Spera also talks about the Warrens influence on the paranormal scene:

"There isn't a paranormal reality show, or reality star on television today, or in the past that doesn't owe a huge debt of gratitude to Ed and Lorraine Warren.They began the NESPR ( New England Society for Psychic Research ) way back in 1952, before most, if not all of these so-called " Demonologists " and ghost-hunters were ever conceived, or even a thought in their future parents mind. The Warrens were the grunts, the ones who laid the groundwork, and fought the battles and forged ahead, all in the quest to help others. Back in the late sixties, Ed was recognized as being one of only seven religious demonologists in the nation, six being clergy,and Ed as the only " lay " Demonologist. Today, if you check the internet, there are probably thousands of people calling themselves demonologists."

You'd have to be stunningly deluded to see that as anything but a criticism, not a compliment.  The Warrens led the way in bestowing themselves with bullshit, made up titles and qualifications. They pioneered shoddy investigation techniques and practices. They revolutionised the exploitation of the deluded and vulnerable. They fought to keep stone age beliefs from slipping into obscurity...

HOO-FUCKING- RAH

Of course, Jim of Ghost Study was more than convinced by Spera's statement, despite the fact that Spera hasn't offered a shred of evidence and the post (and page) has been quickly removed.

I'm sure Jim doesn't care what anyone else has to say about the Warrens. He wants to believe, that's fine. He can continue to drink the Kool-Aid, but he may want to ask Spera why that post was yanked.... Why go from asking for it to be circulated to the scorched earth approach of going as far as to completely remove the Warren's Museum page altogether?

I've got to say I think Jim approach of ignoring or disregarding legitimate criticism of the Warrens is far more convenient than attempting to defend them. As Spera demonstrates, the only way to actually mount a defence of Ed and Lorraine is obscure and manipulate the truth. Spera is forced to leap to the Warren's defence, as the curator of their bullshit museum they are his meal ticket

That post of Tony Spera's in full:

First, I would ask that everyone who reads this post shares it on their timeline. I ask this of those who are truly friends of Ed and Lorraine Warren.
The following is my response;

There have been articles floating around the internet claiming that Ed and Lorraine Warren never investigated the " Enfield Poltergeist " case.
The case is the basis for the upcoming New Line Cinema release of " The Conjuring 2; Enfield Poltergeist "

An interview between Dave Shrader and Guy Playfair has been floating around online, with Playfair disparaging Ed Warren and claiming that they never investigated the house or family.
I write this to counter that false claim. Ed Warren and Lorraine Warren were at the house, and conducted an investigation into the supernatural and preternatural phenomena that had been occurring in that small counsel house.

I have in my possession, hours of audio recordings of Ed Warren interviewing Peggy, Janet, and Margaret Hodgeson, and in those tapes, audio of voices frequently responding to questions from Ed Warren, and even interrupting him at times. These voices would issue from thin air.

Also, a voice known as the " Parrot woman " could be heard on the audio tapes.

There were two other investigators in the house, accompanying the Warrens, Paul Bartz ( since deceased ) and John Kenyhercz, alive and well, who will testify to this fact.
John was witness to much phenomena; one incident involved a huge lump of excrement plopping ( materializing ) on the floor right in front of him.
John also supplied to me dozens of photographic slides he had taken in the house.

This occurred in 1979.

Lorraine was witness to wallpaper peeling from the walls, and floating in the air, and covering an overhead light.

Ed and Lorraine had left the house and had gone to a local market to buy some groceries for the family, and while there witnessed a " doppelgänger " of Janet standing just outside of the store.
In 1981 Ed Warren and Lorraine Warren returned to the house, with their daughter, Judy ( my wife ).

While there, Judy witnessed phenomena herself.
( a purse that she placed on the floor beside her mysteriously moved several feet away from her ).

Fast forward to October of 2015. Lorraine was invited to the set of " The Conjuring 2: Enfield Poltergeist "
While on the set, Janet and Margaret Hodgeson arrived and were met by Lorriane. The two woman immediately began crying while hugging and kissing Lorraine. They both remarked that " Lorraine and her husband were the " Only ones that helped us "

Let that sink in. " The Warren's were the ONLY ones that helped us "

Lorraine and Ed Warren have been taking the stabs and the slings and arrows of skeptics, and naysayers, and non- believers, and jealous competitors for years.
This article is just one more stab.

When you are the pioneers, and on top of the occult realm, there will always be those who will try to knock you off that pedestal.
Ed and Lorraine would go out and buy the Hodgeson family food, because they were a needy family, and Ed and Lorraine felt extreme compassion for them.
Did the British in investigators do that? I don’t think so.

There isn't a paranormal reality show, or reality star on television today, or in the past that doesn't owe a huge debt of gratitude to Ed and Lorraine Warren.
They began the NESPR ( New England Society for Psychic Research ) way back in 1952, before most, if not all of these so-called " Demonologists " and ghost-hunters were ever conceived, or even a thought in their future parents mind.

The Warrens were the grunts, the ones who laid the groundwork, and fought the battles and forged ahead, all in the quest to help others.

Back in the late sixties, Ed was recognized as being one of only seven religious demonologists in the nation, six being clergy,and Ed as the only " lay " Demonologist.
Today, if you check the internet, there are probably thousands of people calling themselves demonologists.

Reading a book on demonology and investigating a few homes does not a demonologist make.
I knew Ed Warren since 1979. Other than his wife, Lorraine, I probably have spent more time with him than anyone else. I would accompany them on the majority of their lectures, and many cases, and visit Ed at his home.

He would talk about the " Enfield " case almost every time I was with him. Literally thousands of people have heard the spirit voices that would issue from thin air in that Enfield house ( Ed played those audio recordings at most of his lectures ).

Also, keep in mind that Ed Warren visited the house in 1979.
The British investigators supposedly were there in 1977 for more than a year.
Did they solve anything or help the family in any way?

Apparently not, as the phenomena was still occurring when Ed went to the house in 1979.

Remember what Janet and Margaret said upon seeing Lorraine on the Conjuring 2 set:
" The Warrens were the ONLY ones that helped us "
I have included pictures of Janet and Margaret standing with Lorraine on the Conjuring set.
Sincerely,

Tony Spera