The Ouija board’s history sits at the crossroads of supernatural stories, folklore, and skepticism. Andy explores Victorian seances, grieving families, and the board’s rise from parlour novelty to household game, while Greg weighs the ideomotor effect and apophenia against claims of communication with the dead. Is it a doorway to spirits—or a powerful product of belief and expectation?

We did an episode with Investigation: Podcast. Find them at the links below.

Listen to Investigation: Podcast

Investigation: Podcast Instagram

Investigation: Podcast Tiktok

Takeaways:

• Andy explains the Ouija board's origins in 19th-century spiritualism, noting businessmen commercialized it after Civil War grieving waves.
• Greg stays a hardline skeptic and argues the Ouija's movements are explained by the ideomotor effect and apophenia, for example micro hand tremors moving the planchette.
• They discuss how films like The Exorcist flipped public perception from harmless parlor game to terrifying occult object, proving media can amplify fear without new evidence.
• Andy outlines common Ouija rituals—don’t play alone, place the planchette carefully, say "goodbye", burn sage—and says rituals mostly manage group mindset rather than guaranteeing spirit contact.
• Greg warns about mental-health risks: treating a board as literal contact can worsen grief or anxiety, so he recommends therapy or memory-work instead of toy-based spirit hunting.
• They cover the Zozo legend and how paranormal personalities and viral stories can manufacture folklore, showing how a catchy name spreads despite having no clear historical origin.
• Practical evidence matters: blindfolded Ouija experiments often produce gibberish, demonstrating unconscious movements create apparent messages—blind tests are a simple example of demystifying results.
• Overall the episode is a playful believer-versus-skeptic debate: Andy presents historical and ritual context, while Greg lampoons credulity and urges listeners to enjoy spooky season responsibly.

Ashmore Estates’ paranormal history and ghostly encounters begin with its origins as an 1857 poor farm. Andy shares the documented story of overcrowding, poor care, and burial grounds, while skeptic Greg questions how that past became part of the estate’s haunting lore. Hear how a troubled institution became a haunted attraction for tours and overnight stays—and decide where history ends and the supernatural begins.

Takeaways:

• The estate began as an 1857 poor farm where the elderly, disabled, and homeless were forced to work; many died, and graves still dot the grounds.
• Over decades, it shifted into a psychiatric hospital, suffered neglect and financial failure, and eventually became a commercial haunted attraction with tours and overnight stays.
• Andy points to named spirits like Joe Bloxom, but Greg highlights record inconsistencies—death certificates, census dates, and folklore don't always line up with archival evidence.
• They memorialized a child ghost, Elvis Skinner, with a dedicated room and gravestone, which illustrates how communities remember tragedy and how paranormal curiosity often centers on child apparitions.
• The most unsettling reports involve an eight‑foot shadow figure that appears with heavy footsteps and vibrations; Greg remains skeptical and repeatedly questions what people mean by mysterious "energy."
• Both hosts criticize sensational TV investigators and charlatans who muddy the evidence, while admitting their own podcast sometimes flirts with hype; honest, low‑key investigations seem more credible.
• A big takeaway is human pattern‑matching: Ashmore and Waverly share similar histories and sightings, suggesting psychological storytelling and cultural tropes may explain repeated haunt narratives more than supernatural causes.

Jackie Hernandez's San Pedro bungalow became the focal point of an escalating haunting — disembodied footsteps, strange reddish ooze (later claimed to test as human plasma), flashes of light caught on film, and episodes of violent interaction that drove a local paranormal team into full investigation mode. Andy narrates Jackie’s growing terror as neighbors and a small crew — including Dr. Barry Taft, Jeff Wheatcraft, and others — document everything from camera batteries dying in the attic to a camera being ripped from a hand and a cord apparently choking a team member. Greg serves as the resident skeptic, poking holes and offering everyday explanations (bugs, lighting artifacts, bad filmmaking), while the two trade witty banter as they parse evidence like blurry streaks of light, mysterious smells, and a stove flame that briefly ignites. They walk listeners through specific incidents — Ouija board revelations that name a drowned man, scissors placed under pillows, and a tiny letter catching fire on a burner — and use those examples to question whether the events are supernatural or staged. The hosts also dig into the 1997 documentary An Unknown (credited in part to Jackie Earle Haley early in his career) and critique both the footage and the investigators’ motives, balancing eerie moments with healthy cynicism. Overall, they leave listeners with a clear takeaway: the San Pedro haunting is compelling and spooky on the surface, but riddled with inconsistencies and red flags that make it hard to tell genuine paranormal activity from human error or exploitation.

Takeaways:

• Andy tells Jackie Hernandez's San Pedro story as a slow escalation from a comforting presence to violent phenomena, including footsteps, objects vanishing, and an old man's apparition in her son's room.
• Greg stays the hard-line skeptic and repeatedly ridicules the documentary's claims, pointing out weak acting, staged photos, and how easy it is to invent scary details without verification.
• They describe the investigating team—Dr. Barry and two cameramen—who encountered camera failures, odd lights in photos, and a claimed lab test identifying the ooze as male blood plasma.
• She and her neighbors experienced sensory details like a rotting-flesh smell and streaks of light; the hosts debate natural explanations such as insects, lighting artifacts, or memory-driven fear responses.
• The Ouija session supposedly spells out a drowned killer and targets Jeff, but he and Greg highlight how suggestion, coincidence, and confirmation bias can manufacture haunting narratives.
• The documentary An Unknown Encounter amplifies events with dramatized footage, and the hosts warn listeners to check provenance, collection methods, and named laboratories before accepting sensational claims.
• Several allegedly dangerous moments—cords in the attic, scissors on a bed, and a small stove fire—are presented, yet Greg argues lack of contemporaneous, independently recorded evidence weakens those claims.
• Practical takeaway for listeners: they should approach paranormal stories with curiosity and healthy skepticism, asking for raw video, lab names, and alternative mundane causes like bugs, wiring faults, or hoaxes.