0
Witchboard.com session: Eben and his Indian Problem
Posted by
Hamlyn
,
11 August 2009
·
328 views
Ouija
Lacking a real Ouija board, I decided yesterday to mess around with the online one at Witchboard.com.
It is a Flash program that runs in the web browser. The way it works is, you move the pointer around with your mouse and click when it lands on the letter you feel is right. I found that the results varied according to my approach.
If I just clicked around impulsively, I got mostly gibberish.
If I started spelling out the narrative going through my head, I got something resembling my own stream-of-consciousness writing. I even switched to typing out my own internal dialogue for a while, instead of "receiving" it through the online Ouija board. This tended to produce "information" that seemed like the sort of thing I would make up.
If instead of clicking at random or actively trying to make sense, I put myself in a sort of passive or receptive state of mind and approached the board as if I was waiting for it to tell me what it "wanted" to spell out, both the process and the results got more interesting.
I had to try not to rush ahead of the pointer and start filling in the blanks consciously, or else I got exactly and only what I expected to get.
So here is the resulting transcript, and my notes on the research I did during and afterwards. The transcript reflects a mix of the approaches and attitudes described above. With more practice, I should be able to achieve a more passive, receptive state of mind.
I should say up front that I make no claim that the Ebenezer who introduces himself in this session is any deceased person or indeed anything other than a figment of my own active imagination. I present the transcript as is, with no warranty express or implied.
Online Ouija Session 2009-08-10 about 4:00 PM GMT -7
Laramie, Wyoming, USA
Hamlyn B., operator and querent
using Flash application at Witchboard.com
Q= question or querent, i.e., the board operator
A= answer or answerer, i.e., the board
hn= headnote
fn= footnote
Note: Occasionally I will add punctuation where it makes sense.
Begin Session.
01Q: Is anyone there?
01A: U VADOHT NO B TK A PONVH MY WIKJ IS NNO T PORCINE ENOVGH
02hn: The building where I am conducting this session is widely reputed to be haunted. It is literally built on a burial ground. This is why I asked about spirits associated with the building.
02Q: Any spirits associated with this building, please speak to me.
02A: I AM QUITE INTERESTED IN PIE
03Q: I too enjoy pie. What is your name?
03A: EBENEZER STUART
04Q: Hello, Ebenezer. What kind of pie do you like best?
04A: JEOQXLIE ON THE COUNTER HAHA
04fn: At first I thought this was saying "lie on the counter," which seemed odd, but in restrospect, it seems more as if Ebenezer likes whatever pie happens to be on the counter. That's the way I prefer to read it.
05Q: Haha. Do you have a message for my friends and me on the Worldwide Web?
05A: DEATH BECOMES THEM
06Q: You have quite a sense of humor, Ebenezer. What do you enjoy doing with your time these days?
06A: I VISIT THE SPOT WHERE THE TROUBLE WAS
07Q: I see. Please tell me more about the trouble.
07A: BACK IN 1879 THESE DAMNED INDIANS HAHA WELL I DONT BLAME THEM NOW
07fn: The tone seemed self-deprecating and ironic here, not at all as if really condemning the "damned Indians."
08hn: The answers were coming to mind faster than I could spell on the board. So I switched to simply typing them out as they came to mind.
08Q:What was the crux of your conflict with the Indians?
08A: OUR GOVERNMENT SET US AT CROSS PURPOSES. THEY COMMISSIONED CATTLE GRAZING. THE INDIANS LIVED BY HUNTING BISON. THE TWO COULD NOT COEXIST PEACEFULLY. IT WAS ALL LAND AND WATER USE.
08fn: This was exactly the sort of theory that I would have guessed off the top of my head. Writing this way felt more like I was just making things up than when I was using the online ouija pointer, which felt more like "receiving messages."
09Q: I see. That is very interesting. And this occurred in Laramie?
09A: LARAMIE WAS GRAVELY AFFECTED. TRADE ROUTES THROUGH HERE. AT TIMES THE CONFLICT CAUSED TRADE AND TRAVEL TO DRY UP. NOBODY FELT SAFE. IT WAS NECESSARY TO KILL ALL THE BUFFALO.
10Q: That is a shame.
10A: CAN'T STAND IN THE WAY OF PROGRESS SONNY.
11Q: Ebenezer, I am going to check some facts to see if I can place what you're telling me in a historical context.
11A: PROVE WHAT YOU HAVE TO PROVE.
12hn: I Googled around and found out about an event called the White River Ute Uprising of 1879, which I had not known about. At this point, I switched back to the online Ouija pointer, as the stream-of-consciousness writing did not feel quite right.
12Q: Ebenezer Stuart, are you there?
12A: YES.
13Q: I have done some research into the things you told me about.
13A: THIS I KNOW. I WATCHED YOU.
14Q: Some things you said were accurate, others not so much. Why is that?
14A: MY WEDDING GOT CANCELED
15Q: I'm sorry to hear that. But what does that have to do with the accuracy of your statements?
15A: SOMATA ARE TIDALLY INFLUENCED
15fn: I looked up "somata" and found that it is the plural of soma, and a soma is the bulbous end of a neuron, containing the cell nucleus and dendrites. I had not known this. I was aware that "tidal" refers to a secondary effect of gravitation.
16Q: Ebenezer, could you please expand upon the tidal influence on somata, and the effect this has on our communication?
16A: THE APPARATUS FUNCTIONS POORLY IN DAYTIME. THINKING IS DETRIMENTAL TO RECEPTIVITY.
17Q: Will you tell me some fact that I can verify or falsify in order to establish your existence as something greater than a figment of my imagination?
17A: FREEDOM STOPPED THE KILLING
18Q: How might I verify this?
18A: GEN M RELENTED. MAYLOOKSTANDARD 5 1880
18fn: It seemed to me as if "Standard" referred to a newspaper or other periodical title where I might find the information. As I wrote May and 5 as the month, I felt very alarmed, as if that was not quite right, and that it should be March. So I asked the following clarifying question.
19Q: Are you sure it is May? I'm getting May.
19A: CHECK MARCH. MAY SEEMS LATE
19fn: This felt very firm and correct to me. I had a very strong feeling that May was an error. Still I felt uncomfortable eliminating it. After all, if I left it open to both March AND May, the chances of finding something relevant were better. This little hedge on my bets proved unnecessary.
20Q: I will check the Standard of March and then May of 1880 for news of how General M relented, thus ending the Ute uprising. Thank you very much. Anything else before I go?
20A: METASTABLE COMMUNICATION ESTABLISHED FOR HIGH CONCEPTUAL REALIZATION OF TRANSIDEATIONAL PATHWAYS
21Q: Thank you, Ebenezer.
21A: I AM NEAR
End Session.
During the session, I did a little research. Afterwards, I did more.
It was hard at first to find information about any trouble involving Native tribes in or around Southern Wyoming in 1879. That's because there was so much information about the US Army's Sioux Campaign of 1876 that it tended to drown out everything else. This was the series of events that made The Battle of Little Bighorn and Custer's Last Stand into cliches that are still used today. So prominent is this event in history that I was slightly inclined to say that maybe old Ebenezer just got it wrong, or I heard wrong, and 1879 really meant 1876. But this was unacceptable to me. 1879 means 1879. So it's that, or it's just incorrect.
I note the temptation to fudge my interpretations wherever it occurs because it's an important part of the process. Observer bias is always with us.
Turns out that no such fudging was necessary to fit the year 1879 to some Indian troubles involving Laramie and the region. Previously unknown to me, the White River Ute Uprising, aka the White River War, fills the bill. Although the events occurred in Northern Colorado, the expeditionary force that initially engaged the Utes marched out of nearby Rawlins, Wyoming, and the relief force was composed of units from Laramie, Cheyenne, and Fort Laramie. So the 1879 Uprising is very much a part of local history, just as much as Little Bighorn.
I didn't get the particular impression that "Ebenezer Stuart" was or wasn't involved in the campaign as a soldier, but I decided to check the rosters anyway. My source is Hollow Victory: The White River Expedition of 1879 and the Battle of Milk Creek by Mark E. Miller, University Press of Colorado, 1997.
There among the relief force is listed one 2nd Lt. Eben Swift, Adjutant, in the 5th Cavalry out of Fort DA Russell in Cheyenne. Eben, of course, is short for Ebenezer. And psychics are notoriously fuzzy about last names. Is Stuart close enough to Swift to call it a near miss? I have no strong opinion on the matter. I'm inclined to say a miss is as good as a mile, but I'm willing to entertain the fantasy that Eben Swift of the 5th Cavalry spoke to me through a Flash Ouija board, if only to see where the idea leads.
Turns out that Eben Swift was the son of Army surgeon Ebenezer Swift, who attained the rank of Brigadier General. Eben himself attained the rank of Major General and is buried in Arlington National Cemetery. More about him another time. For now, I'll note that he was a military historian who authored several books. So it would make sense that he would "visit the spot where the trouble started," contemplate the causes and consequences, and tell people like me about it.
I notice that whether or not it is true, I like the idea that I have made contact with a person who was really part of local history. And in a sense, I have, even if only by sheer accident.
Now. Who is General M, who (according to "Ebenezer") "relented," resulting in an end to hostilities? That could be no other than Wesley Merritt, commander of the relief force out of Fort Russell, under whom Eben Swift served as Adjutant. There is no way I could have known this. It is possible I could have guessed that the leader was a General M. One chance out of 26, or fewer if I reflexively eliminated uncommon initials such as X and Z. Let's say I had roughly a 5% chance of guessing that one right.
Merritt was a Colonel at the time, but he eventually achieved the rank of General, and so he would be (and in fact is) referred to in retrospect as General Merritt.
Did General M in fact relent? Well, after a lightning march into Northwest Colorado that itself must make for an epic story, he defeated the Utes there and prosecuted hostilities no further. So although it is not exactly how I would put it, "GEN M RELENTED" is consistent with the facts. This is another thing I did not and could not know.
Is it true that "freedom stopped the killing?" This is certainly not the way I (or most contemporary observers) would put it. We would say that in the end, the Utes were forcibly relocated in yet another betrayal of the US government's promises. But an adjutant serving under Merritt himself might have had a different interpretation. Indeed, you'd expect him to put a nice, American spin on events. But "freedom?" I would never have thought that this interpretation was even plausible.
Imagine my surprise when the first editorial I found on the subject expressed the solution in precisely the language of individual rights:
This is from the March 27, 1880 issue of Harper's Weekly, on the subject of the Ute Treaty drawn up as of March 6 of that year. So it turns out that March of 1880 was indeed the correct date to look for published information verifying what Ebenezer said, and May was indeed too late, just as "Ebenezer" suggested.
I still have not located any newspaper called the Standard in which to check Ebenezer's facts, but March 1880 is a date that stands up, and May was indeed late. And Ebenezer's opinion, though outdated, is at least consistent with "respectable" views of his day.
Regarding the cause of the uprising, there is lots to say. Some of what I got in the session is consistent with fact. Some seems quite wrong. Some, I don't know yet. More about that another time.
Tops on my to-do list is to read local papers from late 1879 to see if what they said about the whole affair squares with Ebenezer's account of trade and travel drying up amidst a general atmosphere of fear.
Also, I would like to figure out some way to interpret his next-to-last remark, about metastable something-or-other.
What I seem to have got out of this experiment is some remarkably factual-seeming material mixed with errors.
The question is, are the errors fatal to the hypothesis that I received this material "psychically" from a source outside my own mind?
Or are the errors simply what you'd expect on a "noisy channel?"
In short, are the errors consistent with the psychic theory of the Ouija session, or do they tend strongly to invalidate it?
In either case, at least the session fired my imagination and got me to learn some local history, which is fun.
It is a Flash program that runs in the web browser. The way it works is, you move the pointer around with your mouse and click when it lands on the letter you feel is right. I found that the results varied according to my approach.
If I just clicked around impulsively, I got mostly gibberish.
If I started spelling out the narrative going through my head, I got something resembling my own stream-of-consciousness writing. I even switched to typing out my own internal dialogue for a while, instead of "receiving" it through the online Ouija board. This tended to produce "information" that seemed like the sort of thing I would make up.
If instead of clicking at random or actively trying to make sense, I put myself in a sort of passive or receptive state of mind and approached the board as if I was waiting for it to tell me what it "wanted" to spell out, both the process and the results got more interesting.
I had to try not to rush ahead of the pointer and start filling in the blanks consciously, or else I got exactly and only what I expected to get.
So here is the resulting transcript, and my notes on the research I did during and afterwards. The transcript reflects a mix of the approaches and attitudes described above. With more practice, I should be able to achieve a more passive, receptive state of mind.
I should say up front that I make no claim that the Ebenezer who introduces himself in this session is any deceased person or indeed anything other than a figment of my own active imagination. I present the transcript as is, with no warranty express or implied.
Online Ouija Session 2009-08-10 about 4:00 PM GMT -7
Laramie, Wyoming, USA
Hamlyn B., operator and querent
using Flash application at Witchboard.com
Q= question or querent, i.e., the board operator
A= answer or answerer, i.e., the board
hn= headnote
fn= footnote
Note: Occasionally I will add punctuation where it makes sense.
Begin Session.
01Q: Is anyone there?
01A: U VADOHT NO B TK A PONVH MY WIKJ IS NNO T PORCINE ENOVGH
02hn: The building where I am conducting this session is widely reputed to be haunted. It is literally built on a burial ground. This is why I asked about spirits associated with the building.
02Q: Any spirits associated with this building, please speak to me.
02A: I AM QUITE INTERESTED IN PIE
03Q: I too enjoy pie. What is your name?
03A: EBENEZER STUART
04Q: Hello, Ebenezer. What kind of pie do you like best?
04A: JEOQXLIE ON THE COUNTER HAHA
04fn: At first I thought this was saying "lie on the counter," which seemed odd, but in restrospect, it seems more as if Ebenezer likes whatever pie happens to be on the counter. That's the way I prefer to read it.
05Q: Haha. Do you have a message for my friends and me on the Worldwide Web?
05A: DEATH BECOMES THEM
06Q: You have quite a sense of humor, Ebenezer. What do you enjoy doing with your time these days?
06A: I VISIT THE SPOT WHERE THE TROUBLE WAS
07Q: I see. Please tell me more about the trouble.
07A: BACK IN 1879 THESE DAMNED INDIANS HAHA WELL I DONT BLAME THEM NOW
07fn: The tone seemed self-deprecating and ironic here, not at all as if really condemning the "damned Indians."
08hn: The answers were coming to mind faster than I could spell on the board. So I switched to simply typing them out as they came to mind.
08Q:What was the crux of your conflict with the Indians?
08A: OUR GOVERNMENT SET US AT CROSS PURPOSES. THEY COMMISSIONED CATTLE GRAZING. THE INDIANS LIVED BY HUNTING BISON. THE TWO COULD NOT COEXIST PEACEFULLY. IT WAS ALL LAND AND WATER USE.
08fn: This was exactly the sort of theory that I would have guessed off the top of my head. Writing this way felt more like I was just making things up than when I was using the online ouija pointer, which felt more like "receiving messages."
09Q: I see. That is very interesting. And this occurred in Laramie?
09A: LARAMIE WAS GRAVELY AFFECTED. TRADE ROUTES THROUGH HERE. AT TIMES THE CONFLICT CAUSED TRADE AND TRAVEL TO DRY UP. NOBODY FELT SAFE. IT WAS NECESSARY TO KILL ALL THE BUFFALO.
10Q: That is a shame.
10A: CAN'T STAND IN THE WAY OF PROGRESS SONNY.
11Q: Ebenezer, I am going to check some facts to see if I can place what you're telling me in a historical context.
11A: PROVE WHAT YOU HAVE TO PROVE.
12hn: I Googled around and found out about an event called the White River Ute Uprising of 1879, which I had not known about. At this point, I switched back to the online Ouija pointer, as the stream-of-consciousness writing did not feel quite right.
12Q: Ebenezer Stuart, are you there?
12A: YES.
13Q: I have done some research into the things you told me about.
13A: THIS I KNOW. I WATCHED YOU.
14Q: Some things you said were accurate, others not so much. Why is that?
14A: MY WEDDING GOT CANCELED
15Q: I'm sorry to hear that. But what does that have to do with the accuracy of your statements?
15A: SOMATA ARE TIDALLY INFLUENCED
15fn: I looked up "somata" and found that it is the plural of soma, and a soma is the bulbous end of a neuron, containing the cell nucleus and dendrites. I had not known this. I was aware that "tidal" refers to a secondary effect of gravitation.
16Q: Ebenezer, could you please expand upon the tidal influence on somata, and the effect this has on our communication?
16A: THE APPARATUS FUNCTIONS POORLY IN DAYTIME. THINKING IS DETRIMENTAL TO RECEPTIVITY.
17Q: Will you tell me some fact that I can verify or falsify in order to establish your existence as something greater than a figment of my imagination?
17A: FREEDOM STOPPED THE KILLING
18Q: How might I verify this?
18A: GEN M RELENTED. MAYLOOKSTANDARD 5 1880
18fn: It seemed to me as if "Standard" referred to a newspaper or other periodical title where I might find the information. As I wrote May and 5 as the month, I felt very alarmed, as if that was not quite right, and that it should be March. So I asked the following clarifying question.
19Q: Are you sure it is May? I'm getting May.
19A: CHECK MARCH. MAY SEEMS LATE
19fn: This felt very firm and correct to me. I had a very strong feeling that May was an error. Still I felt uncomfortable eliminating it. After all, if I left it open to both March AND May, the chances of finding something relevant were better. This little hedge on my bets proved unnecessary.
20Q: I will check the Standard of March and then May of 1880 for news of how General M relented, thus ending the Ute uprising. Thank you very much. Anything else before I go?
20A: METASTABLE COMMUNICATION ESTABLISHED FOR HIGH CONCEPTUAL REALIZATION OF TRANSIDEATIONAL PATHWAYS
21Q: Thank you, Ebenezer.
21A: I AM NEAR
End Session.
During the session, I did a little research. Afterwards, I did more.
It was hard at first to find information about any trouble involving Native tribes in or around Southern Wyoming in 1879. That's because there was so much information about the US Army's Sioux Campaign of 1876 that it tended to drown out everything else. This was the series of events that made The Battle of Little Bighorn and Custer's Last Stand into cliches that are still used today. So prominent is this event in history that I was slightly inclined to say that maybe old Ebenezer just got it wrong, or I heard wrong, and 1879 really meant 1876. But this was unacceptable to me. 1879 means 1879. So it's that, or it's just incorrect.
I note the temptation to fudge my interpretations wherever it occurs because it's an important part of the process. Observer bias is always with us.
Turns out that no such fudging was necessary to fit the year 1879 to some Indian troubles involving Laramie and the region. Previously unknown to me, the White River Ute Uprising, aka the White River War, fills the bill. Although the events occurred in Northern Colorado, the expeditionary force that initially engaged the Utes marched out of nearby Rawlins, Wyoming, and the relief force was composed of units from Laramie, Cheyenne, and Fort Laramie. So the 1879 Uprising is very much a part of local history, just as much as Little Bighorn.
I didn't get the particular impression that "Ebenezer Stuart" was or wasn't involved in the campaign as a soldier, but I decided to check the rosters anyway. My source is Hollow Victory: The White River Expedition of 1879 and the Battle of Milk Creek by Mark E. Miller, University Press of Colorado, 1997.
There among the relief force is listed one 2nd Lt. Eben Swift, Adjutant, in the 5th Cavalry out of Fort DA Russell in Cheyenne. Eben, of course, is short for Ebenezer. And psychics are notoriously fuzzy about last names. Is Stuart close enough to Swift to call it a near miss? I have no strong opinion on the matter. I'm inclined to say a miss is as good as a mile, but I'm willing to entertain the fantasy that Eben Swift of the 5th Cavalry spoke to me through a Flash Ouija board, if only to see where the idea leads.
Turns out that Eben Swift was the son of Army surgeon Ebenezer Swift, who attained the rank of Brigadier General. Eben himself attained the rank of Major General and is buried in Arlington National Cemetery. More about him another time. For now, I'll note that he was a military historian who authored several books. So it would make sense that he would "visit the spot where the trouble started," contemplate the causes and consequences, and tell people like me about it.
I notice that whether or not it is true, I like the idea that I have made contact with a person who was really part of local history. And in a sense, I have, even if only by sheer accident.
Now. Who is General M, who (according to "Ebenezer") "relented," resulting in an end to hostilities? That could be no other than Wesley Merritt, commander of the relief force out of Fort Russell, under whom Eben Swift served as Adjutant. There is no way I could have known this. It is possible I could have guessed that the leader was a General M. One chance out of 26, or fewer if I reflexively eliminated uncommon initials such as X and Z. Let's say I had roughly a 5% chance of guessing that one right.
Merritt was a Colonel at the time, but he eventually achieved the rank of General, and so he would be (and in fact is) referred to in retrospect as General Merritt.
Did General M in fact relent? Well, after a lightning march into Northwest Colorado that itself must make for an epic story, he defeated the Utes there and prosecuted hostilities no further. So although it is not exactly how I would put it, "GEN M RELENTED" is consistent with the facts. This is another thing I did not and could not know.
Is it true that "freedom stopped the killing?" This is certainly not the way I (or most contemporary observers) would put it. We would say that in the end, the Utes were forcibly relocated in yet another betrayal of the US government's promises. But an adjutant serving under Merritt himself might have had a different interpretation. Indeed, you'd expect him to put a nice, American spin on events. But "freedom?" I would never have thought that this interpretation was even plausible.
Imagine my surprise when the first editorial I found on the subject expressed the solution in precisely the language of individual rights:
...this treaty is the first step ever taken toward a true solution of the Indian problem. It discards the signal folly of regarding the Indians as semi-nations, and treats them as individuals... The distinction of the arrangement is that the government is to give an inalienable title for twenty-five years in fee-simple to each Indian for his land, which for the same term is not taxable. There is to be an annuity paid until the Indians become self-supporting. With this last exception, they become settlers like other people.
This is from the March 27, 1880 issue of Harper's Weekly, on the subject of the Ute Treaty drawn up as of March 6 of that year. So it turns out that March of 1880 was indeed the correct date to look for published information verifying what Ebenezer said, and May was indeed too late, just as "Ebenezer" suggested.
I still have not located any newspaper called the Standard in which to check Ebenezer's facts, but March 1880 is a date that stands up, and May was indeed late. And Ebenezer's opinion, though outdated, is at least consistent with "respectable" views of his day.
Regarding the cause of the uprising, there is lots to say. Some of what I got in the session is consistent with fact. Some seems quite wrong. Some, I don't know yet. More about that another time.
Tops on my to-do list is to read local papers from late 1879 to see if what they said about the whole affair squares with Ebenezer's account of trade and travel drying up amidst a general atmosphere of fear.
Also, I would like to figure out some way to interpret his next-to-last remark, about metastable something-or-other.
What I seem to have got out of this experiment is some remarkably factual-seeming material mixed with errors.
The question is, are the errors fatal to the hypothesis that I received this material "psychically" from a source outside my own mind?
Or are the errors simply what you'd expect on a "noisy channel?"
In short, are the errors consistent with the psychic theory of the Ouija session, or do they tend strongly to invalidate it?
In either case, at least the session fired my imagination and got me to learn some local history, which is fun.
