Yesterday, I decided to play with the one at Witchboard.com, and I found the process to be interesting.
On that one, you have to click the letters yourself to spell out your own messages.
If I just clicked around impulsively, I got mostly gibberish.
If I started spelling out the narrative going through my head, of course I got something that resembles 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.
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.
It led to my looking up some things about local and regional history that I had not known, and it wound up that the information that I had "received" (or made up, as the case may be) made some historical sense, although errors and vagaries were present.
At the least, it seems like a tool with which a person can lead his own mind in unexpected directions. I doubt I ever would have researched the episode alluded to in the session, and the persons associated with it, if I had not been prompted to do so in this fanciful way. The events, though important, are completely overshadowed by a much more famous episode that occurred around the same time. So the one I wound up researching is relatively obscure today, in most people's minds.
I can see how useful this random or serendipitous discovery of previously unknown subjects might be useful for a writer, for example. Plus it is just fun.
At the most, it means I was "receiving" information from some unseen source outside my own mind, and the "channel" over which such communication occurs is subject to "noise" or interference, and perhaps the source itself has imperfect information, resulting in errors and vagaries. It seems as if the amount of "noise" (and therefore error) would vary according to my method and mindset.
Also, interpretations of historic events that might appear to be errors according to the current view might have seemed perfectly reasonable to historical persons. We should keep that in mind when entertaining the proposition that we might be communicating with them.
I seriously doubt that I really was. It is just one hypothesis. If it is true, then my results should get more accurate as I get better at achieving the correct receptive mindset. If my accuracy gets worse or stays the same, I think it strongly indicates that free association and other pseudo-random processes are at work and nothing more.
In either case, it's interesting.
I'll blog the transcript and my subsequent research on it, if anyone is interested.
im actually DOWNLOADING the shockwave player just to try this one LMAO omg....