Caller describes a shrine room at home where a presence is felt
A first-time caller, introduced by the host as “Paolo in Canada” (later called “Pavel”), says people who come into their home usually get an eerie feeling from their murals. They say one room in their house is a shrine “to you-know-who,” and the host supplies “Hitler.” They say the presence and power felt on entering are strong. The caller breaks off mid-sentence. The host thanks the caller and tells the audience that Pavel is in the Edmonton area of Canada and that they are “a Nazi.” The caller states no cause and produces no evidence.
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 1993.mp3”, starting at 1:12:19). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The host takes a first-time caller from the [quote withheld] The host asks where the caller is calling from and gets “Paolo in Canada” (the host later calls the caller Pavel). The host asks whether the caller has something relating to the previous caller’s story of being compelled to leave a place. The caller says they do. According to the transcript, the caller then says that [quote withheld] The caller adds that there is one room in their house that is [quote withheld] and the host supplies the name “Hitler.” The caller says that on walking into that room [quote withheld] and [quote withheld] The story breaks off there. The host thanks the caller and closes the call. He then tells the audience that Pavel is in Canada, in the Edmonton area, that [quote withheld] and that he can imagine the shrine giving the very feeling the earlier caller had described. The caller states no cause for the reported feeling, gives no specific occasion or date, and offers no evidence, and none is examined. Many of the caller’s words are carried by lines labeled as the host’s or with uncertain labels for who is speaking, and several words appear to be mistranscribed.
Reported events, in order
- 0:00
The host takes a first-time caller, asks where the caller is calling from, and gets “Paolo in Canada.” The host asks whether the caller has something relating to the previous call.
- 0:18
The caller says that people who enter their home normally get an eerie feeling when they see their murals.
- 0:34
The caller says one room in their house is a shrine “to you-know-who,” and the host supplies the name “Hitler.”
- 0:41
The caller says that on walking into that room the presence is very strong and the power is felt.
- 0:55
The call breaks off. The host thanks “Pavel,” closes the call, and describes the caller to the audience (Canada, Edmonton area, “a Nazi,” their shrine).
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· 0:18
The caller says that people who enter their home normally get an eerie feeling when they see their murals.
- observation· 0:26
The caller links the eerie feeling to the murals in their home.
- observation· 0:34
The caller says one room in their house is a shrine “to you-know-who,” and the host supplies the name Hitler.
- observation· 0:41
The caller says that on walking into that room the presence and the power felt there are strong.
- host statement· 1:03
The host tells the audience that the caller is a Nazi and that they have a shrine.
- host statement· 0:58
The host states that the caller is in Canada, in the Edmonton area.
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.
A brief, partly attributable firsthand account with almost nothing that can be checked, an ending that is cut off, and an easy explanation in expectation and suggestion. The components add up to 43 (source proximity 15, specificity 6, internal consistency 12, alternative explanations 4, calibration 6). I then capped the score at 40 because the fragment is too short to assess.
Evidence for and against
- The caller speaks about their own home and a specific room they can describe.
- A named room and named contents (murals, shrine) are given.
- No sensory or physical detail beyond “an eerie feeling” and “the power.”
- The strongest impression is attributed to unnamed visitors in general rather than described from a specific occasion.
- The story is too short and cut off to judge its coherence fully.
- Several lines that appear to be the caller’s are labeled as the host’s in the transcript.
- The story stops mid-sentence. The caller’s own explanation is never given.
- 0:18
- 0:41
What the model inferred (not said on air): The component weights and the cap for shortness are my application of the scoring guide. The only transcript content is the quoted lines.
Essentially only the caller’s word, with a name and broad location supplied by the host but nothing that can be checked and nothing presented for examination.
Evidence for and against
- A caller name (“Paolo” or “Pavel”) and an area (“Edmonton area”) are given by the host.
- The caller describes a specific room in their own home.
- No documentation, photograph, recording, or physical trace is claimed.
- No witness speaks on air. The visitors who feel the eerie feeling are unnamed.
- Nothing in the story was checked, and no outside check was done.
- The name is given two ways (“Paolo,” “Pavel”) and may be a transcription error.
- It is unclear whether the caller’s claim rests on any occasion they experienced themself.
- 0:58
- 0:18
What the model inferred (not said on air): Putting this in the 0 to 10 range is my judgment. The transcript content is the caller’s brief description and the host’s remarks.
Mildly eerie rather than frightening: an unpleasant implied mood tied to a shrine room, with no reported intrusion, threat, or harm.
Evidence for and against
- A room described as a shrine to Hitler is a strong, unsettling image.
- The caller reports a presence and “power” felt on entering.
- Visitors are said to get “an eerie feeling.”
- No threat, harm, or physical contact is reported.
- No vivid description of the room or the feeling.
- The host handles the exchange briskly, and it ends without escalation.
- The nature of the “presence” is never described (seen, emotional, a change in temperature, and so on).
- 0:24
- 0:34
What the model inferred (not said on air): Creepiness is my judgment of how the story lands with listeners. The transcript supplies only the shrine, the murals, and the reported feeling.
A familiar “unsettling room” pattern carrying one distinctive, unusual detail (a shrine to Hitler with murals). This is a provisional model score, and the comparison with the rest of the archive carries little weight in the pilot.
Evidence for and against
- The room is described as a shrine to Hitler, an unusual setting for a story of a felt presence.
- Murals throughout the home are given as the reason visitors feel uneasy.
- The core element, a room where people feel a presence or unease, is a very common motif.
- No unusual event, sequence, or outcome is described.
- Only a fragment of the caller’s intended story was captured.
- 0:26
- 0:41
What the model inferred (not said on air): Originality is my judgment of the content against common motifs, not something the transcript states.
Scoring confidence 0.28 · analysis confidence 0.32 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s brief firsthand account of their own home (partly carried by lines labeled as the host’s); The host’s on-air statements describing the caller (name, country, region, calling them a Nazi); No documents, photographs, or physical evidence claimed or examined; No second witness speaks on air. The originality score blends the model's score (55) 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.
- Expectation, suggestion, and the room’s decor. · The caller themself ties the feeling to the room’s contents ([quote withheld]). Knowing what the room contains, and the mood created by murals and shrine objects, could produce a reported feeling of unease or “presence” in visitors.
- A general personal impression with nothing sensed through the senses. · No details of temperature, sound, smell, or air movement are given. The report is a general feeling with no physical description, which fits a personal impression rather than an outside event.
What stands out
The caller ties a felt presence not to a ghost or the dead but to a private room they describe as a shrine to Hitler. The caller gives murals elsewhere in the home as the reason visitors feel uneasy. The caller gives no cause, and the call is cut off before they say more.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.