Two lightning bolts cross a truck after a driver asks for a sign
A caller who gives no name or location tells Art Bell that a couple of years earlier, they were driving on 163 toward the Blubble Canyon turnoff during a lightning storm. They challenged a “superior being” to show itself. They report that two bolts of lightning then crossed the front of the truck and struck the roadside about 400 yards ahead. The caller says they and their companion [name withheld] pulled over for about five minutes and then drove on to Mountain Pass. They say they no longer ask for things in a joking manner.
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 1:01:05). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller, who gives no name or location, says that [quote withheld] they were driving on 163, approaching the Blubble Canyon turnoff, just past where the old Christmas tree used to be and right after a fire there. They say it was lightning and that they and their companion [name withheld] were joking around in the truck. They say they said defiantly, [quote withheld] and that a couple of times lightning struck. Asked by Art Bell whether they meant God, they reply, [quote withheld] and add, [quote withheld] After a station break they continue. It was [quote withheld] and about that time two bolts of lightning [quote withheld] and hit the side of the road about 400 yards up from where they were traveling. They describe one bolt from one side of the car and one from the other. They say they pulled over and sat there about five minutes, then drove on up to Mountain Pass. Asked whether they had said it mentally or aloud, they say they said it aloud in the conversation, telling [name withheld], [quote withheld] After a couple of nearby strikes, they say, they asked for another sign to make sure they could be heard. Art Bell remarks that he is glad the caller did not ask for absolute proof. The caller says the event has become [quote withheld] for them and that they no longer ask for anything in a joking manner. After the call, Art Bell says he travels that road daily and calls it dark and dangerous. He notes crosses placed on the roadside and says he has never seen anything there.
Reported events, in order
- 0:07
The caller says that a couple of years ago they were driving on 163, approaching the Blubble Canyon turnoff, past where the old Christmas tree used to be, right after a fire there.
- 0:20
They say it was lightning, they were joking around while driving, and they defiantly said, [quote withheld]
- 0:30
They say lightning struck a couple of times, and they repeated the request.
- 0:37
Asked by Art Bell whether they meant God, they say they meant a superior being and add, “who knows.”
- 1:49
They say they said it out loud in the conversation, telling [name withheld] to show them God and make them a believer. After nearby strikes, they say, they asked for another sign.
- 1:10
They report that two bolts of lightning came right across the front of the truck and hit the side of the road about 400 yards up, one from each side of the car.
- 1:30
They say they pulled over and sat there about five minutes, then drove on up to Mountain Pass.
- 2:21
They say the event has become a thing in life for them and that they no longer ask for anything in a joking manner. The caller and [name withheld] occasionally talk about it and shake their heads.
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· 1:10
The caller reports that two bolts of lightning came across the front of the truck and hit the roadside about 400 yards ahead.
- observation· 1:45
The caller reports they spoke their challenge aloud in the conversation rather than silently.
- interpretation· 1:00
The caller describes their words as a challenge to a superior being to make them a believer.
- observation· 0:30
The caller reports that lightning had already struck a couple of times before the two bolts crossed the truck.
- observation· 1:30
The caller reports that they and their companion pulled over for about five minutes before driving on to Mountain Pass.
- interpretation· 2:31
The caller says the event changed how they speak, so that they no longer ask for anything in a joking manner.
- host statement· 2:41
Art Bell says he drives that road daily and describes it as dark and dangerous.
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.
This is a firsthand account from inside the vehicle, with concrete landmarks, a stated distance, and a named companion. It stays consistent across Art Bell’s questions. It loses points mainly because a thunderstorm was already under way, so an ordinary explanation fits easily, and the caller shows little caution beyond “who knows?”
Evidence for and against
- A firsthand witness was present throughout the reported event.
- Concrete detail: road, turnoff, tree landmark, recent fire, about 400 yards, five minutes, Mountain Pass.
- Their answers to the host’s questions (spoken aloud, told [name withheld]) fit the story without contradiction.
- Lightning was already occurring before the challenge, so an ordinary coincidence fits easily.
- No independent backing, and no detail was checked.
- The caller does not separate what they perceived from what they concluded.
- Place names are garbled in the transcript (“Blubble Canyon,” 163 versus the host’s 160).
- Whether the two bolts were truly simultaneous cannot be judged from a transcript.
- 0:20
- 1:10
- 0:07
What the model inferred (not said on air): Component estimate: source proximity 22, specificity 14, internal consistency 14, alternative explanations 4 (an ordinary thunderstorm explains it well), calibration 8. The score reflects the quality of the testimony, not the likelihood that anything supernatural occurred.
Only the caller’s word is available, plus a claimed second witness who never speaks on air and named places that were never checked. This sits in the 11 to 25 range (details that could be checked but were not; another witness claimed).
Evidence for and against
- A named companion, [name withheld], is claimed as a second witness in the truck.
- Specific roads, landmarks, and an approximate distance are given.
- No document, photograph, recording, or measurement is claimed.
- [name withheld] does not speak on air, and no second account is given.
- No outside check was done, and the transcript gives no way to verify the road, place, or weather.
- Place names are uncertain in the transcript, so even the specifics cannot reliably be checked.
- The caller gives no date beyond [quote withheld]
- 1:49
- 1:10
What the model inferred (not said on air): A claim that a witness exists is not backing from that witness, and no evidence was examined on air, so the score stays in the lower range.
The story brings more awe than dread. There is no figure, no threat, and no intrusion. But there is mild unease in the apparent direct response to a spoken challenge, and in the caller’s remark that they no longer ask for things jokingly.
Evidence for and against
- A spoken challenge is reported to be followed immediately by a striking display.
- The caller says they will not ask for such things again.
- No being is seen, nothing is touched, and no harm is reported.
- The ending is calm: they pull over, wait, and drive on.
- Art Bell’s later remarks about deaths and roadside crosses are outside the caller’s story and are not part of it.
- 2:11
- 1:30
What the model inferred (not said on air): The unsettling quality comes from the lightning seeming to answer a challenge, not from any described threat.
Asking for a sign and receiving one, with the lesson to be careful what you wish for, is a familiar pattern. But the reported detail of two bolts arriving across the truck from opposite sides is a distinctive image.
Evidence for and against
- One bolt from one side of the car and one from the other is an unusual, concrete description.
- The setting is a moving vehicle on a named road rather than a haunted building.
- [quote withheld] and [quote withheld] are stock ghost-story themes.
- No figure, no haunting of a place, and no repeated activity.
- The originality score is provisional because this pilot archive has few stories to compare with.
- 1:26
What the model inferred (not said on air): Scored as a familiar pattern with one distinctive visual detail, in the middle of the scoring range.
Scoring confidence 0.72 · analysis confidence 0.78 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand account on a live call; A named but silent claimed witness ([name withheld]); No documentation, photograph, recording, or measurement claimed. The originality score blends the model's score (52) 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.
- An active thunderstorm was already producing strikes, so more lightning near the vehicle could be a coincidence. · The caller says, “It was lightning” and that [quote withheld] before the two bolts.
- The two bolts may have been ordinary discharges that looked simultaneous from inside the truck. · The caller describes them as [quote withheld] which depends on where they were sitting.
What stands out
The story centers on a challenge spoken aloud in a moving vehicle and a reported pair of lightning bolts arriving at the same time from opposite sides of the truck. It is not about a figure, a place, or a dead person. It is told as a request that was answered, and no being is ever seen.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.