Two reported sightings of a small boy in a boarded-up farmhouse south of Denver
A first-time caller from Denver, Colorado, tells Art Bell that in 1984 they and a woman they call [name withheld] went to a boarded-up farmhouse south of Denver to salvage light fixtures. Each of them separately reported seeing a small boy of about four or five inside. They searched the ground floor and stairway, found no one, and left. The caller says that afterward, in a newer house on the same farm, they saw an old photograph of a boy and two girls. Art Bell cut the call off before the caller could finish.
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 1:47:56). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller, who gives their location as Denver, Colorado (“calling from Denver”), tells Art Bell they were raised Christian and were taught not to believe in such things, adding that they were [quote withheld] The caller says that in 1984 they were dating a woman they call [name withheld], who had the chance to collect leaded glass, light fixtures, and chandeliers from an old farmhouse south of the Denver area, and they agreed to go with her. The caller says the farmhouse’s windows and doors were boarded over with two-by-fours, that it was probably about zero degrees and the first part of November, and that they went to the front door while she stayed in the car before they both went inside. Looking into the kitchen, they say, they thought they saw a little boy about four or five years old. The figure “came and went,” and they thought they might be imagining it. About five minutes later they told [name withheld], who said they were dreaming. In an adjoining room, as they were about to get up on a step stool to the chandelier, they say [name withheld] screamed and ran in saying there was a little boy there. The caller told her they had seen something too. They searched the ground floor. The caller suggested being quiet in case they could hear the boy running, and worried the child would freeze. The caller says they stood by the stairway to the second floor so nobody could have passed them. They concluded at the time that maybe they both saw something, or that a cupboard door or something had caused a shadow. The caller took the fixture and removed glazing from cabinet doors. Outside, they spoke with a friend who worked for the power company, who had seen their vehicle and asked whether [name withheld] was their wife. The caller says they then went to the newer house on the farm, built about the 60s, to thank the family, and met the matriarch, “Grandma [name withheld].” In her small bedroom, the caller says, they saw a picture of the boy and two girls. Art Bell then ended the call.
Reported events, in order
- 0:13
The caller says they are calling from Denver, Colorado.
- 0:39
The caller says that, raised as a Christian, they were taught not to believe in such things and were [quote withheld]
- 0:54
The caller says that in 1984 they were dating a woman they call [name withheld], who had the chance to pick up leaded glass, light fixtures, and chandeliers from an old farmhouse south of Denver.
- 1:21
The caller says they went to the old farmhouse, whose windows and doors were boarded over with two-by-fours.
- 1:34
The caller says it was probably about zero degrees and the first part of November.
- 1:53
The caller says they looked into the kitchen and thought they saw a little boy about four or five years old.
- 2:09
The caller says the figure came and went and that they thought they might be imagining it.
- 2:18
Five minutes later the caller told [name withheld] they thought they had seen a little boy, and she told them they were dreaming.
- 2:35
As the caller was about to climb a step stool to the chandelier in an adjoining room, [name withheld] screamed and ran in saying there was a little boy there.
- 2:53
The caller told her they thought they had seen something too. They searched the ground floor.
- 3:01
The caller suggested they keep quiet to hear the boy running, saying he would freeze in those temperatures.
- 3:17
They searched the house and the stairway. The caller says they stood by the stairway to the second floor so no one could have walked past them.
- 3:29
They concluded they might both have seen something, or that a cupboard door or similar object had caused a shadow. They did not think much about it at the time.
- 3:49
The caller says they took the fixture down and removed glazing from cabinet doors with beveled glass.
- 3:58
Outside, a friend who works for the power company, who had seen their vehicle, asked whether [name withheld] was their wife.
- 4:25
The caller says they went to the newer house on the farm, built about the 60s, to thank the family.
- 4:35
The caller says they met the matriarch of the family, whom they call Grandma [name withheld].
- 4:49
[name withheld] went into the grandmother’s small bedroom.
- 4:59
The caller says they saw a little picture of the boy and two girls. Art Bell then ends the call.
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· 1:53
The caller says that as they looked into the kitchen of the boarded-up farmhouse they believed they saw a small boy of about four or five years of age.
- observation· 2:09
The caller says the figure appeared only for a moment and then was gone.
- observation· 2:11
The caller says that at the time they thought they might have been imagining the boy.
- hearsay· 2:41
The caller reports that [name withheld] ran into the chandelier room after screaming and said there was a little boy in the house.
- observation· 3:17
The caller says they searched the house and the stairway and that, standing by the stairway to the second floor, they know no one could have walked past them.
- interpretation· 3:37
The caller says they and [name withheld] concluded at that time that they may both have seen something, or that a cupboard door or similar object cast a shadow.
- observation· 4:59
The caller says that in Grandma [name withheld]’s small bedroom they saw an old picture of the boy and two girls.
- interpretation· 4:59
The caller’s cut-off story implies the boy in the picture matched the figure they had seen in the farmhouse, but the caller is cut off before saying so.
- host statement· 5:22
Art Bell asserts, after the call, that the dead sometimes remain in a place for a troubling reason.
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 specific, step-by-step firsthand account, told in answer to the host, with the caller pointing out their own uncertainty. It is not backed up by anyone else, it is cut short, and the caller notes an ordinary explanation. It scores in the upper-middle range for the quality of the testimony, well below the anchor for checked, backed-up detail.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand account by a caller who says they were present and searching the building ([quote withheld]).
- Concrete setting and time: [quote withheld] “back in 1984,” [quote withheld]
- The caller separates what they perceived from what they inferred ([quote withheld]; [quote withheld]).
- The story runs in order and is consistent. The search for a physical child is described as thorough.
- No second witness speaks on air. [name withheld]’s sighting is relayed only through the caller.
- The caller offers an ordinary reading of the events ([quote withheld]).
- The caller described the boy to [name withheld] before she reported her own sighting, which is a way for suggestion to pass between witnesses.
- The host cuts off the story before the photograph is described or explained.
- The labels showing who is speaking shift within the story, and some lines labeled as the host’s plainly carry the caller’s words.
- The story ends mid-sentence, so any further detail or the caller’s own conclusion about the photograph is unavailable.
- 1:53
- 3:17
- 2:11
What the model inferred (not said on air): The split among components is my judgment: source proximity 22/25 (direct witness), specificity 14/20, internal consistency 15/20, alternative explanations 7/20 (an easy ordinary reading fits and is only partly addressed), calibration 10/15, for a total of 68.
The call offers names, a year, a place, and a claimed second witness and photograph, but nothing is checked, and the photograph is an ordinary object rather than strange evidence. This places the story in the [quote withheld] range. The cap of 50 for transcript-only evidence applies.
Evidence for and against
- Details that could be checked are given but not checked: Denver, 1984, “[name withheld],” “Grandma [name withheld],” [quote withheld]
- A second witness is claimed: [quote withheld]
- An old photograph of a boy and two girls is claimed to exist.
- No documentation is produced or examined on air.
- The claimed second witness does not speak on air.
- The photograph is described only in passing, and the call is cut off.
- The caller never states that the boy in the photograph is the figure they saw. The call is cut off.
- 0:13
- 4:59
What the model inferred (not said on air): I treat the photo as an unexamined, ordinary family photograph rather than physical evidence of the strange event, hence the lower end of the range.
The child figure in an abandoned, freezing farmhouse and the unresolved search give the story a quiet, unsettling feel, but there is no menace, contact, or escalation. Mid-range rather than frightening.
Evidence for and against
- A child figure is reported inside a sealed, unheated house ([quote withheld]).
- The caller raises the child’s physical danger ([quote withheld]).
- A sudden scream from the second witness ([quote withheld]).
- An unsettled ending: the search finds no one, and the later photograph is never explained.
- No threat, harm, or malevolence is reported.
- The home setting and the errand (salvaging fixtures) are ordinary.
- The caller offers a reading as a shadow or cupboard door and says they did not think much about it at the time.
- Whether the child in the photograph is meant to be dead is never stated in the part of the call that survives.
- 3:07
- 2:41
What the model inferred (not said on air): A judgment about the story as heard, not about whether the events are true.
A familiar pattern (child ghost, old house, recognizing someone in a photograph) with a distinctive practical detail: the search was driven by concern for a living child’s safety. The model score is about 50. The comparison with the rest of the archive is provisional because the archive has few stories.
Evidence for and against
- The unusual sealed and unheated setting matters to the story. The caller’s stated concern is that a living child would freeze ([quote withheld]).
- The second witness first dismissed the first sighting, then reported her own ([quote withheld]; [quote withheld]).
- The story is set in an ordinary salvage errand on a working farm, with a later visit to the current occupants.
- A child ghost in an old building is a stock ghost-story element.
- The [quote withheld] device is a familiar pattern.
- How new this story is compared with the rest of the archive cannot be estimated from this single call.
- 3:07
- 2:11
What the model inferred (not said on air): The model’s originality score is my judgment of the content. The published value compared with the rest of the archive is worked out by the site and is provisional.
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.70 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: Firsthand spoken account of one witness (the caller); A second witness ([name withheld]) is claimed but does not speak on air; An old photograph of a boy and two girls is claimed to exist in the newer farmhouse but is neither produced nor examined. The caller is cut off before describing it further. The originality score blends the model's score (50) 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.
- Suggestion or expectation between two witnesses. · The caller told [name withheld] about the boy before she reported her own sighting ([quote withheld]), so her later report could reflect expectation or suggestion rather than an independent sighting.
- A shadow, cupboard door, or other ordinary sight read as a figure. · The caller raised this possibility ([quote withheld]) in a dim, boarded-up house lit only through gaps in the boarding.
- A living child briefly present in the building. · The caller’s stated worry was that a real child was trapped in the cold house ([quote withheld]). A living child in or passing through the building would account for both glimpses, though the caller says the search and their position at the stairway found no one.
What stands out
The caller describes the search as driven by worry for the child’s physical safety in a freezing, boarded-up house rather than by fear. The second witness first dismissed the caller’s sighting before reporting her own. The ending, an old photograph of a boy and two girls, is left unfinished.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.