Letter: A tap on the shoulder after an uncle's death
A letter read on air, signed [quote withheld] describes the writer's favorite uncle, Uncle [name withheld], and the shoulder-tap prank the two used as a greeting. The uncle is said to have died in 1972. While the writer was talking with their father about the loss, the writer says they felt a firm tap on their right shoulder and found no one behind them on either side. They say they smiled and cried.
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 1994.mp3”, starting at 2:08:27). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
In a letter read on air by the host, the writer, signing as [quote withheld] says that one of their favorite uncles was their Uncle [name withheld], one of their father's brothers, and that the two of them enjoyed each other's company. The writer says Uncle [name withheld] loved to tell his war stories and was the only family member who never tired of them. The writer says the two always greeted each other with a prank. One would sneak up behind the other and give a firm tap on the shoulder while standing behind the opposite shoulder. The other would look to the side the tap came from and find no one there, then look the other way and find the prankster. The writer says they played this [quote withheld] The writer says Uncle [name withheld] died in 1972 of a rare blood condition, and that they “lost a friend.” While talking to their father face-to-face about their recent loss, the writer says they felt a definite, firm tap on their right shoulder. The writer says they turned expecting to see their mother, who was not there, then turned to their left and she was not there either. The writer says they smiled and cried, and ends the letter “Thanks, Art.” The host then attributes it to [quote withheld] No further detail is given, and no other person is said to have felt the tap.
Reported events, in order
- 0:00
The writer introduces Uncle [name withheld], one of their father's brothers, as a favorite uncle whose war stories the writer never tired of.
- 0:14
The writer describes their greeting ritual: sneaking up behind the other and giving a firm tap on the opposite shoulder, so the tapped person looks the wrong way first.
- 0:31
The writer says they played this on each other [quote withheld]
- 0:39
The writer reports that Uncle [name withheld] died in 1972 of a rare blood condition.
- 0:44
The writer says they “lost a friend.”
- 0:46
While talking to their father face-to-face about their recent loss, the writer says they felt a definite, firm tap on their right shoulder.
- 0:56
The writer says they turned expecting their mother, who was not there, and then turned left and she was not there either.
- 1:02
The writer says they smiled and cried.
- 1:06
The letter signs off [quote withheld]
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· 0:51
The writer says they felt a firm tap on their right shoulder while speaking with their father.
- observation· 0:56
The writer says they turned expecting their mother and found no one, and the same on their left side.
- interpretation· 0:14
The letter suggests the tap is connected to the recently deceased Uncle [name withheld], because it matches the greeting prank they shared. The writer never says this outright.
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 but consistent first-person story with a named relative, a stated year and cause of death, and a specific report of a sensation. No one else backs it up, it gives no place or time for the event, and it does not address ordinary explanations. Any supernatural reading is left unstated.
Evidence for and against
- A firsthand report of the sensation: [quote withheld]
- A named relative, a stated year and cause of death, and a described earlier ritual add some detail.
- The sequence holds together: conversation with their father, the tap, two looks, no one there.
- No place, time of day, or other witness is given for the event itself.
- Common explanations (a muscle twitch, a draft, someone in the house, the coincidence of discussing the death at that moment) are neither raised nor ruled out.
- The link to the uncle is implied by context only. The writer never states it.
- All letter content carries the host's label in the automatic transcript, so the line between the writer's words and the host's reading or comments is uncertain.
- No time of day, room, or town is given for the tap.
- 0:39
- 0:51
- 0:14
What the model inferred (not said on air): The component judgments are the editor's own; the quotations are from the broadcast.
The story rests entirely on the letter writer's word. A first name, a year, and a county are given, which could in theory be checked, but nothing was examined or backed up by someone else, and no second witness speaks on air.
Evidence for and against
- A named person and a stated year and cause of death are given.
- A location, St. Louis County, is given in the letter's sign-off.
- No photograph, recording, document, or physical trace is claimed or examined.
- No witness on air confirms the event. The father's experience is not reported.
- It is unclear whether Uncle [name withheld] and the 1972 death could be checked at all from the letter alone.
- All letter lines are labeled as the host, so the letter's wording is not independently verified in the transcript.
- 0:39
- 0:51
What the model inferred (not said on air): The story is essentially one person's word, with only weak identifying details attached.
The story is framed as a comforting farewell rather than a frightening encounter: a single unseen touch, no threat, and an ending the writer describes as smiling and crying. Finding no one where a person was expected adds only mild unease.
Evidence for and against
- No threat, harm, escalation, or malevolent element is reported.
- The writer describes the moment with warmth ([quote withheld] [quote withheld]).
- An unseen hand touching the body, and turning to find no one, is mildly unsettling in itself.
- How the writer meant the ending (comfort or unease) is not stated beyond [quote withheld]
- 0:56
- 1:02
What the model inferred (not said on air): The editor's reading of the story's effect. The scoring guide asks about the effect on a listener, not about truth.
The core idea, a felt touch from a recently dead relative, is familiar. But it is tied to a very specific private ritual (the opposite-shoulder tap prank), which gives the story a distinctive mark.
Evidence for and against
- The reported sign is the writer's own in-joke greeting, described in detail (“sneaking up,” “opposite shoulder”).
- The gesture is said to have been played [quote withheld] making it personal rather than generic.
- No strange event is described beyond a felt tap: no figure, no sound, nothing seen.
- A felt touch from a dead relative is a recurring ghost-story element.
- Not yet compared with the rest of the archive; this is a provisional judgment based on content.
- It is unclear whether the greeting-game framing is the writer's own or the host's reading.
- 0:20
- 0:51
What the model inferred (not said on air): The editor's judgment is that the personal prank as a sign lifts this above a stock [quote withheld] story.
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.75 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The letter writer's firsthand story, read aloud on air (no document examined); No physical evidence claimed; no second witness speaks. 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.
- A feeling in the shoulder (a muscle twitch, a spasm, or light contact from clothing or furniture) produced the sense of a tap, with nothing outside the body causing it. · The letter reports only a bodily sensation with no visible source: [quote withheld] The writer found no one on either side.
- Another person in the house, perhaps the father the writer was speaking with or the mother they expected, touched them without their noticing at the time. · The writer says they were in face-to-face conversation with their father and that they turned expecting to see their mother, which suggests other people were nearby.
- The sensation came while the writer was discussing the death and was matched to the dead uncle's habitual gesture. That would be an association in the writer's mind rather than an outside event. · The tap is reported right after [quote withheld] and is described using the same gesture the writer had just recounted.
What stands out
The reported sign is not a generic knock or ghost but the writer's own private prank, a firm tap on the opposite shoulder, which was the exact greeting the writer and their uncle used. It is a single event of touch with nothing seen, and the letter leaves any link to the supernatural unstated.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.