A voice calling the caller's name on a night shift at a Lake Stevens plant
A caller tells Art Bell a brief story about working a night shift at a plant in Lake Stevens. The caller wore earplugs because of the noise, and heard someone call their name. The caller says the only other worker was outside on a forklift. The two met at the doorway, each asking what the other wanted, and no one else was around. The caller says the coworker told them the plant had done this ever since it was built, and that no one could figure it out.
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 1995.mp3”, starting at 1:56:26). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller introduces the story as “another quick one.” The caller says they worked in a plant in [quote withheld] which they describe as being on the other side of the mountains from where they and the host are. They say it was a “Prestalock plant,” that it was very noisy, and that workers wore earplugs. They say that one night while working they suddenly heard somebody call their name (transcribed as “call my voice”). Only two people worked in the plant, so they assumed it was the other worker. But they say that man was outside on a forklift. The caller says they went outside. As they were going out, the other man was coming in and asked them [quote withheld] There was nobody around. According to the caller, the other worker said the plant had been doing that ever since it had been built: one person hears someone call their name, the other person comes in, and each looks for the other. The caller says nobody could figure it out. Art Bell closes the call by thanking the caller and saying it is exactly the kind of thing they are talking about. No date or time period is given, and no name for the caller, the plant, or the coworker is stated with certainty.
Reported events, in order
- 0:00
The caller says they worked a night shift in a plant in Lake Stevens, across the mountains from where they and the host are.
- 0:11
The caller describes the plant as very noisy, so workers wore earplugs.
- 0:18
The caller says they suddenly heard somebody call their name while working.
- 0:21
The caller reasons it must be the other worker, since only two people worked in the plant, but says that man was outside on a forklift.
- 0:26
Going outside, the caller meets the other man coming in, who asks what they wanted. The caller says there was nobody around.
- 0:34
According to the caller, the other worker said the plant had done this ever since it was built.
- 0:39
The caller describes the pattern: one person hears their name called, the other comes in and looks for the first, and nobody could figure it out.
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 while working they suddenly heard somebody call their name.
- observation· 0:31
The caller says there was nobody around when the caller and the other worker met at the doorway.
- hearsay· 0:36
The caller says the other worker told them the plant had done this ever since it was built.
- hearsay· 0:39
The caller passes on the other worker's description of a pattern that repeats, in which one person hears their name and the other comes looking.
- interpretation· 0:44
The caller says nobody could work out a cause for the strange events.
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 short but consistent firsthand story with a few concrete specifics (the town, a noisy plant, earplugs, a forklift, two workers), no self-contradiction, and no growing of the claim. It stays below the range for detailed stories because it is brief, gives no dates, and has an easy ordinary reading: a voice in a loud plant.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand telling of the experience: [quote withheld]
- Concrete details of the setting: a plant in Lake Stevens, night shift, earplugs, and the other worker on a forklift outside.
- A consistent sequence: the caller hears their name, assumes it was the coworker, meets the coworker at the doorway, and no one else is present.
- The caller does not build up the claim. The caller says only that nobody could figure it out.
- No date, full name, or record that can be checked. The plant name is uncertain in the transcript.
- An ordinary reading is easy: a noisy plant and earplugs, where machinery or the building's acoustics could be misheard as a voice.
- The story rests on one remembered incident plus the coworker's reported statement, and the caller offers no explanation.
- The plant name transcribed as “Prestalock” may be wrong.
- The line [quote withheld] is labeled HOST? and may belong to the caller.
- No time period is given for when the night shift took place.
- 0:11
- 0:18
- 0:31
What the model inferred (not said on air): The component judgment (closeness to the source high, specificity and resistance to other explanations moderate, calibration good) is an assessment of the transcript. The brevity and the lack of anything checkable are what hold the score in the low 60s rather than the 70s.
The story is the caller's word plus a reported second witness who does not speak on air. A place name (Lake Stevens) and a workplace name are given that look checkable, but they were not checked. No documentation or physical evidence is claimed.
Evidence for and against
- A place is named that could in principle be checked: [quote withheld]
- A workplace is named, though not with certainty: [quote withheld]
- A second witness is claimed: the other worker, who is said to report the same pattern.
- The claimed second witness never speaks on air. The caller relays his words.
- No photograph, recording, log, date, or document is mentioned.
- No outside check was made and no outside information is used.
- Whether the coworker actually had the same experience himself or only described a pattern.
- Whether the workplace name is transcribed correctly.
- 0:21
- 0:39
What the model inferred (not said on air): The 11 to 25 range fits because specifics that could be checked (a town, a plant) and a claimed second witness are present, but nothing was verified. The score sits at the low end because the claimed witness is not on air and the specifics are few.
Hearing your own name called in a noisy, otherwise empty workplace at night is mildly unsettling. But there is no threat, figure, or physical contact, and the story ends unresolved rather than growing worse.
Evidence for and against
- A voice calling the caller's name in an industrial plant at night.
- Nobody is found when the caller goes to look, and there are only two workers.
- The pattern is said to have gone on since the plant was built, with no explanation.
- No figure or presence is described, only a voice.
- No harm, threat, pursuit, or ill will is reported.
- The caller's telling is casual, and the host closes the call with a brief thank-you.
- The caller does not say whether the voice was loud, soft, familiar, or unfamiliar.
- The story is very short and gives little atmosphere.
- 0:18
- 0:44
What the model inferred (not said on air): The creepiness rating reflects the content only (name-calling in an isolated night workplace, no resolution). The caller's tone and delivery were not used.
The core motif, hearing your name called with no one there, is a stock ghost-story element. But the two-way pattern (each worker hears their own name and then goes looking for the other) and the industrial night-shift setting give it a modestly distinctive frame.
Evidence for and against
- The two-way structure the coworker describes: [quote withheld]
- An unusual setting detail: an earplug-wearing night shift in a noisy plant.
- A name called with no source is a common motif in this kind of story.
- The story is brief and contains nothing else strange.
- The published originality score is provisional and, with few stories in the archive so far, rests mainly on the estimate from the content.
- It is unclear whether the coworker described a general pattern or a single earlier incident.
- 0:39
- 0:18
What the model inferred (not said on air): The estimate around the mid-40s is a judgment of how familiar the story is against how distinctive. Comparison with the rest of the archive cannot meaningfully be judged from a single short transcript.
Scoring confidence 0.55 · analysis confidence 0.60 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller's own firsthand word (a live call of about 50 seconds); A secondhand report of a coworker's statement about the plant's history, relayed by the caller. The coworker does not speak on air.; No documents, recordings, photographs, or other physical evidence claimed. The originality score blends the model's score (42) 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.
- Plant machinery, ventilation, or other industrial noise mistaken for a human voice, made more likely by earplugs muffling and distorting sound. · The caller says the plant [quote withheld]
- A voice or call carried through the plant by a public-address system, an intercom, or the building's acoustics, leading each worker to assume the other had called. · In the pattern the caller describes, each worker hears a name and then meets the other at the doorway. That fits sound carrying between inside and outside areas.
What stands out
The distinguishing detail is that it goes both ways. Rather than a single unexplained voice, the caller reports a two-person pattern in which each worker hears their own name and goes looking for the other, said to have continued since the plant was built.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.