Coast Guard member reports glowing three-masted ships in the Gulf of Mexico
A caller from Jacksonville, Florida, tells Art Bell they served as an ASM in the US Coast Guard, stationed in the Gulf of Mexico out of Houston. The caller says that in 1980–1983 they and others several times saw what they called “ghost ships,” glowing three-masted, schooner-type vessels that did not show on radar and then vanished, generally around the time of a harvest moon. The caller says they were sent for a psychological evaluation twice and were given official explanations that they do not adopt themselves: an electrical effect of gravity, and a fluorescent effect of the ocean. The call ends with the host saying he believes the caller and moving to the next caller.
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 2:28:01). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller gives their location as Jacksonville, Florida. They tell the host they had been enjoying the ghost stories, and mention a previous guest's story about an icebreaker. They say they were an ASM stationed in the Gulf of Mexico out of Houston. They ask whether to give [quote withheld] The caller dates the events to “1980, 1983” and says the crew had several experiences of seeing what they termed ghost ships. The caller describes glowing, three-masted, schooner-type vessels, possibly of a pirate or Continental Navy type, that never showed up on radar. The crew would hear about them from small boats, “41 footers.” The ships “would be gone” after being seen. This generally happened around the time of a harvest moon. Asked what the Coast Guard said, the caller replies that they were sent for a psychological evaluation twice. The first time was at “NASA Bay,” where Air Force and government people told them it was an electrical effect caused by different types of gravity. The second time they were told it was [quote withheld] The caller says there was a cold [quote withheld] and that it was “just that real.” The host says he believes the caller and ends the call.
Reported events, in order
- 0:07
The host takes a call from a listener east of the Rockies. The caller says they are calling from Jacksonville, Florida.
- 0:31
The caller says they were an ASM stationed in the Gulf of Mexico out of Houston.
- 0:41
The caller asks whether to give the Coast Guard's official version or the crew's version of what they saw.
- 0:52
The caller dates the events to 1980–1983 and says the crew had several experiences of seeing what they termed “ghost ships.”
- 1:04
The caller describes glowing, three-masted, schooner-type ships, possibly pirate or Continental Navy types, that never appeared on radar. The caller says they heard about them from small boats, 41-footers.
- 1:29
The caller says the ship would then be gone.
- 1:32
The caller says this generally happened around the time of a harvest moon.
- 2:01
The caller says they were sent for a psychological evaluation twice.
- 2:09
The caller says the first evaluation, at “NASA Bay” with Air Force and government people, produced the explanation of an electrical effect caused by gravity.
- 2:28
The caller says the second time they were told it was fluorescent material caused by the ocean.
- 2:35
The caller says there was a cold they will never forget and that it was “just that real.” The host replies that he believes the caller.
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· 0:52
The crew had several experiences of seeing what they termed “ghost ships.”
- observation· 1:04
The vessels looked like glowing, three-masted, schooner-type ships.
- observation· 1:04
The ships never appeared on radar.
- hearsay· 1:04
The crew heard about the ships from small boats, 41-footers.
- observation· 1:29
After being seen, the ship would be gone.
- observation· 1:32
The sightings generally happened around the time of a harvest moon.
- observation· 2:01
The caller was sent for a psychological evaluation twice because of the sightings.
- hearsay· 2:09
Officials told the caller that what they saw was an electrical effect caused by gravity, and later that it was fluorescent material caused by the ocean.
- observation· 2:35
There was a cold the caller would never forget, and the experience was “just that real.”
- host statement· 1:37
The host says that energy is connected to things and events and to ships that went down.
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 story that hangs together and has some specifics that could be checked: years, region, unit, and type of vessel. But it is brief and general, ordinary explanations at sea (optical effects, glowing organisms) are readily available, and no detail backs it up.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand claim: [quote withheld]
- Specific period and place: [quote withheld] and [quote withheld]
- Concrete recurring detail: [quote withheld] and [quote withheld]
- No close, sustained look is described. The group [quote withheld]
- No named unit, vessel, date, or person that could be checked.
- The official explanations the caller was offered (an electrical effect, fluorescent ocean material) fit what they describe, and the caller repeats them.
- Some lines in the automatic transcript are low-confidence.
- “NASA Bay” and “ASM” are unclear in the transcript.
- 0:52
- 1:04
- 2:28
What the model inferred (not said on air): These scores are my editorial judgment from the content. Proximity is high because the story is presented as firsthand. Specificity and consistency are moderate. The alternative-explanation and calibration components are scored down because common explanations at sea are available and the caller does not rule them out.
There is only the caller's word and a claimed crew of several. Some specifics that could be checked (dates, region) are given, but nothing was examined or verified, and no second witness speaks.
Evidence for and against
- Specifics that sound checkable: “1980, 1983” and [quote withheld]
- Claimed additional witnesses: [quote withheld]
- No documentation, photograph, log, radar record, or report is presented.
- No second witness speaks on air. The host only responds, [quote withheld]
- No names of ships, units, or people are given.
- The claimed crew witnesses are unnamed and uncounted. The official evaluations are reported secondhand, with an unclear place name.
- 2:01
- 2:50
What the model inferred (not said on air): Placed in the 11 to 25 range because specifics that could be checked and claimed witnesses exist, but nothing is verified. No physical evidence is claimed to exist.
Glowing sailing ships that appear and vanish on open water under a harvest moon are eerie and atmospheric. But there is no threat, no intrusion into a safe space, and no escalation.
Evidence for and against
- [quote withheld] vessels.
- [quote withheld]
- A noted cold: [quote withheld]
- No harm, pursuit, physical contact, or menace is reported.
- The tone is conversational, ending with the caller's [quote withheld]
- The “cold” passage is unclear. It may refer to a remembered plunge into cold water rather than to the sighting.
- 1:29
- 2:35
What the model inferred (not said on air): Creepiness is my judgment of the effect on a listener. It is scored mid-low for an uncanny but non-threatening ghost at sea.
Ghost ships are a familiar sea legend. But ships that give no radar return, harvest-moon timing, and two official psychological evaluations add distinctive detail.
Evidence for and against
- Familiar core theme: [quote withheld]
- Distinctive added details: [quote withheld] and [quote withheld]
- Phantom sailing ships are a long-standing theme, and no unique cause or resolution is offered.
- Novelty compared with the rest of the archive is provisional in the pilot, so this reflects the model's judgment.
- 0:52
What the model inferred (not said on air): Scored at the [quote withheld] level (50–55).
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.65 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller's own firsthand word, by live telephone call; Claimed crew witnesses, unnamed and uncounted; Official explanations reported secondhand, with no documents examined. 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.
- Glowing sea creatures or other “fluorescent” material in the water made patches of light that were mistaken for a ship. · The caller says they were told [quote withheld]
- Bent light or unusual lighting over the water near the harvest moon made a bright, ship-like shape that a surface radar would not register as a vessel. · The caller links the sightings to [quote withheld] and says they [quote withheld]
- A distant real vessel in low light was misidentified and passed along informally by other boats, never confirmed. · The caller says the crew [quote withheld] The caller does not describe a close, sustained look.
What stands out
The strange thing reported is a ghost at sea, not a haunting of a house or bedroom: glowing three-masted sailing ships that vanish and give no radar return. The caller says they were sent for two official psychological evaluations as a result. The sightings generally came around a harvest moon, a specific recurring condition rarely attached to ghost-ship stories.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.