Caller describes aftermath of an encounter with something unseen and caring for two children
In a continuation after a break, a male caller tells Art Bell that an earlier experience has made him re-evaluate his life and fear where he will go after death. He also says that he and others are taking care of two children left by a man who died, one of whom was born after the man died. The host connects the story to near-death experience and hell research. The original frightening event is not described in this part of the broadcast.
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 1997.mp3”, starting at 5:09:52). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
After a break, Art Bell returns the caller to the air, and the caller says, [quote withheld] He says he thought he was a decent guy, but that after “this has happened” it “scared the hell” out of him. He says he is now thinking about where he will go after he dies. Art Bell replies that the caller was [quote withheld] The caller says it scared him very badly, and adds that at the same time, [quote withheld] He says one of those children was born after the man had died. Art Bell responds that this bolsters a story he read about a study being conducted in England. This part of the broadcast ends as Bell moves into discussion of near-death experience researchers and hell. The original frightening event is not described here. The context just before it, which is outside this story, refers to a figure and to the caller saying it was trying to pull his soul out of his body.
Reported events, in order
- 0:00
The host returns the caller to the air after a break.
- 0:03
The caller says the experience has made him re-evaluate his whole life.
- 0:09
The caller says that after this happened it scared the hell out of him, though he thought he was a decent guy.
- 0:17
The caller says he is thinking about where he will go after he dies.
- 0:22
The host says the caller was scared out of hell.
- 0:26
The caller says it scared him very badly and that they are taking care of the man's two children left behind.
- 0:34
The caller says one of the children was born after the man had died.
- 0:38
The host says the story bolsters a story he read about a study in England.
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· 0:09
The caller says an earlier experience he does not describe frightened him severely.
- interpretation· 0:17
The caller says the experience led him to think about where he will go after death.
- observation· 0:26
The caller says he and others are caring for two children left behind by a man who died.
- observation· 0:34
The caller says one of the children was born after the man died.
- host statement· 0:22
The host connects the caller's fear to hell.
- host statement· 0:38
The host says the story bolsters a story he read about a study being conducted in England.
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 very brief continuation, not a complete story. It is firsthand but partial, has almost nothing specific that can be checked, and does not contradict itself. Alternative explanations cannot be assessed because the frightening event is not described here.
Evidence for and against
- The caller gives a personal, first-person reaction: [quote withheld]
- The caller adds a concrete personal detail: [quote withheld] and [quote withheld]
- No when, where, what, or sensory detail of the frightening event appears in the lines that were scored.
- The original event depends on earlier context, which is outside this story.
- This is a fragment after a break.
- The earlier context is outside this story.
- Where the story starts and ends is uncertain.
- 0:09
- 0:34
What the model inferred (not said on air): The score reflects a source that is firsthand but fragmentary, almost no specifics, no contradictions, and no way to judge ordinary explanations. It is not a judgment of the caller's honesty.
There is only the caller's word. There are no specifics that can be checked independently and no on-air witness.
Evidence for and against
- The caller says an earlier experience was frightening and life-changing.
- No names, dates, records, or physical evidence are given.
- No second witness to the frightening experience speaks on the air.
- The story is incomplete and may have left out checkable details elsewhere in the call.
- 0:09
What the model inferred (not said on air): Under the scoring guide this falls in the 0 to 10 range because it rests on the caller's word alone.
This part of the broadcast carries an uneasy fear of the afterlife and an unresolved aftermath, but it does not describe a frightening scene. The effect is mildly eerie, not frightening or disturbing.
Evidence for and against
- The caller says the experience “scared the hell” out of him.
- The caller says he is thinking about where he will go after death.
- The host frames the fear around hell.
- No threat, physical contact, or vivid scene is described in the lines that were scored.
- Much of this part of the broadcast is reflective and concerns caring for the children.
- The full event is not in this part of the broadcast.
- A listener's reaction may depend on the earlier part that is left out.
- 0:09
- 0:17
What the model inferred (not said on air): Scored as mildly unsettling because the horror is only implied and looks back. The earlier context may contain more frightening material but is outside this story.
As scored, this is a fragment about aftermath and caring for children, not a developed story of something strange. The originality score is therefore provisional and low. This part of the broadcast alone does not support a meaningful comparison with the rest of the archive.
Evidence for and against
- The detail about caring for a dead man's two children, one born after his death, is a distinctive personal element.
- This part of the broadcast contains no developed paranormal motif.
- The implied fear of a dark presence and the afterlife is a familiar ghost-story frame.
- The original event is left out by the story boundary.
- Very short.
- 0:26
- 0:34
What the model inferred (not said on air): The model score is low because this part lacks a complete or distinctive paranormal event. The unusual detail about caring for the children is not enough to raise it much.
Scoring confidence 0.25 · analysis confidence 0.30 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: the caller's firsthand story in a continuation after a break; no names, dates, records, or physical evidence are given in the lines that were scored; no second witness to the frightening experience speaks on the air. The originality score blends the model's score (25) with how rare the story's details are across the archive. This method is still provisional.
What stands out
This is a continuation after a break, not a self-contained story. It focuses on the caller's fear of the afterlife and on caring for a dead man's children, not on the encounter itself.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.