Letter: A white cat petted in the bathroom while the family cat sat on the bed
Art Bell reads a letter on air from an unnamed man who says he heard his wife in the bathroom talking to Bart, their white cat. At that moment, he says, Bart was sitting at the foot of the bed watching him. He reports that his wife then screamed. When calmed, she said a white cat she took for Bart had followed her in, her hand passed through it when she reached to pet it, and its eyes were blue, not Bart's gold. The letter adds that they had no other white cats at the time.
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 1:42:12). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
In a letter read aloud by Art Bell, an unnamed man writes that one night he heard his wife in the bathroom talking to Bart, their white cat. He says the problem was that Bart was at that same moment sitting at the foot of the bed, looking at him. The next moment, he writes, he heard his wife screaming frantically and rushed into the bathroom. He found her [quote withheld] When he had calmed her enough to describe what had happened, she told him that a white cat she believed was Bart had followed her into the bathroom. She talked to it for a few moments and reached down to pet it. As her hand passed through it, she realized that its eyes were blue and not gold, as Bart's are. The letter closes by noting that they had no other white cats at the time. Nothing further is reported about what the cat did, where it went, or how the couple explained it. Art Bell moves right on to the next caller. The story therefore consists of the writer's own observation (hearing his wife's one-sided conversation and seeing Bart beside him) and his wife's account as he relays it (the cat in the bathroom, the attempt to touch it, the eye color).
Reported events, in order
- 0:01
The letter writer says he heard his wife in the bathroom talking to Bart, their white cat.
- 0:11
He says Bart was sitting at the foot of the bed at the same time, looking at him “rather quizzically.”
- 0:21
He hears his wife screaming frantically and rushes into the bathroom, finding her pale and nearly hysterical.
- 0:36
Once calmed, she tells him a white cat she thought was Bart had followed her into the bathroom.
- 0:44
She says she talked to it and reached down to pet it. As her hand passed through it, she realized its eyes were blue, not gold like Bart's.
- 1:02
The letter states that they had no other white cats at the time.
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· 0:01
The writer's wife was heard talking in the bathroom to Bart, the family's white cat.
- observation· 0:11
Bart was at the same time at the foot of the bed, looking at the writer.
- observation· 0:21
The writer heard his wife screaming and found her pale and nearly hysterical in the bathroom.
- hearsay· 0:36
The wife said a white cat she took to be Bart followed her into the bathroom.
- hearsay· 0:44
The wife said her hand passed through the cat, and that its eyes were blue rather than Bart's gold.
- observation· 1:02
The household had no other white cats at the time.
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, consistent, partly secondhand story with one concrete distinguishing detail (eye color) and a clear statement that no other white cat was in the household. But it has no names, place, or date, and the central experience is relayed, not told by the person who had it.
Evidence for and against
- A concrete detail that could in principle be checked: the eyes were [quote withheld]
- A simple sequence: overheard talking, cat seen on the bed, scream, bathroom, then her description.
- The letter anticipates the obvious alternative by noting [quote withheld]
- No names, location, or date anywhere in the story.
- The main event is the wife's experience, reported secondhand through a letter read by the host.
- No independent backing. The writer's own part is limited to hearing and seeing the ordinary cat.
- The [quote withheld] detail is relayed and not explained further (did she feel anything, was the cat still there afterward?).
- It is not stated whether the bathroom door was closed, whether other animals were in or near the house, or how the second cat left.
- 0:11
- 0:44
- 1:02
What the model inferred (not said on air): Source proximity is scored in the secondhand range because the only person said to have seen and touched the strange cat is the wife. The letter writer relays her words, and the host read them aloud. My internal-consistency score is based on the lack of contradiction in the sequence, not on any judgment of the writer or his wife.
The story exists only as a reader's word, though a second person (the wife) is claimed to have been present and is the main witness. There is no document, photograph, or recording that is examined, and the letter itself is not described or verified on air.
Evidence for and against
- A claimed second witness is named in the story: “my wife.”
- A stated circumstance that could be checked: that no other white cat was in the household.
- No names, dates, or places that could be checked.
- No physical evidence is claimed. The letter is only read, not examined or described in any way (the host's reading is all there is).
- No second witness speaks on air. The wife's story is passed along twice (wife to letter writer to host).
- So little identifying detail is given that even the claimed second witness cannot be located or checked.
- 0:01
- 1:02
What the model inferred (not said on air): I place this at 11 to 25, not lower, because a second claimed witness and one circumstance that could be checked are given. It is not higher because none of it can be verified from the transcript and no evidence is examined. No outside check was done, so the ceiling of 50 does not apply.
The image of stroking a familiar pet and finding your hand pass through it, while the real animal is elsewhere in the house, is quietly unsettling. The writer's wife is described as screaming, pale, and nearly hysterical. There is no threat, harm, or lasting escalation, and the subject is a cat, not a menacing figure.
Evidence for and against
- The wife is said to have screamed frantically and been found [quote withheld]
- The realization comes through touch: [quote withheld]
- The familiar pet is in two places at once.
- No harm, threat, or malevolence is reported.
- The encounter happens once and is brief, and the story ends without an ominous closing note.
- The tone of the letter cannot be recovered from the transcript, and I am deliberately not using how it was read as a factor.
- 0:21
- 0:44
What the model inferred (not said on air): I rate this above “mildly eerie” because the intrusion comes in an ordinary household moment (bathing, petting the cat) and involves failed physical contact. I rate it below “genuinely unsettling” because nothing menacing is described and the story is very short.
A ghostly animal, and specifically a ghostly pet, is a familiar theme. But the living cat and its look-alike appearing at the same moment, told apart only by eye color, give the story a distinctive core.
Evidence for and against
- The real cat is visible at the foot of the bed while the second cat is in the bathroom.
- The only stated difference is eye color, blue versus gold.
- This is a very short story that reuses familiar elements: a bathroom, a nighttime setting, and a bodiless figure.
- No additional unusual structure or detail follows the central moment.
- The originality figure is provisional. The part that compares it with the rest of the archive is worked out separately and cannot be judged from a single part of the broadcast.
- 0:11
- 0:44
What the model inferred (not said on air): My score sits near the [quote withheld] level: the look-alike pet is the distinctive part, while the setting and the bodiless touch are stock elements.
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.70 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: A letter read aloud by the host on air (the text of the letter is the only evidence; the document itself is not described or examined).; The letter writer's own reported observations (hearing his wife, seeing Bart beside him).; The wife's story as relayed in the letter; she does not speak on air.. The originality score blends the model's score (58) 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 real white cat other than Bart, such as a stray or a neighborhood animal that got into the house, was in the bathroom and was briefly mistaken for Bart. · The wife is said to have taken it for Bart until she reached for it. The letter itself notes [quote withheld] which covers household cats but not an animal from outside.
- A brief misperception of the family cat in poor bathroom light, with the reported eye color and the hand “passing through” coming from the animal's movement or the way it was seen. · The one clear physical difference reported is eye color (blue versus gold). The contact is described only as the hand passing through, not as a check that no body was there.
What stands out
The story describes a double of a living pet, seen in one room while the pet itself is visible in another. The only distinguishing feature given is the color of the eyes. The writer's own side of the experience (the real cat beside him, the one-sided conversation he overheard) is reported along with his wife's, but no explanation of what the second cat was is offered.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.