Letter: A smoky kneeling figure at a student’s bedside and a presence across the hall
In a listener letter read on air by the host, an unnamed student describes waking twice in the night to a smoky, almost transparent, man-shaped figure at the bedside. The second time, the writer felt something grab and hold their arm. The writer says they told only two close friends. Then, at a school function, they heard a classmate report a presence in the apartment the classmate shares with a roommate. The letter ends with the writer noting that those two students live directly across the hall.
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 1998.mp3”, starting at 2:43:18). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
In a letter read aloud on air, an unnamed student writes that they [quote withheld] and saw someone kneeling beside the bed, staring. The writer describes [quote withheld] almost transparent, with an expressionless face. They say that closing and opening their eyes repeatedly made no difference. Frightened, the writer says they threw “two quick punches” at the figure’s head, which the letter describes as punches of a karate black belt. They say their fists and arms passed straight through the figure, which [quote withheld] The writer asks whether it was a dream.
The writer then says that “earlier this week” they were awakened in the middle of the night by [quote withheld] their wrist. They sat up and again saw the smoky outline, this time holding their arm and staring, before it faded into the dark. Still questioning whether it was [quote withheld] the writer says they told only two close friends.
The letter continues that at “a school function” the conversation turned to the supernatural. A classmate “embarrassingly admitted” that they and their roommate believe something visits their apartment. They have not seen it, but they say it moves objects and knocks items over. The writer says they “turned white” on realizing that those two students live in the apartment directly across the hall.
Reported events, in order
- 0:00
The writer says they woke in the early morning to see someone kneeling beside the bed, staring at them.
- 0:07
The figure is described as a smoky, almost transparent outline of a man with an expressionless face.
- 0:15
The writer says they closed and opened their eyes repeatedly and still saw the figure kneeling and staring.
- 0:25
Frightened, the writer says they threw two quick punches (described as a karate black belt’s) at the figure’s head.
- 0:32
The writer reports that their fists and arms passed straight through the figure, which drifted back into the night.
- 0:42
The writer asks whether they were dreaming.
- 0:46
The writer says that earlier that week they were again awakened in the middle of the night by something grabbing at their wrist.
- 0:59
The writer says they sat up and saw the smoky outline again, this time holding their arm and staring. It faded into the dark.
- 1:13
Believing it might all be in their head, the writer told only two close friends.
- 1:22
At a school function, the conversation turned to the supernatural.
- 1:25
A classmate admitted that they and their roommate believe something visits their apartment.
- 1:38
The classmates say the visitor moves objects and knocks items over, though they have not seen it.
- 1:53
The writer states the two students live in the apartment directly across the hall from theirs.
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· 0:03
The letter writer says they woke in the early morning and saw someone kneeling beside the bed, staring at them.
- observation· 0:07
The writer describes the figure as a smoky, almost transparent outline of a man with an expressionless face.
- observation· 0:32
The writer says they threw two punches [quote withheld] and that their fists and arms passed straight through the figure.
- interpretation· 0:42
The writer explicitly questions whether the experience was a dream.
- observation· 0:51
The writer says that “earlier this week” they were awakened by something grabbing at their wrist and again saw the smoky outline, this time holding their arm.
- interpretation· 1:13
The writer says they were convinced it might all be in their head and told only two close friends.
- hearsay· 1:25
The writer reports that a classmate said they and their roommate believe something visits their apartment.
- hearsay· 1:38
According to the writer, the classmates’ visitor makes itself known by moving objects and knocking items over. They have not seen it.
- observation· 1:53
The writer notes that the two students who described the presence live in the apartment directly across the hall.
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.
The story holds together, follows a clear order, and is partly sensory. But it is a written submission with no details that can be located. The writer’s own dream explanation (images seen while waking up) fits the two episodes well, which lowers the score for other explanations.
Evidence for and against
- The writer gives a clear order of events: a first bedroom episode, a second episode “earlier this week,” telling two friends, then the school-function conversation.
- Concrete sensory and situational detail: the kneeling position, a smoky and “almost transparent” outline, an expressionless face, two punches passing through, and a grip on the wrist and arm.
- The writer separates what they perceived from their doubt and does not exaggerate. They report uncertainty and limited telling rather than asserting a cause.
- The only ordinary explanation the transcript itself supplies is dreaming. The writer raises it twice (“Was I dreaming?” and [quote withheld]), and it fits perception on waking at night easily.
- No names, dates, school, or city are given, so nothing can be located or checked.
- The scene is delivered as a read letter rather than by the witness, and the labels showing who is speaking are inconsistent for parts of it.
- It is not stated whether the whole letter is read word for word or condensed by the host.
- The transcript’s labels alternate between the host and the caller, including inside the letter’s text, so who is speaking at any moment is unclear.
- 0:07
- 0:32
- 0:42
- 1:13
What the model inferred (not said on air): The judgments on closeness to the events and calibration are mine. I treat a signed first-person letter read on air as the writer’s firsthand story, but not as a statement by a speaker who is present, hence a mid-range rather than top score for closeness.
Only the letter writer’s word is present. The claimed classmates do not back up the bedroom episodes and do not speak on air, so this sits in the bottom band.
Evidence for and against
- The writer’s own written statement is all of the evidence.
- A second party is claimed (a classmate and a roommate), but they describe a separate reported experience, not the writer’s, and are not heard from.
- No documentation, recording, photograph, or mark is mentioned.
- No witness speaks on air.
- No names, address, school, date, or other checkable specifics are given.
- It is not stated whether the letter came with any enclosures when read.
- 1:25
What the model inferred (not said on air): The cap of 50 is not reached. I place this at the low end because the claimed other witnesses concern a different strange event in a different apartment.
The bedside figure, the failed physical resistance, and the wrist grab in the dark are truly disturbing. But the absence of threat, injury, or lasting menace keeps it in the middle band.
Evidence for and against
- Intrusion into the bedroom at the moment of waking: the figure is kneeling beside the bed, staring.
- Physical contact on the second occasion: something grabs the wrist and holds the arm.
- The helplessness of punches passing straight through the figure.
- An ominous closing twist: the classmates who reported the presence live directly across the hall.
- No injury, threat, or stated ill will. The figure is described only as staring and fading, and the story ends with the writer’s puzzlement rather than terror.
- No escalation beyond two incidents, both brief.
- The writer’s emotional state is only summarized in the letter ([quote withheld]). Delivery cannot be judged from a read letter.
- 0:03
- 0:51
- 1:53
What the model inferred (not said on air): This is a judgment about how the story plays to a listener, not about whether anything occurred.
This is familiar bedside-figure material arranged around one or two distinctive details, which puts it in the middle of the scale. The comparison with the rest of the archive will be applied later.
Evidence for and against
- The writer’s description as a karate black belt whose strikes pass through the figure gives a distinctive, concrete beat.
- The crouching, kneeling posture beside the bed, rather than the usual figure standing at the foot of the bed, is a specific image.
- Pairing the writer’s silent bedroom visitor with the noisy, object-moving presence across the hall, left unresolved on purpose, is a distinctive combination.
- The core elements, a see-through figure at the bedside at night and an arm passing through it, are stock ghost-story furniture.
- The twist of a neighbor with a ghost is familiar.
- This is a pilot archive, so rarity compared with other “Ghost to Ghost” stories cannot yet be calculated.
- 0:31
- 1:53
What the model inferred (not said on air): The score is my judgment of the content. The published value depends on a comparison with the rest of the archive, which I cannot perform here.
Scoring confidence 0.55 · analysis confidence 0.60 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: a listener letter read aloud on air by the host; the writer’s own written first-person story (secondhand from the analyst’s position, firsthand from the writer’s); no physical evidence claimed (no photograph, recording, or marks); no second witness speaks on air; the two classmates are named only as a claimed second party and describe a separate reported experience. The originality score blends the model's score (48) 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.
- Images seen while waking up, or a vivid dream remembered on waking, which the writer raises themself. · The writer describes waking in the early morning, seeing a figure at the bedside, and repeatedly asking whether they were dreaming (“Was I dreaming?” and [quote withheld]). This is the classic setting for images seen while waking up or a dream remembered on waking.
- A feeling from the sleeper’s own body or bedding (a numb limb, an arm trapped under the body) taken on waking for a grasp. · The second episode is described as waking [quote withheld] to something grabbing the wrist ([quote withheld]). An arm going numb or an involuntary movement while lying on it is a common way this is reported.
- Ordinary household causes (drafts, unstable surfaces, pets, vibration in a shared building) could explain the neighbors’ reported movement of objects, though no such detail is given. · The neighbors’ report is only that objects move and items are knocked over in an apartment ([quote withheld]), with no description of how or when.
What stands out
The letter writer is described in the letter as a karate black belt. They report striking at the figure and their fists passing through it, a beat of physical resistance that is uncommon. The story closes not on the bedside figure but on a presence that moves objects, reported by classmates living directly across the hall.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.