Scent of a grandfather’s breakfast and a growling dog before news of his death
A caller to Ghost to Ghost tells Art Bell about a 1980 episode. While living in a small trailer, the caller repeatedly smelled what they took to be their grandfather’s breakfast odor, and their dog kept looking behind itself and growled. The following day, they say, their mother telephoned to tell them that their grandfather, who lived in New York, had died. They say they knew he had been there and take the episode as his way of checking on their family.
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 2:22:43). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller tells Art Bell that something else happened to them in 1980, after he asks whether their earlier experience made them a believer. They say they were living in a small trailer and kept getting an odor they could not at first identify. They say the smell was like their grandfather. They explain that people have characteristic odors from what they eat, and that he always ate Cheerios and toast for breakfast, which is what they kept smelling. They say their dog kept looking behind itself, and that one day the dog looked behind and growled, which they could not explain. They say their grandfather lived in New York while they were in Oregon. The following day, they say, they got a phone call from their mother telling them that their grandfather had passed away. They say they knew he had been there. They add that they had not seen him in probably twenty years, and that they think it was his way of making sure that they and their family were fine and that he was okay. Art Bell says there is every reason to believe those who pass away linger near, calls it [quote withheld] and thanks them.
Reported events, in order
- 0:00
The caller says something else happened to them in 1980.
- 0:03
They say they lived in a small trailer and kept getting an odor they could not identify, and that their dog kept looking behind itself.
- 0:16
They say the odor was like their grandfather, and that it was the smell of the Cheerios and toast he always ate for breakfast.
- 0:25
They say their grandfather lived in New York while they were in Oregon.
- 0:36
They say the dog looked behind itself one day and growled, and they could not work out what was wrong.
- 0:36
The following day, they say, they got a phone call from their mother saying their grandfather had passed away.
- 0:46
They say they knew he had been there.
- 0:59
They say they had not seen him in about twenty years and think it was his way of making sure they and their family were fine and that he was okay.
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 caller says they repeatedly noticed an odor they could not identify in the trailer where they were living.
- observation· 0:16
They say the odor resembled their grandfather’s smell.
- observation· 0:25
They say the smell they kept noticing was of the Cheerios and toast their grandfather ate for breakfast.
- observation· 0:36
They say their dog repeatedly looked behind itself and one day growled, with no cause they could identify.
- hearsay· 0:36
They say their mother telephoned the following day to tell them that their grandfather had died.
- interpretation· 0:46
They conclude their grandfather had been present in the trailer.
- interpretation· 0:59
They interpret the episode as their grandfather checking that they and their family were well and signaling that he was okay.
- host statement· 0:47
The host says the dead may linger near the living for a 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.
Firsthand, concrete, and consistent, with the caller separating what they smelled and observed from what they concluded. It is brief, no one else backs it up, and it does not take up ordinary alternatives.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand story of the smell and the dog’s behavior.
- Concrete details: the year 1980, a trailer, Oregon and New York, breakfast food, a next-day phone call.
- The caller separates observation from conclusion: [quote withheld] follows the reported smell and the call.
- Ordinary explanations (cooking smells in a small trailer, unrelated dog behavior, coincidence with the death) are not addressed.
- No second human witness; nothing checkable was checked.
- The transcript merges lines and mislabels who is speaking in this part.
- How long the odor lasted is not stated.
- 0:03
- 0:59
What the model inferred (not said on air): The scores reflect a brief but coherent and specific firsthand story that does not address obvious ordinary explanations (food odors in a small trailer, coincidental timing).
The story rests on the caller’s word only. Checkable details (year, two states, a family death) are named but not checked. The only other one reacting is a dog, which cannot back up their story.
Evidence for and against
- 1980, Oregon, and New York are stated details that could in principle be checked.
- The caller says they learned of the death by telephone from their mother.
- No document, recording, photograph, or second witness on air.
- Grandfather and mother are unnamed, so the death cannot be traced.
- Death and family details are unverified, and the people are unnamed.
- No documentation or recording is claimed.
- 0:36
- 0:25
What the model inferred (not said on air): Details that could be checked in principle (year, two states, a family death) raise it above the caller’s word alone, but nothing was checked, and the dog is claimed to have reacted, not an independent witness.
Mildly eerie: an unidentified odor, a dog growling at something unseen, and death news the next day. The caller treats the ending as reassuring, which lowers the score.
Evidence for and against
- A dog growls at something behind it that the caller cannot identify.
- The death is learned the day after the growling.
- No threat, harm, or hostile presence is reported.
- The caller takes the episode as protective and reassuring.
- Whether the odor came back for days or happened once is unclear from the transcript.
- 0:36
- 0:36
What the model inferred (not said on air): The dog’s unexplained growling and the death news give mild unease. The caller’s own framing is reassuring rather than threatening.
A familiar setup (a sign at about the time of a relative’s death) with one distinctive detail: the smell of a particular breakfast food, plus a dog reacting. Stock elements dominate.
Evidence for and against
- A sign before news of a death is a recurring theme in this material.
- The specific food odor is an uncommon concrete detail.
- Nothing unusual beyond a smell and dog behavior.
- The host calls it a common kind of story.
- A short story limits the number of themes that can be compared.
- The comparison with the rest of the archive carries little weight in this pilot, so the published value is provisional.
- 0:25
- 0:36
What the model inferred (not said on air): The setup, a sign shortly before learning of a distant relative’s death, is a familiar one. The distinctive element is the very specific, ordinary food odor and the dog’s reaction.
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.65 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand word only.; No recording, photograph, or document claimed.. The originality score blends the model's score (45) 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.
- Ordinary food odors in a small trailer, where the caller says they were living, could account for the smell they describe, since they characterize it as the smell of breakfast food. · [quote withheld]
- A dog looking behind itself and growling may have an ordinary trigger, such as something outside, another animal, or no identifiable cause, unrelated to the death news. · [quote withheld]
- The odor and the news of the death arriving close together could be coincidence, given that the caller says they had been noticing the smell for an unspecified period before the call. · [quote withheld] followed by [quote withheld]
What stands out
The reported sign is an everyday food smell, Cheerios and toast, tied to a specific person’s breakfast habit, with a dog’s reaction as the only other event. The caller treats the whole episode as reassurance rather than a frightening visit.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.