Drumming heard for weeks in an old Kansas house said to stand on a burial ground
A caller who gives their name as [quote withheld] tells Art Bell that several years earlier, while living with their parents in an old house in Kansas, they heard drumming in the house at night. It went on for several weeks. They say they then checked town records and a local library and found that the house and the neighboring church were built in the late 1800s on an Indian burial ground. They say the drumming was all they themselves experienced. Their sister claimed to see other things they cannot confirm. The experience frightened them after they learned the history.
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 1999.mp3”, starting at 1:37:37). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller gives their name as [name withheld] and says they are in Denver. They tell the host that several years ago they lived in a house with their parents in Kansas, and they describe it as an “old, old house.” The caller says that one night they got up late and heard drumming in the house. Their first thought was that it might be a next-door neighbor or something similar. According to the caller, they kept hearing the drumming for the next several weeks. They say they finally got up and did what they call a little research at the town records and the local library. They report that they found that the church next door and the house had both been built in the late 1800s on an Indian burial ground, and that the Indian place had been torn up to build these buildings. The host asks whether there was more to it or just drums. The caller answers that drums are all they ever experienced, and that their sister claimed to see other things, which they say they are not sure about and cannot confirm. The host replies that this would be enough for him. The caller adds that it was a frightening experience after they learned about the history. They say that is about all they have to say, and the host thanks them and moves on to another topic.
Reported events, in order
- 0:13
The caller says that several years ago they lived with their parents in an old house in Kansas.
- 0:18
They say they got up late one night and heard drumming in the house, which they first took for a next-door neighbor.
- 0:31
They report that they kept hearing the drumming over the next several weeks.
- 0:39
They say they checked town records and the local library.
- 0:46
They report finding that the church next door and the house were built in the late 1800s on an Indian burial ground that was torn up for the buildings.
- 1:16
Asked by the host whether there was more than drums, they say drums were all they experienced, and that their sister claimed to see other things they cannot confirm.
- 1:29
They say it was a frightening experience after they learned about the history, and end their story.
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· 0:18
They heard unexplained drumming at night in an old house in Kansas.
- observation· 0:31
The drumming went on for several weeks.
- observation· 0:31
The drumming had no visible source. Their first guess was a next-door neighbor.
- observation· 0:46
Town records and library research showed the house and the neighboring church were built in the late 1800s on an Indian burial ground, and the burial place was torn up for the buildings.
- hearsay· 1:16
Their sister claimed to see other things in the house, which they say they cannot confirm.
- interpretation· 1:29
The caller links the drumming to the reported burial-ground history, saying the experience frightened them after they learned about it.
- host statement· 1:13
The host asks whether anything beyond drumming happened.
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 but firsthand story of a recurring sound, given partly in answer to the host’s questions. The caller themselves raised one ordinary explanation (a neighbor) and then set it aside in favor of a records claim that they describe only in general terms.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand: the caller says they heard it themselves ([quote withheld]).
- They say it recurred: [quote withheld]
- A coherent sequence: they heard the sound, then researched records, then learned the history.
- They separate their own experience from their sister’s, saying they “can't uh confirm” hers.
- Very little concrete detail: no town, no year, no description of the drumming’s pattern, timing, or volume.
- The caller’s own first explanation was ordinary: [quote withheld]
- The records finding is summed up in one sentence with no source, title, or date, and the host did not examine the records.
- The call is short and ends abruptly ([quote withheld]).
- One line is split across two speakers, and its second part is labeled “HOST?”, so it is unclear whether the caller is continuing.
- The caller’s age at the time (living with their parents) is not stated.
- “Several years ago” gives no usable date for the events.
- 0:18
- 0:31
- 1:16
What the model inferred (not said on air): Component scores: closeness to the source 16 (firsthand but brief and partial); detail 6 (no names, dates, or sensory detail beyond “drumming” and “old, old house”); internal consistency 16 (the sequence is coherent and the answers fit the story); alternative explanations 5 (a neighbor or building noise fits easily, and the caller themselves raised the neighbor idea); calibration 9 (they separate their experience from their sister’s and do not escalate). The total is 52, and no cap applies.
The story rests on the caller’s own word, a claimed records check they do not describe in a way that can be checked, and a claimed second witness (their sister) for different, unspecified events.
Evidence for and against
- They say they checked [quote withheld] a kind of record that could in principle be checked.
- They name a state (Kansas) and a construction period (late 1800s).
- A second person is claimed to have experienced something in the same house: [quote withheld]
- No town, street, church name, record title, or date is given, so nothing can actually be looked up from the transcript.
- No physical evidence is claimed (no recording, photograph, or marks).
- The caller themselves says they cannot confirm the claimed second witness, who says nothing on air.
- No outside check was made.
- Whether the records they cite exist or say what they report cannot be judged from the transcript.
- The sister’s claimed sightings are not described at all.
- 0:39
- 1:16
What the model inferred (not said on air): Placed at 11 to 25 because some details that could be checked (a state, a construction period, named kinds of records) are given but never checked, and a second witness is only claimed. No physical evidence is claimed, so the 26 to 40 range is not reached. The hard cap of 50 without an outside check is far from binding at 12.
A bodiless rhythmic sound recurring at night in an old house, later tied by the caller to a disturbed burial ground, gives a mild, unresolved eeriness. There is no figure, threat, physical contact, or vivid detail.
Evidence for and against
- An unexplained sound recurring at night over several weeks.
- The caller says it frightened them once they learned the reported history.
- The burial-ground setting they state is a conventionally unsettling element.
- No visible figure, physical contact, harm, or threat reported.
- The caller’s own first reaction was casual: they took it for a neighbor.
- The story is very short and ends flatly rather than on an ominous note.
- The drumming itself is never described in terms of loudness, rhythm, or nearness, which makes its effect hard to judge.
- 0:18
- 1:29
What the model inferred (not said on air): Placed between the “mildly eerie” (30) and “genuinely unsettling” (50) anchors. The setting and the repetition raise it above the lowest range, but the lack of anything threatening or horrifying keeps it well below the midpoint.
The structure, an unexplained sound in an old house explained by finding that the site was a burial ground, is a very familiar ghost-story setup. The drumming is a modest variation rather than a new element.
Evidence for and against
- Distinctive element: the reported sound is drumming specifically.
- The caller’s route to an explanation is records research rather than a vision.
- The [quote withheld] explanation is a stock motif of the genre.
- Unexplained rhythmic noise in an old house, recurring at night, is a common ghost-story element.
- How new the story is compared with the rest of the archive cannot be judged here. The score is a provisional judgment from the content.
- 0:18
- 0:46
What the model inferred (not said on air): The model’s originality score is 32: a familiar setup (old house, burial-ground site, recurring night sound) with one moderately uncommon detail (drumming). With few stories archived, the comparison with the rest of the archive carries little weight, so the published score stays provisional and close to the model score.
Scoring confidence 0.55 · analysis confidence 0.65 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand word about hearing the drumming (their word only).; Claimed records research (town records, local library) described in general terms, not examined and not specific.; A claimed but unconfirmed second witness (the sister) for unspecified other experiences. She does not speak on air.; No physical evidence claimed.. The originality score blends the model's score (32) 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.
- The sound came from outside the house or from a neighbor rather than from something unseen. · The caller says their own first thought was a next-door neighbor: [quote withheld]
- Repeated knocking or rhythmic noise in an old building could come from plumbing, heating, a settling structure, or animals in the walls or roof. · The caller describes the house only as an “old, old house” and says the sound recurred over several weeks. They describe it only as “drumming.”
- Linking the drumming to the reported burial-ground history may be an interpretation made after the fact rather than a feature of the sound itself. · The caller reports hearing the drumming first, then researching the town records and library, and only then calling the experience frightening. This is a guess about the interpretation, not about the caller’s character.
What stands out
The one strange thing reported is drumming, rather than the more common footsteps, knocks, or voices. The caller’s stated basis for interpreting it is research after the fact, which they sum up in one sentence. The story is also unusually brief and thin for a burial-ground story: no town, year, drumming pattern, or length of individual episodes is given.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.