Shadowy figure with red eyes beneath a son’s bed
A first-time caller, whose name and location are not given, tells Art Bell that their son and a friend called them into their son’s bedroom one night. The caller says they saw a shadowy figure with red eyes under the bed. They say they called their husband in, and he also reacted to it. Their son later reported seeing the same figure again in his room and at the caller’s mother’s house, where the boy reportedly threw a rock at it. The caller says they have no idea what it is. They add that they would immediately think of the devil and that they are a Christian who prays. The host ends the call.
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 10:10). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller gives no name and no location. The caller says only that they have not been on the line before; the host says, [quote withheld] The caller says their son was in his room one night with a friend. They report that the two boys called them in: [quote withheld] When they went in, they saw [quote withheld] which they describe as “like shadowy.” They say it frightened them and they called their husband in. He went in and asked, [quote withheld] They say they replied that they did not know. According to the caller, their son then told them he had seen the figure again in his room one night. He had also seen it at the caller’s mother’s house, where the boy reportedly threw a rock at it and [quote withheld] The caller says they expect they will be [quote withheld] because they have no idea what the thing is. The host says red glowing eyes [quote withheld] The caller replies that they [quote withheld] They say they are a Christian and believe in praying, because you do not want such a thing hanging around. The host then ends the call.
Reported events, in order
- 0:08
The caller’s son and a friend, in the son’s room at night, yell for the caller, and they go in.
- 0:13
The caller reports seeing a shadowy figure with red eyes underneath the bed.
- 0:25
The caller says they called their husband in, and he went in and said, [quote withheld]
- 0:33
Their son later told the caller he had seen the figure again in his room one night.
- 0:37
The caller says their son had also seen it at the caller’s mother’s house, in the shadows.
- 0:56
According to the son (as the caller tells it), he threw a rock at it and [quote withheld]
- 0:46
The caller says they have no idea what it is and they will be [quote withheld]
- 1:14
The caller says they would immediately think of the devil; they are a Christian and believe in praying.
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· 0:13
A shadowy figure with red eyes was under the son’s bed; the caller says they saw it when they went into the room.
- observation· 0:25
The caller’s husband also went in and reacted as if he had seen something.
- hearsay· 0:33
The son later reported seeing the same shadowy figure again in his room.
- hearsay· 0:37
The son had also reportedly seen it at the caller’s mother’s house.
- hearsay· 0:56
According to the son, he threw a rock at the figure and it did not react.
- interpretation· 1:14
The caller says they would immediately think the figure was the devil.
- host statement· 1:02
The host asserts that red, glowing eyes are [quote withheld]
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 firsthand story of the central sighting with a coherent short sequence, but extremely thin on details that could be checked. An ordinary explanation (a dark space under a bed, two boys in the room) fits easily. The scoring guide’s anchor of about 40 for a brief firsthand story with an easy ordinary explanation applies closely. I raised it slightly because the caller admits they are unsure what it was.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand: the caller says they went into the room themselves: [quote withheld]
- The events come in a coherent order: the boys call the caller, they enter, their husband is called, and later reports from the son follow.
- The caller admits they are unsure what the thing is: [quote withheld]
- No date, no place, no names, nothing that could be checked.
- An unlit space under a bed is a ready source of shadow misperception; the caller says it was “like shadowy.”
- The son and his friend were together and shouting before the sighting, which allows for a shared scare or prank. No details are given to rule this out.
- The jump to “the devil” goes beyond what was seen.
- It is not clear whether the husband actually saw the figure or only reacted to the caller.
- It is not stated whether the son’s later sightings are separate events or a retelling.
- 0:13
- 0:46
- 0:08
What the model inferred (not said on air): The component scores (source proximity about 20, specificity about 7, internal consistency about 13, alternative explanations about 5, calibration about 8) are my judgments. The transcript supplies only the quoted content.
Nothing beyond the caller’s own word, plus other witnesses who are claimed but silent. No physical evidence, no documents, no backing on air, and no outside check.
Evidence for and against
- Several witnesses are claimed: the son and his friend were present, the husband went in, and the son reported further sightings.
- Only the caller speaks; no second witness comes to the microphone.
- No photograph, recording, mark, or record that could be checked is mentioned.
- No names, dates, or locations are given that could be verified.
- It is unclear whether the husband’s exclamation means he saw the figure. That would still be a claimed witness, not one heard on air.
- 0:25
- 0:33
What the model inferred (not said on air): Placing it in the 11–25 range (checkable specifics or claimed witnesses) is my judgment under the scoring guide. The transcript contains only assertions.
The figure shows up in a child’s bedroom, it is described as a shadow with red eyes, and the rock-throwing detail suggests it did not care or would not move. The story ends unresolved, with talk of the devil. It is frightening in content but very short, with no threat, harm, or sustained escalation.
Evidence for and against
- A shadowy figure with red eyes under a child’s bed.
- The son reportedly saw it again, and also at his grandmother’s house.
- Reportedly no reaction when a rock was thrown: [quote withheld]
- The caller’s own view that it is the devil, and their wish that such a thing not “hang around.”
- No physical contact, injury, or direct threat is reported.
- The story is brief and matter-of-fact, with no sustained build-up.
- The host’s closing remark is jokey rather than dread-inducing.
- It is not stated whether the figure appeared indoors or outdoors at the grandmother’s house.
- 0:13
- 0:56
- 1:14
What the model inferred (not said on air): The scare level is my assessment of the story’s content, not a claim about what happened.
Shadow figures and glowing red eyes are standard fare, and here they appear in the familiar bedroom setting. The less common touches are the spot under (rather than beside) the bed and the thrown rock that got no reaction.
Evidence for and against
- Distinctive detail: [quote withheld] and [quote withheld]
- The figure was directly under the bed rather than at the bedside.
- A shadowy figure plus red eyes is a stock combination.
- A bedroom sighting and a child witness are common settings in this archive.
- No unusual mechanism, time element, or resolution is offered.
- Novelty compared with the rest of the archive cannot be worked out here (pilot archive, no similarity data supplied), so this is a provisional figure based on content.
- 0:13
- 0:56
What the model inferred (not said on air): The first-pass originality score is 42, based on content only. The published score would blend in novelty compared with the rest of the archive, so it is provisional here.
Scoring confidence 0.45 · analysis confidence 0.55 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s brief firsthand story of the under-bed sighting; The caller’s claim that their husband and son also saw or reacted to the figure (no confirmation on air); The caller’s secondhand report of the son’s further sightings, including a rock thrown at the figure. The originality score blends the model's score (42) 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 shadow and objects under a bed in a dimly lit room were misread. Bedding, furniture, or a pet could form an indistinct dark shape that looks like a figure. · The caller describes it as “like shadowy” and located “underneath the bed,” a low-light, partly hidden space. No other sensory detail (sound, smell, movement) is reported.
- A prank or shared scare involving the son and his friend, who were together and called the caller in. · The caller says their son “had a friend” and that “They were yelling” before the caller entered. The later sightings are reported only through the son.
What stands out
The distinctive element is where the figure was: a shadowy, red-eyed figure reported under a child’s bed rather than at its foot or beside it. A thrown rock reportedly got no reaction. Otherwise the story is built from familiar shadow-figure and red-eye motifs, told briefly with no names, place, or date.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.