A cold, leathery foot under a friend's couch while retrieving a toy car
A caller tells Art Bell that, at about age 14, the caller was retrieving a toy car from under a friend’s couch. The caller says they saw and touched what they describe as a naked human foot that was cold and leathery. The caller says they could swear it was not human, and they ran out of the house. No resolution or backing from anyone else is reported.
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 2000-1.mp3”, starting at 57:51). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller says they were about 14 and at a friend’s house. The caller says the friend was into car models and that they were sitting on the floor rolling a car back and forth. With their back against a couch, the caller missed a roll, and the car went under the couch. The caller lifted the couch’s lower skirt, looked under, saw where the car was, and reached under for it. The caller reports that right in front of the car there was “a foot.” Asked by the host, the caller describes [quote withheld] adding that it was naked. The caller says they touched it and felt the instep and up to the ankle, and they looked. The caller states it was absolutely there and that they felt it. The host asks whether the caller laid hands on it and felt it physically, and the caller answers yes. The caller says they [quote withheld] Asked what kind, the caller says they do not know, but that it felt cold and [quote withheld] The caller says they jumped and ran out of the house. The story ends there. The lines that follow belong to a separate story about a neighbor. No checking or follow-up is described.
Reported events, in order
- 0:00
The caller says they were about 14 and at a friend’s house.
- 0:07
The caller and the friend were sitting on the floor rolling a toy car back and forth.
- 0:16
The friend rolled the car to the caller, who missed it, and it went under the couch.
- 0:20
The caller lifted the couch skirt, looked under, and reached for the car.
- 0:37
The caller reports seeing a foot right in front of the car under the couch.
- 0:43
The caller describes it as a naked human foot, not a boot or shoe.
- 0:50
The caller says they touched it and felt the instep and up to the ankle.
- 1:10
The caller says they could swear it was not a human foot.
- 1:16
The caller says it felt cold and kind of leathery.
- 1:30
The caller says they jumped and ran out of the house.
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· 0:37
The caller reports seeing a foot under the couch, right in front of the toy car.
- observation· 0:43
The caller describes it as a naked human foot, not a boot or shoe.
- observation· 0:50
The caller says they touched it and felt the instep and up to the ankle.
- observation· 1:16
The caller says the foot felt cold and kind of leathery.
- interpretation· 1:10
The caller says they could swear it was not a human foot.
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, internally coherent, and reasonably specific despite lacking names or dates. Ordinary explanations for a foot under a couch are not addressed and remain plausible. The caller’s conclusion that it was not human rests on a brief impression of touch.
Evidence for and against
- A direct, firsthand witness story.
- A specific sequence of retrieving the car and reaching under the couch.
- Concrete sensory details of touching the instep and ankle.
- The caller admits uncertainty about what kind of foot it was.
- No names, address, date, or other checkable details.
- No search or follow-up described.
- The conclusion that it was not human rests on a subjective feel.
- The labels showing who is speaking may be imperfect.
- The event is brief and not backed up by anyone else.
- 0:50
- 1:10
What the model inferred (not said on air): Scores reflect content only. Closeness to the event and a clear sequence raise credibility. The lack of checkable detail and the unaddressed ordinary possibilities keep it below the highest band.
The only evidence is the caller’s word. No physical evidence is claimed, no documentation is examined, and no second witness speaks on air.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand testimony is present.
- Some concrete details are given.
- No names, dates, or locations that could be checked.
- No photograph, recording, or physical trace mentioned.
- No on-air second witness.
- No outside check was made.
- 1:04
What the model inferred (not said on air): Under the scoring guide, a firsthand statement that no one else backs up falls in the lowest evidence band.
A home setting, touching an unexplained cold, leathery foot, and abrupt flight create moderate unease. There is no threat, pursuit, injury, or sustained dread.
Evidence for and against
- Touching an unexplained part of a body under furniture.
- Described as cold and leathery.
- The caller runs out of the house.
- A very brief encounter.
- No malevolence or harm reported.
- Ends with escape rather than escalation.
- No aftermath or later consequences are described.
- 1:16
- 1:30
What the model inferred (not said on air): The score is a judgment from the listener’s side about how unsettling the story is, not a claim about actual danger.
Touching part of a body under furniture while playing is less common than a full ghost, but it draws on the familiar fear that something is hidden under a couch.
Evidence for and against
- A foot under a couch rather than a full figure.
- Touch and feel are emphasized over visual description.
- The cold, leathery feel is a distinctive detail.
- Something hiding under furniture is a familiar home ghost-story setup.
- The story is short and lacks other unusual motifs.
- Novelty compared with the rest of the archive is provisional.
- 0:37
- 1:16
What the model inferred (not said on air): The model’s provisional originality score is 68. The published score would be worked out compared with the rest of the archive.
Scoring confidence 0.74 · analysis confidence 0.82 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand testimony only; No physical evidence mentioned; No on-air second witness. The originality score blends the model's score (68) 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 living person or child could have been under or behind the couch with a bare foot sticking out. A brief touch in an enclosed space could give a cold or odd feeling. · The caller identifies [quote withheld] No search or identification is reported.
- An object such as a doll, mannequin, or foot-shaped item could have been under the couch. The caller lifted a couch skirt and reached into a dim space, and described the feeling as [quote withheld] · The car went under the couch, and the caller reached into the area under the couch.
- A prank by the friend or someone in the house could account for a fake foot placed under the couch. · The setting is a friend’s house during play, but the transcript does not say the friend was involved or that anything was found afterward.
What stands out
The story centers on touching part of a body under furniture rather than seeing a full ghost. The caller reports a cold, leathery foot but gives no further identification or resolution.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.