Caller reports a felt presence in their house, later confirmed by a neighbor
An unidentified caller tells Art Bell a brief second story. After moving into a house, the caller repeatedly felt a frightening presence, especially at night. They eventually confronted it aloud and received what they call “concepts” rather than a voice. The caller says they learned who the presence was and why it was there but declines to give details on air. The caller says an unnamed neighbor down the street confirmed that person had lived in the house and what had happened to them. The story ends with Art saying that such confirmation would not sit lightly with him.
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 1:55:49). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
In a brief “second story” at the end of their call, the unidentified caller says they moved into a house. The caller describes themselves as “very sensitive,” able to know when things are happening, though they say they cannot call themselves psychic. The caller reports repeatedly feeling a presence in the house and being frightened by it. The caller got the feeling at night when they turned out the lights to sleep, to the point of “freaking out.” The caller told themselves to get hold of themselves and, having [quote withheld] decided to confront it, saying [quote withheld] The caller asked aloud, [quote withheld] The caller reports that they heard no voice but that “concepts” came to them, and that they learned who the presence was and why it was there. The caller concludes there was nothing to be afraid of. When Art asks who it was and why it was there, the caller declines, saying [quote withheld] The caller says what confirmed it was an unnamed neighbor down the street. The caller asked whether anyone had ever lived in the neighborhood and described the person to the neighbor. The neighbor said that person had lived in the house and told the caller what had happened to them, which matched what the caller says they had been told. The host responds that this would not work for him. If it were confirmed for him that he was communicating with someone who had passed away, he would not take it lightly. The broadcast then moves to host announcements outside the story.
Reported events, in order
- 0:12
The caller says they moved into a house. They describe themselves as “very sensitive,” able to know when things are happening, although they say they cannot call themselves psychic.
- 0:28
The caller reports repeatedly feeling a presence in the house and being frightened by it.
- 0:35
The caller says the feeling came at night when they turned out all the lights and tried to sleep, and that they were “freaking out.”
- 0:44
The caller told themselves to get hold of themselves and, drawing on “certain studies,” decided to confront the presence: [quote withheld]
- 1:02
The caller asked aloud, [quote withheld]
- 1:10
The caller reports hearing no voice, but receiving “concepts,” from which they say they learned who the presence was and why it was there.
- 1:20
The caller concluded there was nothing to be afraid of. When the host asks who it was and why, the caller declines to go into it.
- 1:24
The caller says what confirmed it was a neighbor down the street. The caller asked whether anyone had ever lived in the neighborhood and described the person to the neighbor.
- 1:49
The neighbor reportedly said that person had lived in that house and told the caller what had happened to them, which the caller says matched what they had been told.
- 2:02
The host replies that this would not work for him: if it were confirmed for him that he was communicating with someone who had passed away, he would not take it lightly.
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· 0:28
The caller kept feeling a presence in the house they had moved into, and this frightened them.
- observation· 0:35
The feeling came at night when the caller turned out all the lights and tried to sleep.
- observation· 1:02
The caller addressed the presence directly, asking it who it was and what it was doing there.
- interpretation· 1:10
The caller says they heard no voice, but that “concepts” came to them, and they learned who the presence was and why it was there.
- interpretation· 1:20
The caller concluded there was nothing to be afraid of.
- observation· 1:24
The caller questioned a neighbor down the street and described the person to the neighbor.
- hearsay· 1:49
The neighbor said that person had lived in the house and recounted what had happened to them, matching what the caller says the presence conveyed.
- host statement· 2:08
The host states that if it were confirmed for him that he was communicating with someone who had passed away, he would not take it lightly.
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.
This is a brief, coherent firsthand story that answers the host’s questions without contradicting itself. But it has almost no concrete detail and an easy ordinary fit for the core sensation. That places it near the [quote withheld] anchor.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand story: the caller describes their own experience in their own home.
- A sequence with a clear cause-and-effect shape: felt presence, self-encouragement, confrontation, resolution.
- The caller separates perception from conclusion: [quote withheld]
- The caller declines to escalate or embellish when Art presses for who and why.
- No names, dates, town, or house given. Almost nothing can be checked.
- The caller explicitly withholds the substance of the claim, who the presence was and why: [quote withheld]
- The nighttime setting while trying to sleep fits common sleep-related explanations easily.
- The only support is a reported conversation with an unnamed neighbor, not independent verification.
- No name, location, date, or property detail is given.
- The labels showing who is speaking shift mid-passage, so the attribution of a few lines is uncertain.
- The story is the caller’s “second story,” told “real quickly,” so it may be compressed.
- 0:28
- 1:10
- 1:24
What the model inferred (not said on air): The withheld details and the completely unidentified house and neighborhood prevent any check and cap the specificity component. The setting near sleep drives the alternative-explanation component down.
The story rests entirely on the caller’s word, with only a claimed backing conversation that is not heard on air and no physical or documentary evidence. That is the bottom range.
Evidence for and against
- The caller gives a purported backing conversation with an unnamed neighbor.
- No names, dates, addresses, records, or documents are given or examined.
- The supporting neighbor is unnamed and does not speak on air.
- Nothing in the story could in principle be independently checked from the transcript.
- Whether the neighbor’s remarks were as described cannot be assessed.
- No outside check was performed.
- 1:24
- 1:49
What the model inferred (not said on air): A claimed second party who does not speak on air is not backing under the scoring guide, so no raise is warranted.
A presence felt in one’s home at night, and the caller’s own reported fear, give a mildly eerie feel. But the story resolves into reassurance with no threat, contact, or harm, keeping the score low.
Evidence for and against
- The caller says they were frightened by a presence in their own home.
- The intrusions occur at night as the caller turns out the lights and tries to sleep.
- The caller describes themselves as “freaking out” before resolving to confront it.
- The caller’s conclusion is explicitly reassuring: [quote withheld]
- No physical contact, harm, or threatening behavior is reported.
- No escalation and no other disturbed occupants. The neighbor’s confirmation is treated as closure.
- The nature of the presence is never described, so its potential to disturb cannot be assessed.
- 0:35
- 0:43
- 1:20
What the model inferred (not said on air): The scoring guide raises scores for intrusion into safe spaces and sustained dread. Here the intrusion is brief, and the caller themselves dissolves the dread.
The setup is a familiar [quote withheld] with a confrontational resolution. But the reported non-verbal, concept-based communication and the deliberately withheld content give one or two distinctive details.
Evidence for and against
- The caller reports receiving “concepts” rather than a voice.
- The caller withholds the content of the encounter entirely, declining even the host’s direct question.
- The confirmation is framed as a neighborhood interview in which the caller describes the person rather than naming a known dead relative.
- A presence felt in a newly occupied home, frightening at night, is a stock ghost-story setup.
- Resolution by confrontation and confirmation from neighborhood history are familiar devices.
- The distinctive material (who the presence was, what it conveyed) is never stated, so the story’s uniqueness cannot really be judged.
- 1:10
- 1:45
What the model inferred (not said on air): Novelty compared with the rest of the archive cannot be computed here (pilot, single story), so only the model judgment is offered. It is provisional.
Scoring confidence 0.50 · analysis confidence 0.60 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand story (brief); Claimed confirmation from an unnamed neighbor, who does not speak on air; No documentation, recording, photograph, or record produced or examined. 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.
- A sensation of a presence while falling asleep, rather than something outside the caller. · The caller places the feeling at night while turning out the lights and trying to sleep, a state in which a sense of a presence is commonly reported.
- Expectation and suggestion in an unfamiliar house. · Because the caller describes themselves as sensitive and says they [quote withheld] expectation and self-suggestion may have shaped their interpretation of ordinary house noises and the dark.
- The neighbor’s statement reflects local knowledge or a tendency to agree, not verification of a communication. · The only outside support is an unnamed neighbor’s agreement, which could reflect the neighbor’s own knowledge or assumptions about the neighborhood’s history rather than independent backing.
What stands out
The caller claims a direct, spoken confrontation with the presence and a non-verbal reply they describe as “concepts.” Yet they refuse to say on air who or what it was, so the story’s most distinctive content is deliberately withheld. The caller also reports a specific way of checking: questioning an unnamed neighbor and describing the person to the neighbor, rather than naming a known relative.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.