Dark winged figure flying above trees at a farm at 3 a.m.
An unnamed caller tells Art Bell a short story about what they call an apparition. On a cold February morning at 3 a.m., with fresh snow down, they looked up behind their mother’s house. The caller saw a dark, human-shaped figure with large wings flying through the air above the trees. The caller says it did not look down at them and they let it pass. The host thanks the caller and ends the call. No name, location, or year is given.
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 2000-2.mp3”, starting at 33:09). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller is not named. The caller begins by saying they had [quote withheld] and that it is one of those apparition stories. The caller adds that their figure [quote withheld] The caller says it happened on a cold February morning at 3 a.m., with freshly fallen snow and no leaves on the trees. The caller was behind their mother’s house, where they had cats to feed in a chicken house. The caller mentions an old farm road that ran to the back of the farm. The caller says they [quote withheld] and saw what they call an apparition flying through the air above the trees. It looked, they say, like the figure of a human being, but it was dark. The caller describes it as intent on going where it was going and as having “gigantic fat wings.” According to the caller, it did not look down at them and they [quote withheld] The host asks the caller nothing more. Art Bell replies briefly ([quote withheld]), and the call ends. Beyond calling it an apparition, the caller does not say what they think the thing was. The caller gives no year, town, or other witness, and does not say they tried to identify or follow it.
Reported events, in order
- 0:00
The caller says they had a small experience of their own, which they describe as one of the “apparition” stories (but not a red-eyed one).
- 0:14
The caller sets the scene: a cold February morning, 3 a.m., fresh fallen snow, no leaves on the trees.
- 0:14
The caller was behind their mother’s house feeding cats in a chicken house, near an old farm road running to the back of the farm.
- 0:32
The caller says they happened to look up and saw an apparition flying through the air above the trees.
- 0:39
The caller describes it as looking like the figure of a human being, but dark.
- 0:43
The caller says it was intent on where it was going and had “gigantic fat wings.”
- 0:51
The caller says it did not look down at them and they let it go on over.
- 0:56
The host says, [quote withheld] and ends the call.
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· 0:32
The caller saw a dark, human-shaped figure with large wings flying above the trees.
- observation· 0:39
The figure looked like a human being but was dark.
- observation· 0:43
The figure had very large wings and seemed intent on where it was going.
- observation· 0:51
The figure did not look at the caller, and the caller let it pass.
- interpretation· 0:00
The caller calls the sighting an “apparition.”
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 coherent, consistent first-person story told briefly and without escalation. But it has no year, place, or name, no other witness, and an obvious ordinary candidate (a large bird seen in silhouette at night) that the caller never addresses.
Evidence for and against
- A direct, firsthand sighting by the person speaking: [quote withheld]
- Concrete surrounding detail: a cold February morning, 3 a.m., fresh snow, no leaves, behind the mother’s house, cats in a chicken house.
- Careful wording: the caller describes what they saw (a dark, human-like form with wings) and only labels it an “apparition” without elaborating.
- No date (beyond February), no town, no named location. Nothing could be checked.
- A single brief glimpse with no sound, no trace, no repeat sighting, and no second witness.
- The detail given (a dark form, large wings, above trees, seen from below at night) fits a large bird or a misjudged silhouette at least as easily as an apparition.
- A few lines are run together or garbled in the automatic transcript, so some wording is uncertain.
- It is not stated whether the caller had told the story before or ever reconsidered what it was.
- 0:32
- 0:43
- 0:14
What the model inferred (not said on air): The part scores are my judgment: source closeness about 18 (firsthand but very brief and partial), specificity about 11, internal consistency about 16, other explanations about 5 (a bird or a misjudged size fits easily and is not addressed), calibration about 8. The total is 58, adjusted to 55 because the story is so brief.
There is nothing beyond the caller’s own word. No names, dates, records, photographs, physical traces, or other witnesses are offered, and no second person speaks on air.
Evidence for and against
- Only the caller’s own word exists in the transcript.
- No checkable details: no year, no town, no named farm or road.
- No claimed physical evidence or documentation of any kind.
- No other witness is said to have been present.
- The caller’s identity and location are never given, so even a hypothetical check would have no starting point.
- 0:00
- 0:51
What the model inferred (not said on air): A score of 0 to 10 applies: the caller’s word only. No outside check was done, so the cap of 50 is not approached.
A dark, winged, human-like form passing overhead at 3 a.m. in the cold is eerie. But the encounter is brief and not threatening, with no contact and no intrusion into a home, and the caller’s own reaction is to let it go on.
Evidence for and against
- Nighttime, 3 a.m., fresh snow, no leaves: a stark, isolated setting.
- A dark, human-shaped figure with “gigantic fat wings” flying above the trees.
- No threat, harm, or chase is reported.
- The figure ignores the caller and they simply let it pass. The host’s response is light.
- The story lasts about a minute and ends with no aftermath.
- The caller does not describe how they felt, so the feel of the moment is unknown.
- 0:39
- 0:51
What the model inferred (not said on air): My rating reflects the content of the story only. An unresolved but not hostile sighting puts it slightly above “mildly eerie” (30).
The setup, a dark figure seen at night that the caller lets pass, is familiar. But a winged humanoid flying above trees at 3 a.m. is a less common variant in this archive’s ghost stories.
Evidence for and against
- A human-shaped figure with large wings in flight, rather than the usual indoor ghost or figure at the bedside.
- The caller places it in the “apparition” genre while noting it is not the red-eyed kind.
- Stock elements are present: nighttime, a dark figure, no interaction, an unresolved ending.
- No distinctive name, date, place, or follow-up detail sets the story further apart.
- The published originality score is compared with the rest of the archive. With a pilot archive this figure is a first estimate.
- 0:43
- 0:00
What the model inferred (not said on air): The model’s originality score is set at 62 by my judgment (familiar setup plus the unusual winged, flying detail). Novelty compared with the rest of the archive cannot be worked out from this part of the broadcast alone.
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.70 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand word (a single brief call).; No claimed photograph, recording, document, or other object.; No second witness on air.. The originality score blends the model's score (62) 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 large bird (for example an owl or other large bird) glimpsed in silhouette at night, where the body reads as a human-like trunk and the wings look too large. · The caller’s own description rests on a dark form seen only from below at night: [quote withheld] and [quote withheld] No face or clothing is described.
- Misjudging shape and size in low light while looking up at a moving object against a dark sky, with nothing else to confirm it (no second witness, no sound, no trace). · The story is a single, brief sighting by one person at 3 a.m. in winter with snow on the ground. The caller reports no noise, no repeat, and no other person present.
What stands out
The caller describes a dark, winged, human-shaped form flying above trees at 3 a.m. This is closer to a report of a winged humanoid or “flying creature” than to the indoor ghosts typical of the show. The caller does not claim fear, contact, or any aftermath.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.