Caller relays friend’s account of two headless men in black suits crossing a field
A caller named [name withheld], originally from Alabama and then living in Burlington, Vermont, relays a story that their close friend of twenty-five years, [name withheld], has told them several times. [name withheld] says that when [name withheld] was a boy of about six, around 1971–72, he was standing at the edge of a South Alabama pea field where his family was working. He saw what he described as two headless men in black suits walking across the field toward him. In [name withheld]’s telling, the boy was badly frightened and the figures vanished. [name withheld] says they believe their friend believes it, and they wish the friend were present to verify it. The host then muses about why a spirit would appear headless.
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 2001-2.mp3”, starting at 1:23:37). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
[name withheld] says they are originally from Alabama and now live in Burlington, Vermont. [name withheld] tells a story that their close friend of twenty-five years, [name withheld], has told them several times. [name withheld] was born in 1966 and, according to [name withheld], said the event happened when he was about six, so roughly 1971–72. His family was poor and did farm work, picking peas on other people’s farms. [name withheld] was too young to work. At the time they were living in a small country place in South Alabama called Nyota. [name withheld] says the family was out in the fields picking peas and [name withheld] was standing along the side of the field. He saw what [name withheld] describes as apparitions of two headless men dressed in black suits walking across the field directly toward him. Art asks “Headless men?” and [name withheld] confirms: two headless men in black suits, which [name withheld] pictures as undertaker-like, walking straight toward the boy. In [name withheld]’s telling, this frightened the boy badly. A line attributed to the host adds that they then vanished. [name withheld] says [name withheld] has told them the story several times and that they are convinced at least that [name withheld] believes what he saw was true. [name withheld] adds, [quote withheld] [name withheld] says headless apparitions are the most terrifying kind, and [name withheld] mentions stories about Anne Boleyn at the Tower of London. Art wonders aloud why a spirit would appear headless. He offers possibilities such as a poltergeist frightening people or death coming for him, then moves to the next caller.
Reported events, in order
- 0:02
[name withheld] introduces himself, saying they are originally from Alabama and now live in Burlington, Vermont.
- 0:09
[name withheld] names their close friend [name withheld], whom they have known for twenty-five years and who has told them the story several times.
- 0:35
[name withheld] says the friend was born in 1966 and was about six when the event happened, which places it around 1971–72.
- 0:47
[name withheld] describes the family as poor and doing farm work such as picking peas on other people’s farms, and living in a small country place in South Alabama called Nyota.
- 1:07
While the family was out picking peas, the boy stood along the side of the field.
- 1:16
The boy reportedly saw apparitions of two headless men in black suits walking across the field directly toward him.
- 1:28
[name withheld] repeats the description as undertaker-like headless men in black suits and says it frightened the boy badly.
- 1:41
A line attributed by the transcript labels to the host says the figures then vanished.
- 2:17
[name withheld] says they are convinced at least that their friend believes what he saw was true, and that they wish the friend were present to verify it.
- 2:28
After the call, the host muses about why a spirit would appear headless, suggesting a poltergeist frightening people or death coming for him.
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).
- hearsay· 1:16
The caller’s friend, as a boy of about six, saw two headless men in black suits walking across a field toward him.
- hearsay· 1:28
The caller repeats and adds to the description, picturing the figures as undertaker-like.
- host statement· 1:41
A line labeled as the host says the figures then vanished (who said it is uncertain).
- host statement· 1:46
The host says that if he had seen this, he would have taken it as death coming for him.
- host statement· 2:38
The host offers a poltergeist as one possible reason a spirit might appear headless.
- interpretation· 0:27
The caller states their own conclusion about their friend’s belief in the experience.
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, simply ordered story with some concrete details. But it is secondhand from a close named source, concerns a single event recalled from about age six, and no other reading is discussed.
Evidence for and against
- The source is a named friend of twenty-five years, with the story told repeatedly over time.
- An approximate date, region, town name, and activity are all supplied.
- Entirely secondhand. The witness does not speak.
- The witness recalls the event from roughly age six, decades earlier.
- The caller considers no ordinary explanations.
- The labels showing who is speaking give [quote withheld] to the host, so the end of the reported sequence is unclear.
- The place name “Nyota” may be a transcription error.
- The caller was not present, so no firsthand detail about the setting can be judged.
- 0:15
- 1:16
What the model inferred (not said on air): The score reflects a coherent but secondhand story from a named, long-standing source, with concrete but sparse details and an easy ordinary reading (a young child misjudging distant figures) that the caller never addresses. The 60-point cap for secondhand stories applies and is not reached.
The caller’s word only, at one remove: the caller relays a friend’s story and says the friend is not present to verify it. Some checkable details are given (a named friend, a named place, approximate dates), but nothing has been checked and no documentation is claimed.
Evidence for and against
- A named friend, a named small place in South Alabama, and approximate dates are supplied.
- The caller says the friend has told the story on several occasions.
- No physical evidence, recording, photograph, or document is claimed.
- No second witness speaks on air. The caller says [quote withheld]
- No name, date, or place is offered by the original witness, only by the caller relaying the story.
- The “vanished” line is attributed to the host by the automatic labels, so even that detail is uncertain in the transcript.
- 0:09
- 2:17
What the model inferred (not said on air): The names, place, and approximate dates are the kind of details that could in principle be checked, but none has been checked, and the only support is the caller’s word about a third person’s memory.
Headless figures in black suits walking straight at an isolated child make an unsettling image, and the caller and host both dwell on it. But nothing threatening, harmful, or prolonged is reported.
Evidence for and against
- Figures described as headless and dressed like undertakers, moving directly toward the witness.
- The witness is a young child alone at the edge of a field.
- A single, brief event with no escalation, contact, or aftermath described.
- The caller’s tone and the host’s musings turn to discussion, not lasting dread.
- The story is secondhand and short, which mutes lasting dread.
- No physical contact, harm, or malevolence is reported.
- 1:16
- 1:38
What the model inferred (not said on air): The unsettling quality rests on the image of headless figures in funeral clothing advancing on a child, reinforced by the reactions of the caller and the host. No threat or harm beyond fright is reported.
A familiar headless-figure setup with a few distinctive details (two of them, black suits, walking straight at a child in a pea field). It is not a stock bedroom or footsteps story, but not a rare event either.
Evidence for and against
- Two figures instead of the single stock ghost, with a specific setting and clothing described.
- The event is told as a daytime, outdoor, rural encounter, which is less common in ghost lore than nighttime house cases.
- The headless ghost is itself a long-standing ghost-story theme.
- The caller supplies a familiar cultural reference (Anne Boleyn at the Tower of London).
- Originality is provisional. The part compared with the rest of the archive carries little weight in a small pilot sample.
- The caller’s own aside about Anne Boleyn and the Tower of London may make the headless theme feel more familiar than the story itself warrants.
- 1:28
What the model inferred (not said on air): I treat the “headless apparition” as a familiar ghost-story setup. The distinctive elements here are the pair of figures, the undertaker-style black suits, the direct approach toward a child, and the rural pea-field setting.
Scoring confidence 0.70 · analysis confidence 0.75 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: Secondhand spoken word from a caller relaying a named friend’s story.; No recording, photograph, document, or physical trace claimed.; No second witness speaking on air. The original witness is explicitly said to be absent..
Ordinary explanations to consider
These are possibilities only. None is a finding about what happened.
- A young child standing at the edge of a pea field may have misjudged distant figures or farm objects. The “headless” look could come from a partly hidden or distant silhouette. · The story places a six-year-old alone at the side of a field while adults worked elsewhere, and describes figures [quote withheld] at a distance. No close-range detail is reported.
- The dark suits and headless look may be the child’s later reconstruction of an ordinary sighting, shaped by funeral and undertaker imagery and by retelling over roughly thirty years. · The caller supplies the undertaker comparison (“probably like Undertakers”) and says the story has been told repeatedly over twenty-five years of friendship.
What stands out
The reported figures are headless: two headless men in black suits walking directly toward a child standing at the edge of a pea field. A caller relays the story secondhand, and the caller says outright that the original witness is not present to verify it.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.