Driver reports hitting an elderly man and dog on a road outside Chicago
A caller who gives their location as Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, describes hitting what they call a ghost, an elderly man and his dog, with a borrowed car on a road outside Chicago while two teenage passengers screamed. The caller says the figures looked completely lifelike, yet the car struck nothing, with no sound or impact. The caller says they took the girls home and told no one. Years later, the caller says, an elderly neighbor at a relative’s Christmas party confirmed that a man with a dog had been killed by a car on that road. The caller says they still do not understand it.
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 2001-1.mp3”, starting at 1:19:31). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller, who gives their location as Oklahoma City, says they are describing incidents on the same road, “outside of Chicago.” The caller says that on a school night in high school they had to pay their stepmother mileage to borrow her car, and told her they were going to a friend’s house to study. The caller then [quote withheld] named [name withheld] and [name withheld]. The caller says they were driving down a road in front of an elementary school at “maybe 35, 40” when a man, “an elderly man,” and his dog appeared, and that [quote withheld] The caller says they hit them, and at one point on the call describes it as hitting “the ghost.” Asked whether they felt a thump, the caller answers “There wasn't time” and says they had [quote withheld] The caller says there was no noise, that they calmed the girls, that all three realized something had happened, and that they took the girls home. The caller says they never told their parents or stepmother, because they were supposed to be studying. The caller adds that their uncle built a house on the same road about four years later. At a Christmas party there, the caller asked an elderly neighbor, who said they had lived in the area “forever,” whether a man with a dog had ever died down the road. The neighbor said yes, knew the man’s name, said the man was a neighbor of theirs, and said the man had been hit by a car. The caller says they said nothing at the party and still do not understand it.
Reported events, in order
- 0:20
The caller says they want to describe incidents that happened on the same road in the same year.
- 0:29
The caller says that on a school night in high school they had to pay their stepmother mileage to use her car, and told her they were going to a friend’s house to study.
- 0:51
The caller says they went and picked up two girls, named [name withheld] and [name withheld].
- 1:03
The caller describes driving down a road in front of an elementary school at about 35 to 40 mph.
- 1:12
A man, described as an elderly man, and his dog appear. The caller says they looked [quote withheld]
- 1:29
The caller says they hit them, and at one point on the call calls it hitting “the ghost.”
- 1:41
Asked whether they felt a thump, the caller answers that there wasn’t time, and says two teenage girls with them were screaming.
- 2:15
The caller says there was no noise. They calmed the girls, all three agreed something had happened, and the caller drove them home.
- 2:39
The caller says they did not tell their parents or stepmother, because they were supposed to be out studying.
- 2:53
The caller places the road “outside of Chicago.”
- 3:06
The caller says their uncle built a house on the same road about four years later, and that they attended a Christmas party there.
- 3:27
The caller says they asked the elderly neighbor how long the neighbor had lived in the area (answer: “forever”) and whether a man with a dog had ever died down the road.
- 3:38
The neighbor, the caller says, answered yes, knew the man’s name, said the man was a neighbor of theirs, and said a car had hit the man and he died.
- 3:52
The caller says they said nothing at the party because they did not understand it, and that over the years they still do not understand it.
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· 1:17
An elderly man and his dog appeared in the road in front of the car.
- observation· 1:19
The figures looked fully solid and lifelike to the caller.
- observation· 1:29
The caller says they struck the man and the dog with the car.
- interpretation· 1:32
The caller calls what they struck a ghost.
- observation· 2:15
The caller says the impact made no sound and, when asked, no felt thump.
- hearsay· 1:47
Two passengers, named [name withheld] and [name withheld], were in the car and screamed.
- hearsay· 3:38
An elderly neighbor told the caller that a man who lived nearby had been killed by a car, and that the man had a dog.
- host statement· 2:07
Art states that all three people in the car saw the same thing.
- host statement· 4:17
Art proposes that the figure is repeatedly reliving being struck by a car.
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 firsthand, reasonably ordered story with some concrete detail. It has no names, dates, or place specifics, and the one detail that backs it up emerged only from a leading question. It is scored near the middle of the scoring guide.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand story by the driver: “I hit him,” and the driver’s account of calming the passengers.
- Concrete details: a road in front of an elementary school, speed [quote withheld] and two passengers named [name withheld] and [name withheld].
- The caller notes how lifelike the figures looked ([quote withheld]) and states plainly that they do not understand it.
- The framing of [quote withheld] sits awkwardly with the later statement that the uncle’s house was built [quote withheld]
- The confirmation came in response to the caller’s own leading question about [quote withheld]
- No road name, town, date, or year is given, so nothing can be checked.
- The labels in the automatic transcript showing who is speaking are plainly unreliable in this part of the broadcast (the same words are attributed to both the host and the caller). It is therefore unclear whether [quote withheld] and [quote withheld] are the caller’s words or Art’s.
- The nature of the “two incidents” the caller promises is never fully spelled out.
- 0:20
- 1:07
- 1:19
- 1:44
- 2:53
- 4:03
What the model inferred (not said on air): Component weights (source 22, specificity 11, consistency 14, alternative explanations 7, calibration 6) are my judgment from the quoted content. No component is based on the caller’s tone or delivery. The lack of any reported impact or sound is treated as an ambiguity that allows ordinary readings rather than as evidence of a ghost.
The story rests on the caller’s word, plus two claimed but unheard witnesses and an unverified secondhand confirmation. That places it in the 11 to 25 band.
Evidence for and against
- Specifics that could in principle be checked are given but not checked: a road [quote withheld] an area “outside of Chicago,” two named passengers, and a relative’s house on the same road.
- No physical evidence of any kind is offered.
- The claimed witnesses never speak. The host can only propose [quote withheld]
- The neighbor detail is secondhand and was drawn out by the caller’s own question.
- Whether anyone ever came forward to verify the story is unknown from this part of the broadcast.
- 3:00
- 0:55
What the model inferred (not said on air): The band placement follows the scoring guide’s description ([quote withheld]). Nothing was examined on air and no outside check was done.
The image of hitting a pedestrian and animal that are not really there, combined with the idea of a death replayed endlessly, is genuinely unsettling though not graphic or threatening.
Evidence for and against
- A car is said to pass through or strike a man and a dog that appeared fully solid ([quote withheld]).
- Passengers screaming [quote withheld] and a driver having to keep their composure.
- Art describes it as a man [quote withheld]
- The story ends unresolved.
- There is no reported injury, threat, or pursuit. The encounter ends within moments, and the caller simply drives the girls home.
- The later scene is an ordinary Christmas party conversation.
- It is not established whether the car is said to have passed through the figures or simply to have struck them with no effect.
- 1:47
- 4:17
What the model inferred (not said on air): The idea of eternity is Art’s, not the caller’s. I count it only as part of how a listener experiences the segment.
This is a familiar story of a ghost on a road, with distinctive particulars: the dog, the felt collision without impact, and the delayed confirmation from a neighbor. The score is provisional, since the comparison with the rest of the archive carries little weight in the pilot.
Evidence for and against
- The caller says the car struck the man and dog with no impact and no sound.
- The dog is part of the reported ghost.
- A relative’s neighbor later names a man with a dog killed by a car on the same road.
- A figure on a road that proves to be a person who died there is a well-worn ghost-story frame.
- Whether the dog or the no-impact detail appears often elsewhere in the archive is not assessed here.
- 2:15
- 3:40
What the model inferred (not said on air): The model score is my own estimate. The published “originality” value is computed by comparing with the rest of the archive and may differ.
Scoring confidence 0.58 · analysis confidence 0.62 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand story (a single caller, with no other speaker backing it up on air); Two claimed witnesses in the car ([name withheld] and [name withheld]), named but not present or speaking; A claimed secondhand detail from an elderly neighbor about a man killed by a car on that road; No photograph, recording, document, road name, or date is produced or examined. The originality score blends the model's score (48) 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 mistaken sighting on a dark road: a shape or roadside object was taken for a man and a dog, and the driver’s expectation completed the picture. · The caller reports striking a man and dog at 35 to 40 mph, yet reports no sense of impact (“There wasn't time”) and no sound ([quote withheld]). That fits nothing having actually been struck.
- A near miss with a real person and dog that were never actually struck, with the alarm of the passengers reinforcing the impression that something was hit. · The strongest reported reactions are the passengers’ screams ([quote withheld]) rather than any physical evidence of a collision.
- The later “confirmation” may reflect an agreeable answer to a leading question rather than an independent account of a death on that road. · The confirmation came in answer to a specific leading question ([quote withheld]) put to an elderly neighbor at a party.
What stands out
The caller reports a felt collision with two fully lifelike figures that produced neither impact nor sound. The only later “verification” comes from an elderly neighbor’s answer to the caller’s own leading question years afterward. The dog, and the idea of a fatal road death seemingly being replayed, set this apart from a bare story of a figure on a road.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.