Body in the surf at Galveston and a figure who named himself [name withheld]
[name withheld], a first-time caller from Arkansas, tells Art Bell about an end-of-summer trip they say they took to Galveston with their nine-year-old son. They report finding a dead man lying in the surf while hunting for shells at midnight low tide. They say they heard a male voice say “no, not yet.” The caller was then visited at their beach house by a figure who gave his name as [name withheld]. They say the first name matched a later newspaper identification. They say the contact continued until they left and ended with the sensation of being hugged.
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 2003.mp3”, starting at 3:33). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
[name withheld], calling from Arkansas as a first-time caller, says the events happened two years earlier, at the end of summer. They took their nine-year-old son to Galveston, and they stayed in a beach house. Low tide was at midnight, so they walked him down to the shoreline with a single flashlight to look for shells, under a quarter moon. After about an hour the boy again asked, “mom, what's that.” The caller says his voice sounded different. They then saw a man lying on his back where the water met the sand, feet toward them. The caller reports that a wave washed over his head, that he did not respond, and that his arms floated oddly. They then knew he was dead. As they told their son they had to leave, the caller says they heard the man’s voice clearly say “no, not yet.” The caller says they did not go to him. They took their son back and called 911. They report fire trucks, beach patrol, and city and county responders. The caller says beach patrol told them they had not tried CPR because he had been in the water too long and was definitely dead. They say a search-and-rescue worker and an officer later pulled the man from the water. Back at the house, they sat on the porch crying and asking aloud who he was. An officer had guessed the man had come from the state park, a guess the caller says they knew was wrong. They then describe a figure appearing at the top of the steps, not fully solid but clear. It told them his name was [name withheld] and gave two other names. The next day, they say, it showed them on a map the next subdivision west on the beach. They say [name withheld] told them he had been on the beach with two friends who had been partying, which they felt was suspicious. The contact continued, they say, until they left on the Friday. That same Friday, they say, a local front-page article identified him, and they state his name was indeed [name withheld]. They believe he did not at first know he was dead, that “no, not yet” marked the moment he realized it, and that they were the only person who could hear him. They say the last contact was at the top of the boardwalk, where they felt his arms around their shoulders like a hug and he apologized.
Reported events, in order
- 0:17
[name withheld] says that two years earlier, at the end of summer, they had taken their nine-year-old son to Galveston and were staying in a beach house.
- 0:44
The caller says low tide was at midnight, so they walked to the shoreline with a single flashlight under a quarter moon to look for shells.
- 1:47
After about an hour, their son said “mom, what's that” again, but this time the caller reports his voice sounded different.
- 2:10
The caller says they first saw feet and then the rest of a man lying on his back where the water meets the sand, feet toward them.
- 3:45
The caller says a wave washed over his head, he made no response, and his arms floated oddly. They knew he was dead.
- 4:31
As they told their son they had to go, the caller says they heard the man’s voice clearly say “no, not yet.”
- 5:30
Back at the beach house the caller says they called 911 and that fire trucks, beach patrol, and city and county responders came.
- 5:50
The caller says beach patrol told them they had not tried CPR because he had been in the water too long and was definitely dead.
- 6:10
The caller says a search-and-rescue worker and a police officer pulled the man out of the water and laid him on the beach.
- 6:49
The caller says they sat on the porch crying and asked aloud who he was and what had happened. A police officer had guessed he was from the state park, which they felt was wrong.
- 7:38
The caller says a figure appeared at the top of the steps. It was not fully solid and had no feet on the porch, but it was very clear. It told them his name was [name withheld].
- 8:23
The caller says he gave two other names, and the next day returned and showed them on a map the next subdivision down west on the beach.
- 8:44
The caller says [name withheld] described having been on the beach with two friends who had been partying, and that they felt it was [quote withheld]
- 9:16
The caller says the contact lasted until they left. He had died Wednesday night at midnight, they found him at 1 a.m. Thursday, and they left on Friday, when a local paper’s front-page article identified him.
- 10:57
At the top of the boardwalk the caller says they felt his arms around their shoulders like a hug and that he apologized for putting them through 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· 2:19
The caller says they saw a man lying where the water met the sand.
- observation· 3:45
The caller says a wave washed over his head, he did not respond, and his arms floated oddly, and they concluded he was dead.
- observation· 4:31
The caller says that as they told their son they had to leave, they heard the man’s voice clearly.
- observation· 4:38
The caller says they heard the voice say “no, not yet.”
- observation· 7:38
The caller says a figure appeared at the top of the steps of the beach house, not fully solid and with no feet on the porch.
- observation· 8:05
The caller says the figure told them his name was [name withheld].
- interpretation· 9:39
The caller says the man was not identified until the Friday they left, when a local paper ran a front-page article with his physical description.
- observation· 11:04
The caller says they felt arms around their shoulders like a hug at the top of the boardwalk.
- interpretation· 10:09
The caller's stated impression of why the dead man contacted them is that he was angry at having died.
- interpretation· 11:16
The caller says they believe they were the only person who could hear him, and that this is why he kept returning to them.
- host statement· 9:52
The statement that the man’s name was confirmed as [name withheld]. The label showing who is speaking is unclear; it may be the host restating it or the caller confirming it.
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, specific, firsthand story with a clearly ordered sequence. The beach death has an ordinary explanation, but the voice and figure do not, and the caller does not test other explanations. No one else backs it up, and the newspaper detail is unverified. So it is held in the upper-middle of the [quote withheld] range rather than higher.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand story of the central events from the person who reports them.
- Concrete setting and sequence: Galveston, a beach house, midnight low tide, a quarter moon, one flashlight, an hour of walking.
- Details that could in principle be checked: the reported Wednesday-midnight death, discovery at 1 a.m. Thursday, departure Friday, and a Friday front-page article naming him.
- The caller separates some of what they perceived from what they inferred ([quote withheld] [quote withheld]).
- No second witness or documentation is presented. The newspaper article is described but not produced.
- The caller does not address possible ordinary explanations for the voice or the figure on the porch.
- Some lines of the automatic transcript are low confidence, and the story relies on voices that are not clearly attributed.
- Whether the confirmation that his name was indeed [name withheld] came from the caller or the host. The labels showing who is speaking are unclear at that point.
- No last name, no article shown, and no date given precisely enough to check.
- 0:17
- 3:45
- 9:39
What the model inferred (not said on air): The component scores are my judgments. Closeness to the events is high because the caller describes experiencing them directly. Specificity is moderately high because several checkable details (place, times, a newspaper) are named without being verified. Alternative explanations are scored moderately because the caller neither considers nor rules out ordinary causes.
The story contains details that could in principle be checked and mentions other people said to have been present. But nothing was examined on air and the claimed witnesses do not speak. That places it in the low range for checkable details.
Evidence for and against
- Details that could be checked are given: Galveston, a beach house, end of summer two years earlier, a Wednesday-midnight death, a 1 a.m. Thursday discovery, a Friday departure, and a Friday front-page identification article.
- Several responders are claimed (beach patrol, fire, city, county), so there are potential witnesses, though none speak.
- No photograph, recording, or document is produced or described as examined on air.
- The newspaper article is only asserted. No date, publication, or headline is given.
- No second witness to the voice or figure speaks.
- Whether any of the named details (the article, the responders) could be verified. No outside check was done.
- 5:50
- 9:39
What the model inferred (not said on air): Scored strictly on independently checkable support in this part of the broadcast, not on how convincing the story feels.
Finding a body with a child present, the disembodied “no, not yet,” and the returning figure at their lodging create lasting unease. The reported hug and apology lower the score below the frightening range.
Evidence for and against
- A child is present at the discovery of a body in the surf.
- A disembodied voice says “no, not yet” while the caller is trying to leave.
- A figure reportedly appears at the steps of their lodging late at night and returns over the following days.
- Physical contact is described at the end ([quote withheld]).
- The final contact is described as affectionate and apologetic ([quote withheld]), which softens the ending.
- Some of the story is procedural (the 911 call, the responders) rather than frightening.
- The description of the figure’s appearance is sparse and partly negative (“not fully solid,” “very clear”), so it is hard to judge how frightening it looked.
- 4:38
- 7:38
- 11:04
What the model inferred (not said on air): This is a judgment about how unsettling the story is for a listener, not about whether any of it happened.
The frame is a familiar ghost-contact story, with several distinctive details that are not stock items: the caller found the body first, the “no, not yet” line, and the claimed newspaper identification.
Evidence for and against
- The trigger is unusual: the caller reports being contacted by the dead man whose body they themselves found in the surf hours earlier.
- The first words the caller heard (“no, not yet”) and the stated motive ([quote withheld]) are distinctive details.
- The follow-up, in which the figure supplies names and a map location later matched to a newspaper identification, is an uncommon combination.
- The core frame, a figure appearing to a lone person at night and identifying itself, is a familiar ghost-story pattern.
- The affectionate farewell is a common closing beat.
- The archive is small at this stage, so comparison with the rest of the archive carries little weight.
- 10:09
- 9:16
What the model inferred (not said on air): This is a provisional judgment. Comparison with the rest of the archive is not meaningful at this size.
Scoring confidence 0.65 · analysis confidence 0.75 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand story about finding a body and about later contact they attribute to the dead man; The caller’s claim that a Friday local newspaper front-page article identified the man, not examined or produced; No physical evidence, recording, or photograph presented; No second witness to the reported voice or figure speaks on air. The originality score blends the model's score (55) 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.
- The body on the beach was an ordinary drowning or water death. · The caller reports beach patrol saying they had not tried CPR because he had been in the water too long. That fits an ordinary drowning or water death rather than anything strange.
- Exhaustion, strong emotion, and late-night solitude after a traumatic discovery could contribute to a sensed presence and an imagined or half-heard figure. This is offered only as a possibility about the events, not about the caller. · The caller describes sitting on the porch late at night, crying and speaking aloud for some time, after finding a body and calling 911. The figure and voice come only after this.
What stands out
The caller reports that the figure who later contacted the caller was the man whose body they had found in the surf only hours earlier. The caller says a first name the figure gave was later matched to a newspaper identification. The first words the caller heard, “no, not yet,” are also a distinctive detail.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.