Brother falls ill and says beings are coming through the walls after mocking noises
A caller who identifies themself as [quote withheld] says that when they were younger they and their brothers heard noises in their house, and that after they mocked the noises one brother became ill. The next day the family heard the brother screaming upstairs. He was red, sweating, and mumbling incoherently, and said [quote withheld] The host suggests fevered delirium and notes it is the second such story. No outcome is stated.
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 2004.mp3”, starting at 1:44:02). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
[name withheld], calling from outside Buffalo, tells Art Bell that when they were younger they and their brothers used to hear [quote withheld] in their house. For some reason, [name withheld] says, they decided to mock the noises. [name withheld] says one brother [quote withheld] and that the next day that brother became “really sick.” [name withheld] says that they, another brother, and their mother were downstairs while the sick brother was upstairs. They heard screaming from the room. The family went upstairs, and their mother grabbed the screaming brother and held him. [name withheld] recalls the brother being [quote withheld] and “mumbling incoherently.” [name withheld] says the brother then repeated, [quote withheld] while his eyes darted around. The family did not know what to do. [name withheld] ends by saying, [quote withheld] Host Art Bell responds that he would have called 911, and suggests the episode could be put down to [quote withheld] or the whole story discarded. Bell adds that it is the second such story, referring to an earlier story about a finger through a boot, blood poisoning, and death, and says it might be better not to make fun of such things. The caller does not say what happened to their brother, what the noises were, or where or when this happened.
Reported events, in order
- 0:06
[name withheld] says they and their brothers used to hear a lot of noise and stuff in their house when they were younger.
- 0:26
They decided to make fun of the noises. [name withheld] says one brother got out of hand.
- 0:38
The next day, that brother became really sick.
- 0:44
[name withheld], another brother, and their mother were downstairs while the sick brother was upstairs. They heard screaming from the room.
- 0:52
They went upstairs, and the mother grabbed and held the screaming brother.
- 0:58
[name withheld] recalls the brother as red and sweating and mumbling incoherently.
- 1:10
The brother said [quote withheld] and his eyes darted around. The family did not know what to do.
- 1:22
[name withheld] ends by saying that is what [name withheld] wanted to share.
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· 0:06
[name withheld] and [name withheld]’s brothers heard unexplained noises in their house when [name withheld] was younger.
- observation· 0:38
The next day, after mocking the noises, one brother became very ill.
- observation· 0:44
The family heard screaming from the sick brother’s upstairs room.
- observation· 0:58
The brother appeared red and sweating and was mumbling incoherently.
- hearsay· 1:10
The brother said they were coming through the walls. [name withheld] reports his eyes were darting around.
- host statement· 1:30
Host Art Bell suggests the brother’s state could be explained as fevered delirium from illness, or the story could be discarded.
- host statement· 1:38
Host Art Bell says this is the second such story and refers to an earlier story about a finger through a boot, blood poisoning, and death.
- host statement· 1:46
Host Art Bell says it may be safer not to make fun of such things.
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 but coherent firsthand story, which supports moderate believability. It lacks specifics and has an easy ordinary explanation for the brother’s illness, so it should not be scored highly.
Evidence for and against
- [name withheld] presents the story as firsthand: [name withheld] was present for the noises, the household setting, the screaming, and the brother’s state.
- The sequence is coherent, though brief, from noises to mocking to next-day illness to the brother’s raving.
- [name withheld] admits uncertainty rather than leaping to a definite cause: “I don't know.”
- No dates, ages, event location beyond the caller’s stated city, or concrete details about the noises are given.
- The brother’s reported symptoms have an obvious possible ordinary explanation, which the host explicitly raises.
- The transcript is fragmented and contains many filler words.
- The caller’s age during the events is described only as [quote withheld]
- 0:06
- 1:30
What the model inferred (not said on air): The score is set near the level for a typical brief firsthand account with an easy ordinary explanation. The transcript does not give enough detail for higher confidence.
This is essentially the caller’s word alone. The claimed witnesses are not on air and no physical or documentary evidence is claimed, so the score falls in the lowest range.
Evidence for and against
- The caller gives a first name and general location: [quote withheld]
- The caller claims other family members were present at different points.
- No physical evidence, recordings, documents, or independently checkable records are offered.
- No second witness speaks on air to support the story.
- The claimed witnesses are only described, not present on air.
- The caller’s city is general and the event location is not stated.
- No dates or ages are given.
- 0:03
- 0:44
What the model inferred (not said on air): The score reflects the lack of independently checkable support in the transcript. It is not a judgment of whether the caller is truthful.
The story is unsettling because it centers on a sick, raving family member and an unresolved threat implied by [quote withheld] It is not sustained or graphic enough to rate as frightening or extremely disturbing.
Evidence for and against
- A family member is described as screaming, red, sweating, and incoherent.
- The brother’s repeated statement that they are coming through the walls is vivid and unsettling.
- The family’s helplessness is stated: [quote withheld]
- The story is short and lacks sustained build-up, sensory detail, or a clear threatening presence.
- No harm to the caller or other family members is stated beyond the brother’s reported illness.
- The transcript does not describe what “they” were or what happened afterward.
- 0:44
- 1:10
What the model inferred (not said on air): The score is a judgment of the effect on a listener, based on the reported images and escalation, not on whether the events happened.
The story combines stock ghost-story elements with one distinctive detail: the brother’s illness and raving phrase after the family mocked the noises. The score is therefore mid-range rather than highly original.
Evidence for and against
- The specific detail of a sick brother raving [quote withheld] gives the familiar setup a distinctive image.
- The story uses familiar elements: noises in a house, mocking the unknown, and misfortune afterward.
- The story is very short and lacks the detail to develop a rare kind of event.
- The very short story limits how well originality can be assessed.
- The calculation of how new the story is compared with the rest of the archive is unavailable here.
- 1:10
- 0:38
What the model inferred (not said on air): This is a provisional judgment of originality based on the content. How new the story is compared with the rest of the archive is not calculated in this response.
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.65 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand story.; [name withheld]’s mother and another brother are claimed to have been present, but neither speaks on air.; No physical evidence, records, or documents.; The host mentions an earlier separate story, but no documentation is presented.. 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.
- The brother’s red, sweating, incoherent, and raving state may have been fevered delirium from an illness rather than a supernatural event. · The host explicitly suggests this.
- The reported house noises could have had ordinary causes at home, such as settling, animals, siblings, or other residents. · The caller describes only [quote withheld] in the house, with no source or specific sound.
- Expectation, attention, and suggestion within the family after the mocking could have shaped how the brother’s illness and words were interpreted. The transcript does not say how. · The sequence places the illness immediately after the brothers mocked the noises.
What stands out
The host immediately offers an ordinary medical explanation for the brother’s state and links the story to a previous caller’s story about blood poisoning and death. [name withheld] offers almost no interpretation, ending with [quote withheld]
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.