Spiricom tape excerpts presented as communication with the late Dr. [name withheld]
In this part of the broadcast, Art Bell plays a supplied production about George W. Meek and a device the tape’s narrator calls Spiricom. The device is said to have produced two-way voice communication with a deceased man called Dr. [name withheld]. Excerpts described as coming from 1981 sessions are played. In them, [name withheld] is said to diagnose a fault in experimental video equipment and to speak about surgery and about his own death. Art Bell then stops the tape and says the schematics and documentation are posted on the show’s website. He thanks two people for passing the material on.
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 41:08). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
This part of the broadcast is a played recording, introduced and closed by the host. It is not a caller’s story. Art Bell tells listeners that George W. Meek [quote withheld] and that “they achieved it.” He says the documentation and schematics are linked on coasttocoastam.com. A male narrator then says the examples of [quote withheld] He describes the equipment as [quote withheld] in this case Spiricom Mark IV. The narrator introduces an excerpt said to be from April 1981 in which [name withheld] reacts to an audio frequency and identifies a fault on a video apparatus he and [name withheld] were working on. The audio that follows is mostly unintelligible in the transcript, with [name withheld] adjusting levels and asking the doctor questions. The narrator then says [name withheld] located the fault near [quote withheld] He describes it as an impedance mismatch that could be corrected with [quote withheld] A further excerpt concerns the “Viticom” project, a camera lens, and [quote withheld] The narrator says [name withheld] turned aside to speak with another spirit person in the lab, named [name withheld], whom [name withheld] reportedly could neither see nor hear. He also says the contacts were sporadic and sometimes ended without explanation in the middle of a conversation. Later excerpts concern a possible surgery and [name withheld]’s own death fourteen years earlier. Art Bell ends the tape, repeats that the documentation exists, and thanks “[name withheld]” and [quote withheld]
Reported events, in order
- 0:03
Art Bell says George W. Meek spent decades working on direct communication with the dead and that “they achieved it.” He directs listeners to documentation on the show’s website.
- 1:03
The narrator says the examples of Dr. [name withheld]’s voice come from many hours of two-way conversations. He names the device Spiricom (Mark IV).
- 1:46
The narrator introduces an excerpt said to be from a Spiricom conversation in April 1981. In it, [name withheld] reacts to an audio frequency and pinpoints a circuit problem on a video apparatus he and [name withheld] were working on.
- 2:03
In the played audio, [name withheld] adjusts the station volume and levels and speaks to the doctor. The dialogue is mostly marked low-confidence and cannot be understood in the transcript.
- 4:29
The narrator says [name withheld] identified the problem near the third transistor in the preamp unit. It was an impedance mismatch fixed with a 150-ohm half-watt resistor in parallel with a .0047 microfarad ceramic capacitor.
- 5:04
The narrator introduces an excerpt about the “Viticom” research project.
- 6:05
In the played audio, a speaker says they got a lens “from Edmunds,” put it into the camera lens, and got [quote withheld] but nothing else.
- 7:24
The narrator says [name withheld] turned aside to talk with another spirit person standing in the lab, named [name withheld], whom [name withheld] could not see or hear. The two reportedly discussed boyhood pranks from more than half a century earlier.
- 7:56
The narrator says contacts were sporadic, with days or weeks of no contact even though the equipment was left on, and were sometimes cut off without explanation in the middle of a conversation.
- 9:21
In the played audio, a speaker repeatedly calls for Dr. [name withheld], asks [quote withheld] and exclaims “Oh my God.”
- 9:33
The narrator blames early poor voice quality on [quote withheld] He says the next excerpt concerns [name withheld]’s possible surgery and [name withheld]’s own death 14 years earlier.
- 10:49
In the played audio, a speaker urges someone not to worry about surgery and speaks of waking up when [quote withheld]
- 11:54
The narrator says [name withheld] often showed humor, and he plays an excerpt said to concern [name withheld]’s fondness for carrots and cabbages.
- 12:21
Art Bell stops the tape and says an equal second portion exists. He stresses that schematics and documentation are on the website, and he thanks [name withheld] and the person in Croatia who passed it on.
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· 1:14
The tape’s narrator presents the recordings as examples of Dr. [name withheld]’s voice captured through a device he calls Spiricom, [quote withheld]
- interpretation· 4:52
The narrator concludes that the late Dr. [name withheld]’s mind and personality survive death, and he calls the technical detail proof.
- hearsay· 7:38
The narrator reports that a second spirit, [name withheld], spoke with [name withheld] while [name withheld] could neither see nor hear him.
- host statement· 12:53
The host says the equipment he describes was used to communicate with the dead.
- host statement· 13:34
The host says the tones heard were modulated by electromagnetic force to become audible.
- observation· 4:29
The narrator reports that [name withheld] precisely identified a fault in experimental video equipment.
- interpretation· 9:54
The narrator reports that [name withheld] spoke about his own death, said to have happened fourteen years earlier.
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.
Closeness to events is weak. No witness to the sessions speaks on air, only a narrated tape played by the host. This is offset by unusually specific technical detail and a consistent frame. But the excerpts largely cannot confirm the narration, and no ordinary explanation is addressed.
Evidence for and against
- Specific detail that could be checked in principle: [quote withheld] followed by the component values.
- A named device, model, and date: “Spiricom Mark IV” and [quote withheld]
- A consistent frame: the narrator’s claims about sporadic contact match the played excerpt in which a speaker calls for [name withheld] and gets no answer.
- The audible excerpts are almost entirely marked low-confidence, so the specific content the narration attributes to them cannot be checked from the text.
- No one on air says they witnessed the sessions. The material is a supplied tape, with thanks to two go-betweens.
- An easy ordinary reading is not addressed: the excerpt itself mentions [quote withheld]
- Whether the narration accurately restates the audible content cannot be checked from this transcript.
- The labels showing who is speaking in the tape segments are automatic and may be wrong.
- 4:29
- 1:29
- 9:37
What the model inferred (not said on air): Scored by part. Closeness to events: about 10 (secondhand presentation, no on-air witness). Specific detail: about 16. Consistency: about 8 (a coherent frame, but it cannot be checked against unintelligible audio). Other explanations: about 5 (not addressed). Calibration: about 3 (no admitted uncertainty and escalating conclusions). The total is 42.
Recordings and schematics are claimed to exist, and excerpts are played on air. But the transcript marks the audio as largely unintelligible, and the host does not examine or describe any document or recording in enough detail to be checked here.
Evidence for and against
- Audio excerpts are actually played within the segment.
- The host says documentation and schematics exist: [quote withheld]
- The played audio is marked low-confidence throughout, so this transcript does not establish its content.
- No physical item is described as inspected on air. The host only points to a website the archive cannot check.
- Whether the linked documentation exists or matches the description is outside this transcript.
- The chain of who passed the tape along ([name withheld], a person in Croatia) is named but not confirmed and is partly unclear.
- 12:53
- 14:17
What the model inferred (not said on air): Placed in the 26 to 40 band (physical evidence claimed to exist, namely recordings and schematics, but not examined here). The hard cap of 50 without an outside check is respected.
The material is presented as technical and archival, and the unsettling parts are mild: a call for a dead man that goes unanswered, and his matter-of-fact remarks about surgery and about waking after death.
Evidence for and against
- An unanswered call to the dead: [quote withheld]
- [name withheld]’s reported remark about dying: [quote withheld]
- The host calls it [quote withheld]
- Much of the content is ordinary technical troubleshooting and talk of vegetables.
- No threat, intrusion into a home, or physical harm is reported anywhere in the segment.
- The effect on a listener depends heavily on the unintelligible audio, which cannot be judged from the transcript.
- 9:22
- 12:15
What the model inferred (not said on air): Rated near the “mildly eerie” anchor (30). The topic is communication with the dead, but the tone is documentary and the content is not threatening. The host’s own “bone-chilling” remark is not treated as evidence of the story’s effect.
Instrumental transcommunication with a dead person is a familiar frame. But the specific content, a dead engineer supplying a transistor location and component values, is a distinctive twist.
Evidence for and against
- Concrete technical content attributed to the dead: [quote withheld]
- A second claimed spirit, [name withheld], who reportedly could not speak through the device. This is an uncommon detail.
- The overall frame, recording the voices of the dead, is a recurring motif in this archive and in paranormal lore generally.
- Novelty compared with the rest of the archive is provisional. The published score blends this automatic judgment with statistics from the archive.
- 4:34
- 7:39
What the model inferred (not said on air): The automatic originality score is 60 ([quote withheld]). The final published score also depends on how the story compares with the rest of the archive.
Scoring confidence 0.45 · analysis confidence 0.55 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: Audio excerpts played on air, mostly marked low-confidence in the transcript; A narrated description of the recordings by a presenter who was not a witness; The host’s claim that schematics and documentation are posted on the show’s website (not examined here); No physical evidence, document, or recording examined within the segment. The originality score blends the model's score (60) 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 spoken content may be partly or wholly an interpretation of noisy or distorted audio, not intelligible speech. · Almost every line of the played excerpts is marked low-confidence in the transcript. The narrator himself says early quality was poor because of [quote withheld]
- The narrated summary may supply much more coherent content than the audible excerpts contain. · The narrator’s detailed account of the transistor diagnosis is not matched by any intelligible line in the excerpt the transcript places just before it, which is garbled.
- The recordings may not be what the narration says they are. They could come from an audio source such as radio or other operators, or be produced rather than received. · One excerpt includes a speaker talking about cutting down [quote withheld] The segment is also presented as a supplied tape, with thanks to two go-betweens.
What stands out
This is not a witness’s story. It is an archival, narrated production in which the claim is that a deceased engineer supplied specific electronic fault-finding detail, such as the position of a transistor and component values. The recording is played on air, but the transcript marks most of the audio as low-confidence or unintelligible, so the claimed content cannot be checked from the text.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.