Hunters report formally dressed couple who vanish and leave no tracks in snow
A caller named [name withheld], from Pennsylvania, tells Art Bell that while hunting in 1995 they and two others saw a formally dressed man and woman in deep snow. The couple vanished, and later no footprints from them could be found. The caller wonders if they had seen a time window connected to an old farm site in the area.
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 2005.mp3”, starting at 2:17:51). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller, [quote withheld] says that in 1995 they were hunting with their father and a friend. There was about a foot and a half of snow. They separated to tree stands and met around lunchtime at their father’s stand. While eating, their father said there was a man and a woman across the hillside, holding hands and making tracks through the woods and thicket. The caller says the man wore a long-sleeved dress shirt, dress pants, and dress shoes, and the woman wore a white dress and high heels. The caller notes there were 18 inches of snow and the temperature was about 10 degrees, while they were bundled up. The friend and the caller used binoculars to look at the couple. The caller says the couple suddenly disappeared. Later, around 4 p.m., as they were leaving, they looked at the tracks in the snow. The caller reports there were no foot tracks from the couple, only their own tracks and deer tracks. The caller says it did not snow and the snow did not melt. The caller wonders if a “window” came to them. The caller notes that about three-quarters of a mile away was an old farm in a state park where they had found foundation stones dated around 1810 to 1835. The caller wonders what happened back then. The host suggests it was like a shift into another time. The story ends unresolved.
Reported events, in order
- 0:02
The caller identifies as [name withheld] from Pennsylvania and says in 1995 they were hunting with their father and a friend.
- 0:31
Around lunchtime they meet at the father’s tree stand and look across a hillside.
- 0:41
The father points out a man and a woman holding hands and making tracks through the woods.
- 0:49
The caller describes the man in a long-sleeved dress shirt, dress pants, and dress shoes, and the woman in a white dress and high heels, despite 18 inches of snow and about 10 degrees.
- 1:07
The friend and the caller use binoculars to watch the couple.
- 1:21
The couple suddenly disappear while being watched.
- 1:23
Around 4 p.m., as they leave, they examine tracks in the snow.
- 1:32
They find no foot tracks from the couple, only their own tracks and deer tracks.
- 1:51
The caller says it seemed like a window came to them and mentions an old farm about three-quarters of a mile away.
- 2:05
They had found foundation stones from the old farm dated around 1810 to 1835.
- 2:22
The caller notes it did not snow and the snow did not melt.
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).
- host statement· 0:02
The caller is [quote withheld]
- observation· 0:56
The caller reports seeing a woman in a white dress and high heels, and a man in formal clothing, in deep snow and cold temperatures.
- observation· 1:21
The caller reports that the couple suddenly disappeared while being watched through binoculars.
- observation· 1:32
The caller reports finding no foot tracks from the couple in the snow later that day.
- observation· 2:22
The caller reports that no new snow fell and the snow did not melt, so the tracks could not have been erased that way.
- interpretation· 1:51
The caller sees the event as a “window” from another time coming to them.
- interpretation· 2:06
The caller mentions foundation stones dated around 1810 to 1835 from an old farm about three-quarters of a mile away, which the caller connects to the possible time window.
- host statement· 1:39
The host suggests the experience was like going to another time.
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.
The story is firsthand, specific, and consistent, with an unusual missing-tracks detail. Nobody backs it up, and it does not fully explore ordinary alternatives. That keeps it below the highest ranges.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand witness story.
- Specific year (1995), snow depth (18 inches), temperature (about 10 degrees), and timeline (lunchtime, 4 p.m.).
- Three claimed witnesses.
- A consistent sequence with answers to the host’s questions.
- Neither the father nor the friend confirms it on air.
- No physical evidence, photographs, or follow-up investigation.
- Who is speaking in the transcript is uncertain.
- The labels showing who is speaking may be wrong. Some lines labeled as the caller appear to mix the host and the caller.
- No outside check was done.
- 0:56
- 1:32
What the model inferred (not said on air): My scoring reflects the content of the testimony as recorded, not the caller’s tone, and treats the absence of tracks as a reported detail rather than a verified fact.
The story provides details that could be checked and claimed witnesses, but nothing was independently examined or confirmed on air. It falls in the low range for details that could be checked but were not.
Evidence for and against
- Details that could be checked: the year 1995, a state park, and foundation stones dated around 1810 to 1835.
- Three claimed witnesses.
- No documentation, photographs, or recordings.
- No second witness speaks on air.
- No outside check was done.
- There is no way to verify the state park or foundation stones from the transcript.
- 0:15
- 2:05
What the model inferred (not said on air): Under the scoring guide, the claimed witnesses do not count as support because they do not speak on air. The foundation stones are a reported observation, not examined evidence.
The story is eerie, with an unexplained disappearance and an impossible lack of tracks, but it lacks threat, harm, or sustained dread. It sits in the mildly unsettling range.
Evidence for and against
- A formally dressed couple in deep snow and extreme cold.
- A sudden disappearance while being watched.
- No tracks found later, despite no new snow or melting.
- No reported threat, physical contact, or ill will.
- A daylight setting and the ordinary activity of hunting.
- The ending is unresolved rather than ominous.
- 1:21
- 1:32
What the model inferred (not said on air): This score is an editorial judgment about the story’s effect on a listener, not about whether the events happened.
The story uses a familiar ghostly-figures setup but adds distinctive concrete details: formal clothing in extreme snow, viewing through binoculars, and a time-window idea tied to old farm foundations.
Evidence for and against
- An unusual combination: formal dress in deep snow, observation through binoculars, and later no tracks.
- A connection to nearby nineteenth-century farm foundations and a “window” idea.
- The basic elements (figures seen, sudden disappearance, no tracks) are familiar ghost-story motifs.
- Novelty compared with the rest of the archive is not computed in this pilot.
- Novelty compared with the rest of the archive is not computed, so the originality score is provisional.
- 0:56
What the model inferred (not said on air): The score is provisional. Novelty compared with the rest of the archive is not available from this single transcript.
Scoring confidence 0.70 · analysis confidence 0.80 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand story.; Claimed observations by two other witnesses (father and friend), not on air.; Reported absence of tracks in snow. No photographs, recordings, or documents examined.. The originality score blends the model's score (70) 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.
- Other park visitors in unusual clothing were mistaken for something else, with tracks hidden or not searched for in the right area. · The couple were viewed at a distance and through binoculars, so clothing and identity could have been misjudged.
- A prank or staged scene by someone familiar with the park, using an unusual costume to create an impression. · The caller reports the clothing was formal for deep snow and that no tracks were found later.
- An optical illusion caused by snow, distance, and lighting, especially as the caller and their friend were using binoculars. · The figures were distant, viewed across a snow-covered hillside, and disappeared suddenly while being watched.
What stands out
The story combines formal dress in deep snow with a couple who vanish and leave no tracks, and the caller connects it to nearby nineteenth-century farm foundations. The host frames it as a time slip, but the caller only wonders.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.