Burning smell, figure at corner of bed, and a toy from the other side
A caller, addressed by the host as “[name withheld]?” in a context line, tells of lifelong encounters with spirits and one night when a recurring burning-wood smell woke them. The caller reports waking suddenly, colliding with a figure at the corner of their bed, seeing its eyes and open mouth, and being shown a toy the figure claimed as its own, by telepathy. The host stops the story for a break before they can describe the toy.
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 2006.mp3”, starting at 17:13). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller, addressed by the host as “[name withheld]?” in the context line after the excerpt, says the screener called their story [quote withheld] They report having been around spirits and ghosts since they were two, some good and some bad. They describe an unseen presence that would come when they went to sleep and fill the room with a strong burning smell, like burning trees or wood, waking them. They would then “flash” somewhere to check that everything was safe. One night, they say, it happened very fast. They woke thinking of fire, flashed from their bed, and collided with “him” at the corner of their bed. They report that, because they had just woken and were in a tranquil state, they could see his features and his eyes, and a mouth that was “open wide.” They say they scared him. He came back up while they were trying to wake. They say they and the figure communicated by mental telepathy and he showed them a toy, saying [quote withheld] They say they were an artist and could describe it, but they were irritated and had to get to the fire. They told him to get out of their way and ran to the kitchen. They realized their spirit was not in their body, could not catch up with themselves, and fell into the kitchen. The host then stops the story for a break.
Reported events, in order
- 0:05
The caller says the screener called their story [quote withheld]
- 0:18
They say they have been around spirits and ghosts since age two, some good and some bad.
- 0:28
They report an unseen presence that would come when they slept and fill the room with a strong burning smell, like burning trees or wood.
- 1:07
One night they woke thinking of fire, flashed from bed, and collided with a figure at the corner of their bed.
- 1:46
They report seeing his features, his eyes, and his open mouth, and say they scared him.
- 2:08
He came back up while they were trying to wake. They say they and the figure communicated by mental telepathy and he showed them a toy.
- 2:20
They report the figure saying [quote withheld]
- 2:43
They say they told him to get out of their way and ran to the kitchen.
- 2:49
They realized their spirit was not in their body, could not catch up with themselves, and fell into the kitchen.
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· 0:28
A recurring unseen presence would fill their bedroom with a strong burning smell when they went to sleep.
- observation· 1:07
They woke suddenly believing there was a fire.
- observation· 1:37
They collided with a figure at the corner of their bed.
- observation· 1:46
They could see the figure’s features, including eyes and an open mouth.
- observation· 1:50
The figure’s mouth was open wide.
- interpretation· 2:08
They say they and the figure communicated by mental telepathy, and he showed them a toy.
- observation· 2:20
The figure claimed the toy as his own.
- interpretation· 2:49
They say their spirit was not in their body and they could not catch up with themselves.
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 and has a coherent sequence with some detail from the senses. But there are no checkable names, dates, or places, the story is cut off, and simple explanations tied to sleep or the surroundings fit parts of it.
Evidence for and against
- The caller describes their own waking experience and gives a sequence: burning smell, abrupt waking, collision, seeing features, telepathic toy, running and falling.
- They give some concrete detail from the senses: [quote withheld] [quote withheld] “his features,” and “just open wide.”
- No date, place, or other checkable specifics are given.
- The story is incomplete because the host stops it for a break.
- No second witness backs it up on air.
- The caller does not address explanations tied to sleep, or ordinary odor or fire.
- The transcript is heavily fragmented and has unclear or uncertain passages.
- The caller’s name comes only from the host in a context line and may be uncertain.
- 0:28
- 1:07
- 1:46
What the model inferred (not said on air): I treat the caller’s report as direct testimony but score it as a typical brief story that no one else backs up, with obvious ordinary possibilities and no details that can be verified.
There is only the caller’s word: no physical evidence, no checkable records, no names, dates, or places tied to the event, and no second witness speaking on air.
Evidence for and against
- A firsthand story is present.
- The caller claims a recurring pattern and a specific night’s encounter.
- No photograph, recording, document, or physical trace is claimed.
- No second witness speaks on air to back them up.
- No checkable names, dates, or locations are given for the event.
- The story is cut off before the toy description, which the caller says they could give.
- Some words are uncertain because of automatic transcription.
- 2:20
- 2:59
What the model inferred (not said on air): Without an outside check, this falls in the lowest evidence range: word alone.
The bedroom setting, burning smell, collision, and open-mouthed figure create an unsettling atmosphere. But no threat or injury is reported, and the caller says they scared the figure.
Evidence for and against
- The encounter happens in the bedroom after waking.
- The smell is described as a burning forest or wood smell.
- The caller reports colliding with a figure and seeing its open mouth.
- The story ends unresolved when the host cuts it off.
- The caller says they scared the figure rather than being attacked.
- No harm, pursuit, or lasting menace is reported.
- The tone includes irritation and practical concern about a possible fire.
- The story is incomplete, so later escalation cannot be judged.
- The figure’s nature and intentions are not clearly described.
- 1:50
- 1:37
- 2:56
What the model inferred (not said on air): I rate this as moderately unsettling, not frightening, because it has eerie details about the bedroom and the body but no clear ill will or harm.
The story uses familiar ghost-story elements: a bedroom visitor, a recurring presence, and an out-of-body sensation. The burning-wood smell, the collision, and the telepathic toy give it a distinctive combination.
Evidence for and against
- The recurring burning-wood smell is a specific detail of the senses.
- The caller reports a physical collision with the figure.
- The figure shows them a toy by telepathy and claims it.
- A bedroom visitor and an out-of-body experience are common paranormal themes.
- The story is incomplete, so its most distinctive element, the toy description, is withheld.
- The comparison with the rest of the archive cannot be made from this excerpt alone.
- Some words in the transcript are uncertain and may change details.
- 2:20
- 0:42
- 2:08
What the model inferred (not said on air): The model score is 55: a familiar frame with distinctive details. This is a first estimate, because the comparison with the rest of the archive is not available.
Scoring confidence 0.45 · analysis confidence 0.60 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand story only. No physical evidence, documents, recordings, or photographs are claimed or examined, and no second witness 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 burning-wood smell could have an ordinary source in or near the home, such as actual smoke, heating, cooking, or another strong odor. It could also be a smell sensation on waking. · The caller says the smell was like [quote withheld] and that it woke them from sleep.
- Waking abruptly with a figure at the bedside, seeing its features, and having trouble getting oriented afterward could fit an experience tied to waking up. · They say they had “just woken up” and were still [quote withheld]
- The collision and fall could come from disorientation on waking and moving quickly toward the kitchen. · They report running to the kitchen and then that they [quote withheld]
What stands out
The story combines a recurring smell of burning wood with a collision at the caller’s bedside on waking and a claimed telepathic showing of a toy. The caller also describes their own spirit as out of their body during the episode, and the host cuts them off before they describe the toy.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.