Cemetery guard hears casual voices in an empty back office
A caller the host addresses as “[name withheld]” says that while working as a security guard at a cemetery, they were resting in a back office between rounds and thought they heard voices in another room. They report searching the building and the front of the cemetery and finding nobody. They describe the sound as low, casual conversation. The host responds with a remark about cemetery guard work and his own view on spirits and bodies, and the story ends.
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 2:05:39). 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],” says that at the time of the events they worked as a guard at a cemetery. They describe a break between security rounds, when they went into a back office to relax and say they thought they heard voices in another room. They report that they got up and checked everywhere, the whole place and the front of the cemetery, because they thought they heard something. They describe it as sounding like somebody talking casually, as if in another room. They say they were trying to find the voice and that there was nobody around. The host asks no further questions about it. The caller adds that it sounded like people just casually talking and that this was the part they found unsettling, partly because it was low in volume. The host then remarks that being a guard in a cemetery is “kind of creepy” anyway and notes that callers keep mentioning cemeteries. He states his own opinion that it makes no sense to him that a spirit would remain near the body it left, while conceding there are things we do not know. The story ends there, and the host moves to the next caller.
Reported events, in order
- -1:-1:-1
The caller says they were working as a guard at a cemetery and were in a back office between rounds, trying to relax after checking that the cemetery was secure.
- 0:13
They say they thought they heard voices in another room.
- 0:18
They report searching everywhere, including the front of the cemetery, because they thought they heard somebody talking casually, and finding nobody around.
- 0:31
They describe the sound as low, casual conversation, which they call the unsettling part.
- 0:36
The host remarks that a cemetery guard job is “kind of creepy” and states his own opinion that a spirit would not remain near its body.
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· 0:13
While in the back office of the cemetery where they worked as a guard, the caller says they heard voices coming from another room.
- observation· 0:18
After searching the whole place and the front of the cemetery, the caller says they found no one.
- observation· 0:31
The caller describes the voices as ordinary, low-volume casual conversation rather than speech addressed to them.
- host statement· 0:36
The host says that being a guard in a cemetery is unsettling in itself.
- host statement· 0:47
The host states his own view that it makes no sense for a spirit to remain near its body.
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 short, internally coherent first-person story with a restrained claim. But it offers almost no concrete details, and an ordinary source for the sound fits easily and is not ruled out by the caller. Such a source could be another person, a radio or television, or sound carrying from elsewhere in the building. The score lands near the anchor for a [quote withheld], pulled down by the thin detail.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand framing: the caller says they were the guard on duty and were present.
- Consistent sequence: heard voices, then searched the building and the front of the cemetery.
- Restrained claim: [quote withheld] and “sounded like” rather than asserting a source.
- No date, place name, shift time, or named colleague is given.
- The caller neither considers nor excludes an ordinary source for the sound.
- No location, date, or cemetery name is given.
- The story is short, and no follow-up questions from the host probe the details.
- The labels showing who is speaking are automatic, and the caller’s name comes only from the host’s line.
- -1:-1:-1
- 0:18
- 0:31
What the model inferred (not said on air): The component scores are my editorial judgment: closeness to the source 16/25 (firsthand but brief and partial), specificity 7/20, internal consistency 14/20, alternative explanations 4/20 (an ordinary cause fits easily and is not addressed), calibration 11/15. No cap applies (not secondhand, not fiction, not a fragment).
The story rests entirely on the caller’s word. No names, dates, records, photographs, or recordings are mentioned, and no second witness speaks on air.
Evidence for and against
- A firsthand claim of hearing voices.
- No checkable details given (no cemetery name, no date, no supervisor or co-worker named).
- No physical evidence is claimed.
- No name, date, location, or document is offered, so there is nothing to check.
- The “checking” the caller describes is their own account of searching, not backing from anyone else.
- -1:-1:-1
- 0:18
What the model inferred (not said on air): Placed in the 0 to 10 band (the caller’s word only) because no checkable detail of any kind is supplied.
Hearing ordinary conversation in a place that should be empty is mildly unsettling, and the cemetery setting adds atmosphere. But there is no threat, no physical contact, no ghost, and no escalation. The story ends unresolved without an ominous turn.
Evidence for and against
- Voices reported in an empty building and a fruitless search.
- The caller themselves calls the low, casual quality “the creepy part.”
- The voices are described as calm, casual conversation, not screaming, crying, or a warning.
- Nothing is reported as seen, and nothing is reported as harmed.
- It is not stated whether the cemetery was closed, dark, or otherwise isolated at the time.
- No repetition or escalation is described, so the story does not build lasting dread.
- 0:13
- 0:31
What the model inferred (not said on air): My judgment is that the unresolved emptiness and the cemetery-at-work setting give mild eeriness, while the absence of threat, contact, or vivid imagery keeps the score below the middle of the range.
The core element, voices heard in an otherwise empty building, is a very common ghost-story motif, and a guard on a night shift is a familiar frame. The reported texture (ordinary, low casual conversation rather than screams or a named voice) adds a little distinctiveness.
Evidence for and against
- Voices described as [quote withheld] rather than a specific message or name.
- The setting is a cemetery office where the caller worked as a guard.
- Unexplained voices with no visible source are a stock motif in this genre.
- No unusual object, ghost, or physical effect accompanies the sound.
- No location, date, or cemetery name is given, so the incident cannot be checked at all.
- The story is told in about 70 seconds, and the events are described only briefly.
- Whether the sounds were heard once or repeatedly is not stated.
- 0:18
- 0:31
What the model inferred (not said on air): My judgment is that this is a familiar frame (unexplained voices in an empty building) with a distinctive setting, but no rare or unusual event.
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.62 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand story only; No documentation, recording, photograph, or named second witness is mentioned. The originality score blends the model's score (28) 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 voices came from another person in or near the building (a co-worker, a visitor, or someone on the grounds) whom the caller did not find during their search. · The caller says the voices [quote withheld] and that their search found nobody “around.”
- The sound came from a device left on in the building, such as a radio, television, or telephone, or carried in from outside through a window or ventilation. · The sound is described as ordinary low conversation with no visible source. No check for a device is mentioned.
- The caller, resting between rounds, may have dozed or been drowsy and mistook a fragment of sound, or something in their own head, for voices in another room. · They say they were in the back office “trying to relax” between rounds. The story does not say whether they were awake throughout.
What stands out
The reported events are entirely sounds, and ordinary in texture. The caller says the voices sounded like low-volume casual conversation rather than anything dramatic or threatening. The setting, an empty office at a cemetery where the caller worked as a guard, is the main source of the story’s atmosphere.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.