A 2 a.m. feeling that something was wrong with their father, then a phone call
A caller tells Art Bell that when they were about 14 and their parents were separated, they woke around 2 a.m. with what they describe as a big explosion in their head. They told their mother something was wrong with their father. They say that about an hour later their mother got a phone call saying their father had been hit by a truck and killed. Art Bell offers condolences and says relatives often seem to know when something awful has happened.
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 2007.mp3”, starting at 1:04:50). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller says that when they were about 14, their mother and father were separated. One night around 2 a.m., there was [quote withheld] The caller says they got up, ran out to the kitchen, and told their mother that something was wrong with their father, who, the caller says, [quote withheld] According to the caller, their mother told them it could not be, and they insisted that they had a feeling something was wrong. The caller says that about an hour later their mother got a phone call, and that their father [quote withheld] The transcript reads “her,” which appears to be a transcription error. Art Bell offers condolences and says there are many such stories. He remarks that people [quote withheld] and says [quote withheld] He asks what mechanism could carry such a message. The caller gives no name, location, date, or other identifying detail, and no other witness speaks on air. Just before this story, the same caller had described a separate childhood event involving a locked door, what looked like dog feet, and a missing toy.
Reported events, in order
- 0:00
The caller says that when they were about 14, their mother and father were separated.
- 0:07
The caller says that at about 2 a.m. there was, in their words, a big explosion in their head.
- 0:13
The caller says they got up and ran out to the kitchen, and their mother asked them what was wrong.
- 0:19
The caller says they told their mother something was wrong with their father, who worked a distance away.
- 0:25
The caller says their mother told them it could not be, and they insisted they had a feeling something was wrong.
- 0:32
About an hour later, the caller says, their mother got a phone call.
- 0:35
The caller says their father had been hit by a truck and killed.
- 0:37
Art Bell offers condolences and says that people seem to know when something awful has happened to a relative.
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· 0:07
The caller says they felt a sudden jolt inside around 2 a.m., which they liken to an explosion in their head.
- observation· 0:19
The caller says they told their mother that something was wrong with their father.
- observation· 0:25
The caller says they insisted to their mother that they had a feeling something was wrong.
- hearsay· 0:35
The caller says a phone call about an hour later brought news that their father had been hit by a truck and killed.
- host statement· 0:44
Art Bell says that people seem to know when something awful has happened to a relative.
- host statement· 0:54
Art Bell says that some kind of communication takes place when a relative dies.
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 consistent firsthand story with a clear sequence and times. It has limited detail because no name, place, or date is given, and an ordinary coincidence fits moderately well.
Evidence for and against
- It is firsthand. The caller describes their own waking sensation and their own conversation with their mother.
- The sequence and timing are concrete: about 2 a.m., about an hour later, a phone call.
- The caller separates their feeling ([quote withheld]) from the later reported fact of the death.
- No name, location, date, or other checkable detail is given.
- No independent witness speaks. The mother’s only role is that she heard the caller say it.
- A traffic death in a family where the father worked away could plausibly coincide with a chance waking.
- The line “killed her” appears to be a transcription error, so the exact wording of the reported death is unclear.
- The labels showing who is speaking shift between the caller and the caller around this part of the broadcast.
- 0:07
- 0:19
- 0:32
What the model inferred (not said on air): The component scores are my judgment. Closeness to the source is high because the core experience is the caller’s own. Specificity and resistance to other explanations are only moderate because the story is short and gives no details that can be checked.
Nothing in this part of the broadcast can be checked independently. There is no documentation, no evidence examined, and no second witness on air. The death is only reported as news received by phone.
Evidence for and against
- The caller’s own story about the feeling and the conversation is all the evidence there is.
- No names, dates, locations, records, photographs, or recordings are offered.
- No other person who experienced or can confirm the events speaks on air.
- The transcript’s “killed her” wording is probably an error, so even the reported cause of death cannot be quoted with confidence.
- 0:07
- 0:35
What the model inferred (not said on air): With no outside check performed and nothing examined, the story falls in the range for the caller’s word alone.
The story carries real dread: a jolt in the night and a family member’s death confirmed by phone. But there is no hostile presence, no threat, and no frightening sensory detail. The telling is short, and the host’s response is consoling.
Evidence for and against
- A sudden jolt inside at about 2 a.m. in a 14-year-old whose parents were separated.
- The father’s death in a traffic accident soon afterward.
- Art Bell’s repeated remark that such knowing is mysterious.
- No figure, voice, or physical threat is reported.
- The story is brief and ends with condolences and general comment rather than escalation.
- Very few details are given, which limits how vivid the story can be for a listener.
- 0:07
- 0:35
What the model inferred (not said on air): The mid-range score reflects the death of a parent and the jolt at night, offset by the absence of any threatening or vividly described figure.
The story follows a stock pattern: a relative is sensed to be in trouble shortly before or at the time of death. The host himself says such stories are frequently reported. Almost no distinctive detail is added.
Evidence for and against
- Host: [quote withheld]
- The core content is a feeling that something is wrong, followed by news of a death.
- The caller’s description of an [quote withheld] is a somewhat particular way of describing the sensation.
- With so few details, it is hard to identify any unusual combination of motifs.
- 0:37
- 0:44
What the model inferred (not said on air): The provisional model score treats the premonition-of-a-death pattern as familiar and the added detail as minimal. The adjustment compared with the rest of the archive is limited in this pilot.
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.65 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand story (live call).; Host comment and general reflection, which is not evidence about the events.. 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.
- Coincidence: waking in the middle of the night for no reason and an unrelated traffic death an hour later could fall together by chance. · The only reported elements are an inner sensation at about 2 a.m. and a phone call about an hour later. The caller’s father [quote withheld]
- Ordinary worry about an absent parent produced a vivid feeling that was later read as a warning. · The caller says their parents were separated and their father worked some distance away. They describe only an inner feeling, not anything seen or heard.
What stands out
The story has almost no sensory content. There is no figure, voice, or ghost, only an inner sensation and a later phone call. The host, not the caller, supplies the idea of communication. It also follows right after a separate childhood story from the same caller.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.