Letter: Transparent figure of a deceased grandfather in a spare bedroom
A letter from a writer the host identifies as “[name withheld]” from Springfield, Illinois, read aloud on air, describes seeing a transparent figure resembling their grandfather coming out of a wall in a spare bedroom about three weeks after his death in February 1978. They say they told no one at the time. They say that twenty years ago they learned their son had seen the same ghost roughly three months later in a front bedroom. They also report other family members seeing dark forms and lights and doors behaving oddly. The letter ends with the writer saying they will never know whether it was a ghost or a demon, but that they believe they saw it.
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 5:43). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The host introduces the item as [quote withheld] and reads the letter in the first person. The writer says they and their grandfather [quote withheld] and that they know he would never have let harm come to them. They state their grandfather died in February 1978. He had a heart attack in the bathroom of his home at about three in the morning while their grandmother was home alone. After the funeral, the family took turns staying with the grandmother. About three weeks later, the writer says they were reading on the bed in the spare bedroom when [quote withheld] They report that what looked like their grandfather was coming out of the wall. He was transparent and could be seen through but “still had form.” He looked horrible, [quote withheld] He wore the pinstripe suit he was buried in, and what appeared to be Spanish moss was dripping from him, which they note does not grow around Springfield. They say they began to scream and to get off the bed to run when he suddenly disappeared. They told nobody because they were afraid people would think they were crazy. They say that twenty years ago they found out their son had seen [quote withheld] They estimate this was about three months later, in the front bedroom of their house. They say other family members have seen dark forms standing over the bathroom sink and doors and lights turning on and off for no apparent reason. They close by saying they are now 58 and 40 respectively and will never forget the sight. The writer will never know whether it was a ghost or a demon, but they saw it.
Reported events, in order
- 0:14
The writer says their grandfather died in February 1978 of a heart attack in the bathroom of his home at about three in the morning. Their grandmother was home alone.
- 0:24
After the funeral the family took turns staying with the grandmother.
- 0:27
About three weeks later the writer was reading on the bed in the spare bedroom and something caused them to look up.
- 0:35
They report that what looked like their grandfather was coming out of the wall.
- 0:41
They describe the figure as transparent, see-through but still having form.
- 0:52
They say he looked horrible, like he had dug his own way out of the grave.
- 0:57
He had on a pinstripe suit, the one he was buried in.
- 1:02
They report what appeared to be Spanish moss dripping from him, which they note is not found around Springfield, Illinois.
- 1:11
They began to scream and started to get off the bed to run when he suddenly disappeared.
- 1:16
They say they told nobody because they were afraid people would think they were crazy.
- 1:22
Twenty years ago the writer found out their son had seen the same identical ghost, about three months later and in the front bedroom of their house.
- 1:29
They report other family members have seen dark forms standing over the bathroom sink, and doors and lights that turn on and off for no apparent reason.
- 1:45
They close by saying they are now 58 and 40 respectively, that they will never know if it was a ghost or a demon, but that they saw it.
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· 0:35
The writer reports seeing what looked like their grandfather coming out of the wall of the spare bedroom.
- observation· 0:41
The figure was transparent, see-through but still having form.
- observation· 0:52
The figure looked horrible, like someone who had dug his own way out of the grave.
- observation· 0:57
The figure wore a pinstripe suit that the writer says was the one the grandfather was buried in.
- observation· 1:02
The writer reports what appeared to be Spanish moss dripping from the figure, and notes Spanish moss is not found in the area.
- observation· 1:11
The writer says they began to scream and started to get off the bed to run when the figure suddenly disappeared.
- observation· 1:16
The writer says they told nobody at the time because they feared being thought crazy.
- hearsay· 1:22
The writer reports learning that their son had seen the same identical ghost, about three months later in the front bedroom.
- hearsay· 1:29
The writer reports that other family members have seen dark forms standing over the bathroom sink and doors and lights working for no apparent reason.
- interpretation· 1:45
The writer states they will never know whether it was a ghost or a demon, but that they believe they saw it.
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 core story is firsthand, tied to a stated date, place, and time, with concrete visual details, and the writer clearly separates what they saw from their open conclusion. It is weakened by an easily available explanation in grief and imagery, by the secondhand claims about their son and family, and by the lack of any backing that can be checked.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand report of the main sighting by the letter writer.
- Concrete specifics: February 1978, about three in the morning, three weeks later, spare bedroom, pinstripe burial suit, Spanish moss.
- Coherent sequence with no contradiction.
- The writer admits uncertainty about what it was rather than overreaching.
- The sighting occurred shortly after a close relative’s death in a familiar home, where grief-related imagery is a plausible alternative.
- The experiences of the writer’s son and other family members are asserted in the letter only.
- No detail that can be checked (address, records, other named witnesses) is offered.
- The letter is read by the host, so the writer’s own wording cannot be separated from any reading choices.
- The time of day of the sighting is not stated.
- 0:14
- 0:27
- 0:41
- 1:52
What the model inferred (not said on air): The components for closeness to the source, specificity, consistency, and calibration are judged from the letter’s content. The alternative-explanation component reflects my view that imagery after a death fits the timing and setting reasonably well, which lowers the score.
This rests on the writer’s word plus a claimed second witness and claimed family sightings. None of them speaks on air, and no documentation or physical evidence is offered. The letter gives some details that could be checked (a named town and a stated date), but nothing is actually checked.
Evidence for and against
- A stated location (Springfield, Illinois) and date (February 1978) that could in principle be looked up.
- A claimed second witness, the writer’s son, and claimed sightings by other family members.
- No witness other than the letter writer appears on air.
- No photograph, recording, document, or physical trace is offered or examined.
- The claims come entirely through one letter read by the host.
- Whether the son or other family members could confirm the story is not stated.
- The letter’s original text is not available. Only the host’s reading is in the transcript.
- 1:22
- 1:29
What the model inferred (not said on air): The band (claimed witnesses, checkable details given but not checked) is my judgment. Nothing in the transcript shows any independent verification.
The imagery is strongly unsettling: a transparent figure coming out of a wall, looking as if it had clawed out of its own grave, in the burial suit, with Spanish moss dripping from it. The writer’s son is then said to have seen the same ghost. No harm or physical contact is reported, which keeps it below the highest band.
Evidence for and against
- A figure comes out of a wall in a bedroom.
- A grave-like, horrible appearance in the burial suit.
- The writer reports screaming and trying to run before it vanished.
- The writer’s son reportedly sees the same ghost.
- No threat, injury, or physical contact is reported.
- The writer stresses that their grandfather would never have harmed them.
- No escalation into lasting menace in the letter itself.
- The letter does not describe whether the son’s reported sighting was experienced the same way.
- The “dark forms” and lights are mentioned only briefly.
- 0:52
- 1:11
What the model inferred (not said on air): Creepiness is judged from the imagery and sequence described, not from the writer’s delivery, which is not assessed.
The frame, a dead relative appearing at home shortly after death, is familiar, as are the later reports of lights, doors, and dark forms. The distinctive elements are the figure’s grave-like appearance and the Spanish moss said to be dripping from it in a place where it does not grow, plus the writer’s open question of ghost or demon.
Evidence for and against
- The unusual detail of Spanish moss dripping from the figure, which the writer flags as out of place locally.
- The figure is described as having dug out of the grave while wearing the burial suit.
- The writer leaves open whether it was a ghost or a demon.
- A dead relative appearing shortly after death is a common motif.
- A transparent figure, lights, doors, and dark forms are stock ghost-story elements.
- No comparison with the rest of the archive is available here. This is an estimate from content only.
- 1:02
- 1:45
What the model inferred (not said on air): This is a provisional judgment based on content. The published value is expected to be calculated by comparing with the rest of the archive.
Scoring confidence 0.78 · analysis confidence 0.80 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: Letter read aloud on air, containing the writer’s firsthand story; Claimed second witness (the writer’s son) and claimed sightings by other family members, none speaking on air; No physical evidence, photograph, recording, or document offered or examined. 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.
- A hallucination from grief, or vivid mental pictures, in a familiar house shortly after a close relative’s death. · The writer states they and their grandfather [quote withheld] and that the sighting occurred about three weeks after his death in February 1978.
- Images from the edge of sleep or a waking dream, since the sighting is reported from a bed. · They say they were [quote withheld] when the event began. However, they describe being awake and reading, and the letter does not address this explanation.
- Seeing shapes in shadows around the house, and ordinary electrical or door faults, for the later reports of dark forms and lights and doors. · The family reports [quote withheld] with no checking of wiring or doors described.
What stands out
The figure is described both as a known, loved grandfather and as a grave-like ghost with Spanish moss dripping from it. The writer themself flags the moss as out of place for Springfield, Illinois. They also leave open whether it was “a ghost” or “a demon.”
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.