An image on a rice-field bridge and at a bathroom window
A caller the host introduces as [name withheld], from Colorado, describes two sightings on the same day while staying with a girlfriend in [quote withheld] in the Philippines. The first was a fleeting “third image” behind them on a small rice-field bridge. The second came that evening, when the same image appeared in a bathroom window and seemed to pass through the wall. They say they shouted at it and were then startled when their girlfriend opened the bathroom door, which ends the story on a comic note. They say they [quote withheld] and had no more experiences like this. The host closes with remarks about alcohol rather than about the sighting.
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 2010.mp3”, starting at 1:06:06). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
Speaking from Colorado, as the host introduces them, the caller says their experience happened in [quote withheld] in the Philippines, where they were staying at a girlfriend’s house. They say they wanted to walk the path across a rice field, over a little bridge, and out toward the ocean. Their girlfriend objected, using a local term they render as “muumuu,” but they went. On the small wooden bridge they both knelt to look at little fishes in a pool beside the stream. They say a “third image” appeared behind them “like another person.” They turned and the image was gone. They fell into the water and pulled their girlfriend in with them. She asked why they had turned. They say they told her it was probably her grandmother, and that she said her grandmother [quote withheld] They say they [quote withheld] Later that evening, after drinking a lot of rum, they got up to use the bathroom in the girlfriend’s house. The walls are about six feet from her cousin [name withheld]’s. Looking through the small grilled window toward [name withheld]’s, they say the image appeared again in the window and [quote withheld] They say they shouted at it to get out and noted that they were still drunk. After a couple of shouts, the bathroom door opened. It was their girlfriend, who startled them, and she “got soaked.” They say that was their story and that they had no more experiences like it. The host then talks about a study on alcohol rather than about the sighting.
Reported events, in order
- 0:37
The caller says their experience happened in [quote withheld] in the Philippines, at a girlfriend’s house.
- 0:47
The caller says they wanted to walk the path across a rice field, over a little bridge, toward the ocean. Their girlfriend objected, using a local term they render as “muumuu,” but they went.
- 1:15
They reached the little wooden bridge. The girlfriend pointed out little fishes, and both knelt to look into a pool beside the stream.
- 1:24
The caller says a third image “like another person” appeared behind them. They whipped around and it was gone.
- 1:32
The caller says they fell into the water and she grabbed them and fell in too. She asked why they had turned around.
- 1:38
The caller says they told her it was probably her grandmother. She replied that her grandmother [quote withheld] The caller says they [quote withheld]
- 1:54
Later that evening, after drinking a lot of rum, the caller got up to use the bathroom. The houses are very close, with about six feet between the walls and her cousin [name withheld]’s place.
- 2:15
With a small night light on, the caller looked through the grilled bathroom window toward [name withheld]’s house. The caller says the image appeared again in the window.
- 2:30
The caller says the image [quote withheld] and that they shouted at it to get out, saying they were still drunk.
- 2:46
After a couple of shouts the bathroom door opened. It was their girlfriend, who startled the caller while they were urinating, so she “got soaked.”
- 3:03
The caller says [quote withheld] and that they did not have much experience of that kind afterward. The caller calls it “kind of interesting.”
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· 1:24
While kneeling on the small wooden bridge, the caller says a third image like another person appeared behind them and their girlfriend. When they turned, it was gone.
- observation· 1:32
The caller says they fell into the water at that moment and that their girlfriend grabbed them and fell in too.
- hearsay· 1:46
The caller reports that their girlfriend said her grandmother has been known to be seen around that place.
- observation· 2:15
The caller says that later, looking through the small grilled bathroom window toward the neighboring house, the same image appeared in the window.
- observation· 2:30
The caller says the image began merging through the wall and that they shouted at it to get out.
- observation· 2:37
The caller says they were still drunk while shouting at the figure. The caller also says they [quote withheld] after the bridge sighting.
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, casual story told by the person who lived it. It has real but unchecked details about the place. The caller names an ordinary factor, heavy drinking. The parts of the score are: closeness to the events 20 (firsthand, brief, partly garbled), specificity 12 (place names and layout, no dates), internal consistency 12 (a coherent sequence, but the grandmother point is muddled), alternative explanations 5 (drinking easily explains the second sighting), and calibration 8 (the caller does not exaggerate and separates the image from a person, but does not weigh alternatives). The total is 57.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand story of both incidents (the bridge and the bathroom).
- Concrete detail of what they felt and the layout: hands and knees on the bridge looking into a pool at fish, a grilled bathroom window, a night light, houses about six feet apart.
- A coherent two-part sequence, with the caller’s own reaction to the sighting (turning, falling in the water).
- The caller volunteers something that weakens their own case (drunkenness) rather than exaggerating.
- No dates are given, and the only location details are place names that are not checked: [quote withheld]
- The caller says they had been drinking heavily before the second sighting ([quote withheld]) and were “still drunk” while confronting the image.
- The story ends in a comic mishap rather than an observation, and the caller is casual about it ([quote withheld]).
- What the figure was is garbled in the transcript, and the idea may be the girlfriend’s rather than the caller’s.
- Fragmented words make some sentences ambiguous, especially the grandmother exchange.
- The labels showing who is speaking look unreliable in places. The line [quote withheld] is, in effect, the caller’s.
- No date is given for the events, so the story cannot be placed in time.
- 0:37
- 1:56
- 2:37
What the model inferred (not said on air): How I split the score, and the decision to weight alternative explanations low, rest on my judgment, not on anything the transcript states. The transcript supplies the drinking and the place names, but the weighting is mine.
Only the caller’s word supports the sightings. Place names and a witness who is claimed but never heard place this at a score of 11 to 25. Checkable details are given but not checked, and the witness is claimed rather than heard. No one backs the story up on air, so it stays well below the cap of 50.
Evidence for and against
- Checkable details are given but unchecked: [quote withheld] and a cousin named [name withheld].
- A witness is claimed to have been present at both incidents (the girlfriend), and to have said the grandmother [quote withheld]
- No photograph, recording, or document is mentioned or examined.
- The only named second person is said not to have seen the image and never speaks on air.
- Place names are given, but nothing about them is checked on air.
- It is not entirely clear from the transcript whether the girlfriend saw anything at the bridge. She is said to have asked why they turned around.
- 0:37
- 1:46
What the model inferred (not said on air): The score follows the scoring guide’s treatment of a “claimed witness” as not backing up the story. The transcript content used is the place names and the girlfriend’s reported presence.
The material is mildly eerie rather than sustained horror. It has two brief, unexplained appearances in exposed or private settings, and an intimate bathroom intrusion, but a defusing, almost slapstick ending. I scored it in the lower-middle range.
Evidence for and against
- A figure appears right behind two people who are kneeling and vulnerable on a narrow bridge.
- A figure comes back in a bathroom window at night and seems to come through the wall.
- The setting is a dark bathroom lit only by a small night light, plus a rural path at night.
- The caller is casual throughout ([quote withheld] [quote withheld]).
- The story ends in a comic bathroom mishap.
- The caller dismisses the first sighting ([quote withheld]).
- The figure’s appearance (see-through, solid, dark) is never described, so what the scene looked like is unclear.
- 2:30
- 3:01
What the model inferred (not said on air): Creepiness is a judgment about the effect on a listener. The transcript supplies the images, but the rating is mine.
This is a familiar ghost-story setup (a figure behind the witness, vanishing when confronted, returning at home) with several distinctive local details and an unusual, self-mocking ending. I set the score mid-range. The published value is calculated against the rest of the archive and is provisional here.
Evidence for and against
- A distinctive setting: a rice-field path and small wooden bridge toward the ocean in Negros Oriental, with both people kneeling to look at fish in a side pool.
- An image reported coming through a wall into a bathroom.
- A local term (“muumuu”) given as the girlfriend’s reason for avoiding the spot, and a comic ending in which the caller soaks their girlfriend when she startles them.
- The core device is stock: a figure glimpsed behind the witness that vanishes when they turn to look.
- A second sighting of the same figure later at home is a familiar pattern.
- The “muumuu” term is almost certainly mis-transcribed, so how distinctive it is cannot be judged reliably.
- The published originality score depends on archive statistics that are not available here.
- 1:00
- 3:01
What the model inferred (not said on air): Originality is my judgment compared with common ghost-story motifs. No data comparing this story with the archive was available for this run, so that part is not applied.
Scoring confidence 0.55 · analysis confidence 0.55 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s own firsthand story, given live on air (telephone call); No photograph, recording, document, or physical trace is mentioned or examined; A second person (the girlfriend) is said to have been present, but she does not speak on air and is not reported as having seen the figure. The originality score blends the model's score (48) 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.
- Alcohol that evening may have led the caller to misread shapes in a dim bathroom and window. · The caller says the second event followed [quote withheld] and says they were [quote withheld] while shouting at the image.
- A reflection in standing water, or a reflection or chance shape seen in dark window glass, could produce a fleeting “image” that vanishes when the viewpoint changes. · The “third image” was seen while both people were on hands and knees looking down into a pool beside the stream. The second sighting was through a window with a grille in a bathroom lit by a night light.
- Expectation and local tradition about the spot could shape what a person notices or remembers from a brief glimpse in low light. · The caller says their girlfriend repeatedly refused to walk there and invoked a local term they render as “muumuu” before they went. The caller says she later said her grandmother [quote withheld]
What stands out
The second sighting happens in a bathroom, with the figure reported coming through the wall. The story ends in an embarrassing mishap rather than a fright. The only explanation of the figure comes from a local tradition relayed by the girlfriend.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.