Deceased friend’s voice warns a caller about a new boyfriend
A caller introduced as [name withheld], from Northern Arkansas, says that a few months after their best friend [name withheld] died, they began hearing his voice warn them that the man they had started dating was [quote withheld] The caller reports that when they raised it with the man at their dining table, their normally quiet dog looked at nothing and barked. The caller says the man then left.
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 1:13:52). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The host introduces the caller as [name withheld], from Northern Arkansas. [name withheld] says their best friend, 47, died suddenly. He had been in a coma from lack of oxygen, and [name withheld] says [quote withheld] after being told he would not recover. [name withheld] says he died [quote withheld] A few months after his death [name withheld] began dating a man they say they thought was very nice. They report being [quote withheld] including dreams about things the man they were dating was doing. The caller says that while awake they could hear their dead best friend say, [quote withheld] and [quote withheld] The caller says they heard it in their ear, [quote withheld] several times. When the host asks how they heard it, they say it was in their ear the way they hear the host. They say they wondered how to tell the man, and then did. They were sitting at their dining table while the caller tried to explain and ask him questions, and he looked at them as if they had lost their mind or were bluffing. The caller says their yellow lab, a dog that “never, never barks,” looked up at nothing and started barking. They told the dog, [quote withheld] The caller says that in the end everything their dead best friend had told them was true. The caller sees his contact as him feeling the need to protect them and to [quote withheld] When the host asks about the boyfriend, a line in the transcript reads [quote withheld] and the host closes the call.
Reported events, in order
- 0:10
[name withheld] says their 47-year-old best friend died suddenly after a coma from lack of oxygen. The family took him off life support.
- 0:40
A few months after his death [name withheld] began dating a man they thought was very nice.
- 0:47
[name withheld] says they began being [quote withheld] including about things the man they were dating was doing.
- 1:01
[name withheld] reports hearing their dead best friend say, [quote withheld] and [quote withheld]
- 1:14
[name withheld] describes the voice as being in their ear, as clear as if he were standing there, heard several times.
- 1:40
[name withheld] says they sat with the man at their dining table and tried to explain and ask him questions. He shook his head as if they had lost their mind.
- 2:03
Their yellow lab, described as a dog that never barks, looked up at nothing and started barking.
- 2:21
[name withheld] told the dog, [quote withheld]
- 2:26
[name withheld] says everything their dead best friend had told them was true, and sees the contact as him trying to protect them.
- 2:51
When the host asks about the boyfriend, a line in the transcript reads [quote withheld]
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· 1:01
[name withheld] says they heard their dead best friend’s voice say, [quote withheld] and [quote withheld]
- observation· 1:14
[name withheld] says the voice was in their ear, clear and repeated, as if he were standing there.
- observation· 2:03
[name withheld] says their dog, which never barks, looked up at nothing and barked while the man was at the table.
- interpretation· 2:26
[name withheld] says everything their dead best friend had told them turned out to be true.
- interpretation· 2:32
[name withheld] sees the contact as their friend feeling the need to protect them and to keep running their life after death.
- host statement· 2:53
The host says that dogs, like little children, can see what others insist is not there.
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 firsthand story with some concrete details (names, the friend’s age, the coma from lack of oxygen, the dog) and a coherent order of events. But no one backs up the voice, and ordinary explanations fit easily and are not addressed by the caller. These include experiences after a death and something the dog sensed that the people did not.
Evidence for and against
- The caller reports the events as their own direct experience of hearing the voice.
- Concrete details are given: a friend aged 47 in a coma from lack of oxygen, taken off life support; the nickname “Meg” and the dog’s name, [name withheld].
- The sequence holds together: death, then dating, then dreams and the voice, then the dining-table conversation and the dog’s bark.
- Only the caller hears the voice, and nothing independent confirms it.
- Voices and vivid dreams after a death are common explanations that the caller does not discuss.
- The warning is described only as “true,” without any specific, checkable detail about the man.
- The year of the events is not stated.
- The labels showing who is speaking split the caller across several labels, so it is uncertain which lines belong to whom.
- 0:10
- 1:14
- 2:26
What the model inferred (not said on air): The score reflects a firsthand story that is reasonably specific and coherent but not backed up. I lowered it because easy ordinary explanations are not considered and the central claim rests on a single hearer.
Only the caller’s word supports the claims. Some details could be checked (a named friend, a named dog, a stated region), but none is verified in the transcript.
Evidence for and against
- Names and a place are given that could in principle be checked: [name withheld], Northern Arkansas, the dog [name withheld], the friend [name withheld].
- A second person is reported present when the dog barked, though he does not speak.
- No recording, photograph, document, or witness on air is presented.
- The claimed witness (the man) never speaks, and his reaction is reported only by the caller.
- No year or address is given, so even the checkable details are thin.
- The [quote withheld] line is attached to an unclear speaker label.
- 0:00
- 2:21
What the model inferred (not said on air): I placed this at a score of 11 to 25 because checkable details are offered but nothing is examined or backed up on air. No outside check was done.
A dead friend’s voice warning about a new partner and a dog barking at nothing are quietly unsettling. The hint that the boyfriend is dangerous adds a mild threat. But there is no vivid horror, physical contact, or building menace.
Evidence for and against
- A warning that the new partner is [quote withheld] hints at possible danger.
- The dog, said never to bark, looks at nothing and barks in the middle of the conversation.
- The caller describes the whole thing as [quote withheld]
- The tone of the story is matter-of-fact, and it ends with the man leaving.
- No threatening presence, injury, or frightening image is described.
- What the caller’s dreams contained is not described.
- What made the friend’s warnings “true” is not stated.
- 1:04
- 2:03
What the model inferred (not said on air): I rated it as mildly to moderately eerie because the content is a protective warning rather than a threatening haunting.
The core is a familiar motif: a dead loved one returning with a warning about a living partner. But the dog’s sudden bark as a sign in the moment, and the caller’s view of the friend as still “running her life,” add a distinctive detail.
Evidence for and against
- The warning about a new partner ([quote withheld]) is a familiar storytelling setup.
- The dog barking at nothing as a sign during the confrontation is a concrete, less common detail.
- Warnings from a dead relative and animals reacting are recurring ghost-story elements.
- No rare event or unusual combination is introduced.
- Originality is provisional. The comparison with the rest of the archive carries little weight in the pilot.
- 1:04
- 2:21
What the model inferred (not said on air): My score is 45 (a familiar setup with a distinctive detail). The published value will blend this with how the story compares with the rest of the archive.
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.70 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s own firsthand story (voice, dreams, dog’s behavior); Names and a region stated by the host and caller, not verified; No physical evidence, recording, or witness on air. The originality score blends the model's score (45) 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.
- Hearing voices and having vivid dreams in the months after a death (a grief-related hallucination, or images while falling asleep). · The caller places the start [quote withheld] and describes being [quote withheld] along with hearing the voice.
- The dog’s barking was a one-time reaction to an ordinary sound or sight that the people present did not notice or identify. · The caller says the dog [quote withheld] and stresses that it never barks, so no source for the bark is given.
- Expectation and the strain of the dining-table conversation colored what the caller experienced at the table. · The caller says they were sitting with the man, trying to explain the warning, and that he looked at them skeptically just before the dog barked.
What stands out
The story pairs a spoken warning attributed to a named dead friend with a dog’s reaction that the caller took as a sign during an awkward conversation. The caller treats the friend’s contact after death as ongoing guidance rather than a single sighting.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.