Toaster oven glass shatters at the reported hour of a cremation
A caller who gives the name [name withheld], from Montreal, Missouri, tells Art Bell that around 1980–81 their stepsister’s ex-husband died of cancer and was cremated. [name withheld] says they were close to the man. [name withheld] reports that on that day their sister was making toast in a toaster oven when the glass window blew out and shattered, and that she found the appliance unplugged. [name withheld] says the glass shattered at what [name withheld] claims was the exact time of the cremation. Art Bell calls it weird and suggests coincidence.
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 1:20:17). 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 Montreal. The caller corrects this to Montreal, Missouri. The caller says they have [quote withheld] The caller places the events at [quote withheld] when their stepsister was divorced and her ex-husband died. [name withheld] says they were [quote withheld] and used to go to the bar and pick up six-packs for him. [name withheld] says the man [quote withheld] [name withheld] states that on the day the man died, the body [quote withheld] According to [name withheld], on that same day their sister was making toast in a toaster oven with a glass window on it. [name withheld] says she was wondering what was taking so long, and as she started to walk over toward the appliance, [quote withheld] [name withheld] adds, [quote withheld] When she reached it, [name withheld] says, [quote withheld] [name withheld] adds that [quote withheld] The host responds that it is weird and offers that it may be “a coincidence, perhaps.” He adds that [quote withheld] and that [quote withheld] [name withheld] does not say how their sister knew the exact time of the cremation. [name withheld] does not describe the glass beyond its shattering, and gives no first names for the dead man or for their sister. The call ends there and the host moves to the next caller.
Reported events, in order
- 0:26
The caller says that around 1980–81 their stepsister’s ex-husband, a man the caller was close to, had been diagnosed with cancer.
- 0:53
The caller says that on the day the man died, the body was to be cremated.
- 1:00
The caller reports that on that day their sister was making toast in a toaster oven with a glass window on it.
- 1:15
The caller says that as she walked toward the toaster oven, the glass blew out and shattered.
- 1:30
The caller says that when she reached the appliance she saw it was unplugged.
- 1:36
The caller states that the moment of shattering was the exact time the man was being cremated.
- 1:45
The host calls it weird and suggests it may be a coincidence.
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· 0:26
The caller says their stepsister’s ex-husband died around 1980–81.
- observation· 0:44
The caller says the man had been diagnosed with cancer, which the caller describes as eating him alive.
- observation· 0:55
The caller says the man was going to be cremated on the day he died.
- hearsay· 1:15
The caller reports that their sister’s toaster oven glass blew out and shattered as she walked toward it.
- hearsay· 1:30
The caller reports that when their sister reached the toaster oven she found it unplugged.
- hearsay· 1:36
The caller states that the shattering happened at the exact time the man was being cremated.
- host statement· 1:45
The host suggests the match in timing may be a coincidence.
- host statement· 2:07
The host says the brain tries to make sense of chaos and that some accounts could be the real thing.
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 secondhand story from a close source, with some concrete details (an approximate year, the type of appliance, the unplugged cord). But the timing claim cannot be verified, the caller was not there, and the host’s suggestion of coincidence fits easily.
Evidence for and against
- The caller gives an approximate but specific date: [quote withheld]
- A concrete object and sequence: a toaster oven with a glass window, the glass blowing out, and the appliance found unplugged.
- The caller answers the host’s framing and gives background on their relationship to the dead man.
- The caller did not witness the event. It is relayed from their sister.
- The match in timing is not independently established, and the host himself suggests coincidence.
- No explanation is offered for how the sister knew the exact time of the cremation.
- The labels showing who is speaking shift between the caller and the caller within a single turn.
- The transcript alternates between “my stepsister” and “my sister” for the person at the toaster oven.
- The host’s remark mentioning Pennsylvania is garbled and does not match the stated Missouri location.
- 0:26
- 1:30
- 1:36
What the model inferred (not said on air): Closeness to the events is scored as secondhand from a close relative (their sister), not as firsthand, since the caller tells her experience. Internal consistency is scored down slightly for the shifting terms for her relationship and the garbled passage about [quote withheld]
Nothing supports this beyond the caller’s word and a claimed witness who does not appear on air. The only checkable details are a rough year and a town, with no names, records, or physical evidence offered.
Evidence for and against
- A claimed second witness exists: the sister, who reportedly saw the shattered glass and the unplugged appliance.
- Some details could in principle be checked: the town name and an approximate year, 1980–81.
- No names, dates, records, photographs, or appliance are presented or examined.
- The claimed witness does not speak on air. The story of the shattering is entirely relayed.
- The exact time of the cremation, the key detail, is not sourced or documented.
- It is unclear whether the glass or the toaster oven still existed or was inspected at any point.
- The caller does not say whether their sister told them directly or whether the story reached them at second or third hand.
- 0:06
- 1:30
What the model inferred (not said on air): This falls at a score of 11 to 25 for claimed witnesses and unchecked details. No outside check was done, so the score is capped well below 50.
The story is quietly eerie rather than frightening: a kitchen appliance failing violently for no stated reason, paired with a death and cremation. There is no threat, no intrusion into a bedroom, and no described presence or figure.
Evidence for and against
- The glass is said to have blown out and shattered, a sudden and startling event in a kitchen.
- The appliance is described as unplugged, which removes the obvious source of power.
- The shattering is tied to the hour of a man’s cremation.
- No being, figure, voice, or threat is reported.
- No physical contact, harm, or building menace is described.
- The host immediately frames it as possibly a coincidence.
- The caller gives no sensory description of the aftermath, so the intensity of the moment cannot be judged from the transcript.
- 1:15
- 1:22
What the model inferred (not said on air): I scored it toward the lower end of mildly eerie because the story is brief and focused on an object. The unsettling part comes from the match in timing, not from any described menace.
A household object reacting at the moment of a death is a familiar ghost-story pattern. But an unplugged toaster oven with a shattered glass window is a comparatively specific and uncommon object detail. The score is provisional, as the comparison with the rest of the archive carries little weight in the pilot.
Evidence for and against
- A shattering appliance window is a more unusual focus than the usual door, lamp, or television.
- The reported state of the appliance, unplugged, adds a distinctive detail to the event.
- A death or cremation matched by a simultaneous household event is a recurring pattern.
- The story has no figure, no history of the place, and no building sequence that would set it apart further.
- The story is very short, which limits how many motifs can be assessed.
- 1:00
- 1:30
What the model inferred (not said on air): My originality score reflects a familiar setup with one distinctive object detail. The published value would be recalculated against the rest of the archive.
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.65 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s secondhand story relaying their sister’s account; Claimed witness (the sister) who does not speak on air; Approximate date and town given, no names or records. 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.
- The glass failed for a physical reason (heat stress, a manufacturing defect, or leftover heat) while the toaster oven was in use, and the “unplugged” observation was mistaken or misremembered. · The caller says their sister was actively making toast in the oven when it shattered, so the appliance was in use. The caller also reports she found it unplugged afterward.
- The match in timing is a coincidence or was worked out after the fact. Glass breaking is a common household event, and the time of a cremation is scheduled in advance. · The host offers “a coincidence, perhaps” and notes that [quote withheld]
- Details drifted over about thirty years in a secondhand retelling by a caller who was not there. · The caller places the events at [quote withheld] and describes what their sister saw rather than what they themselves witnessed.
What stands out
The story turns on a household appliance rather than a figure or a sound: the glass window of an unplugged toaster oven reportedly shattering at the hour of a cremation. The caller was not there. The caller relays what their sister saw, so the whole strange event rests on a secondhand report of a single object.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.