Contest winner discusses the “Babushka” photograph taken by a co-worker in 2007
[name withheld], announced by the host as the winner of the show’s ghost photo contest, tells how a co-worker at the time, named [name withheld], showed the guest a photograph [name withheld] had taken at [name withheld]’s sister’s house. [name withheld] said the household had been experiencing “creepy stuff.” The guest entered that photograph, titled “Babushka,” in the contest and says they had never seen anything like it. The call ends with prize details and no description of what the photograph actually shows.
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 2013.mp3”, starting at 1:00). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
[name withheld], introduced by the host as the winner of the show’s ghost photo contest, says they learned about the win a few minutes before the call. They say they had heard about Art Bell and listened to [quote withheld] at the home of a friend who subscribed to Sirius. Asked about the photograph they entered, titled “Babushka,” they say they worked with a fellow at a cable company “local here” who knew they did [quote withheld] They say the co-worker was shy about showing it to them, and they then entered it in the contest. According to the guest, the co-worker said the photograph was taken at the co-worker’s sister’s house and that [quote withheld] there. They say they had never seen anything like it, and that they had gotten orbs themselves but [quote withheld] They give no description of what the photograph shows. Asked who took it, they say it was their co-worker [name withheld], that it [quote withheld] and that [name withheld] did not really know what had been captured until seeing it on the phone. They add that it was taken before iPhone photo applications and “trickery” had evolved. Asked for a date, they say it was taken “around 2007.” The host says the guest’s entry won on the most positive comments and that another entry was disqualified because it had been taken from another website. The call closes with thanks and the host’s sign-off.
Reported events, in order
- 0:07
The host announces that [name withheld] has just been told they are the winner of the ghost photo contest for a photograph titled “Babushka.”
- 0:44
The guest says they had heard about Art Bell and listened to a couple of his programs at a friend’s house on a Sirius subscription.
- 1:10
The guest says a fellow worker at a local cable company, who knew they did some amateur ghost hunting, showed them a photograph.
- 1:24
They say they entered that photograph in the contest.
- 1:30
The guest says the co-worker told them the photograph was taken at the co-worker’s sister’s house, and that the household had been experiencing creepy things.
- 1:37
They say they had never seen anything like that photograph, having obtained only orbs themselves.
- 1:54
The host says the guest’s entry won on the most positive comments, with roughly 100 positives.
- 2:00
The host says one other entry was disqualified because it had been taken from another website.
- 2:18
The guest names the photographer as their co-worker [name withheld].
- 2:26
The guest says the photograph spooked [name withheld] very much and that [name withheld] did not really know what had been captured until seeing it on the phone.
- 2:40
They say the photograph came before iPhone applications and other means of trickery.
- 2:54
Asked for a date, the guest says the photograph was taken around 2007.
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· 1:37
The guest says that, in the photograph they entered, they saw something unlike anything they had seen before. They say they had obtained orbs themselves but [quote withheld]
- hearsay· 1:31
The guest reports that their co-worker said the photograph was taken at the co-worker’s sister’s house, where the household had been experiencing “creepy stuff.”
- hearsay· 2:26
The guest reports that the photographer was spooked and did not really know what had been captured until looking at the image on the phone.
- interpretation· 2:40
The guest concludes that the image came before easy photographic trickery, and offers this as a reason to take the photograph seriously.
- host statement· 1:54
The host says the entry won on the most positive comments and that another entry was disqualified as copied from a website.
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 guest is named and the photographer is named, but the photograph’s origin is secondhand, no description of its content is given, and no ordinary explanation for a strange feature in a photo is addressed beyond the age of the image.
Evidence for and against
- A named guest and a named photographer give the story an identifiable source.
- A rough date is given: the photograph was taken “around 2007.”
- The report holds together and matches the host’s framing of a contest entry.
- The guest does not describe what the photograph shows, so nothing can be assessed about the strange thing itself.
- The origin story is secondhand: [quote withheld]
- The reported activity in the house is vague: [quote withheld]
- Whether the strange feature was a figure, a face, a light, or something else is unstated.
- The phrase “local here” does not fix a place.
- 1:10
- 2:29
- 2:40
What the model inferred (not said on air): The weights for each part of the score (source proximity 12, specificity 5, internal consistency 16, alternative explanations 9, calibration 8) are my judgment. The secondhand cap of 60 was not reached.
A physical item is claimed to exist and to have been submitted and voted on in a contest, but it is not examined or described on air, and the photographer does not speak.
Evidence for and against
- The host indicates the photograph was displayed and judged: [quote withheld]
- The host says another entry was disqualified for being copied, implying entries were checked against sources.
- No on-air description or examination of the image’s content.
- The photographer, [name withheld], does not speak on air. [name withheld]’s statements are relayed.
- Whether the host personally viewed the image or relied on audience comments is not stated.
- 1:54
- 2:09
What the model inferred (not said on air): Placed in the 26 to 40 band for physical evidence claimed to exist but not examined. No outside check was performed.
This part of the broadcast is largely contest details. The only unsettling material is a general mention of “creepy stuff” in a house and a relayed report that the photographer was spooked, with no detail about what was seen.
Evidence for and against
- The guest reports ongoing “creepy stuff” in a home.
- The guest says the image spooked the photographer “very much so.”
- No description of the image, no threat, no physical contact, no escalation.
- The call is framed around a prize and congratulations.
- What the photograph shows is unknown, so its possible effect on a listener cannot be gauged.
- 1:31
- 2:26
What the model inferred (not said on air): My rating reflects the absence of described content rather than the guest’s or host’s reactions, which are not treated as evidence.
A photograph claimed to show something strange is a familiar motif. The distinctive elements are the contest setting and the specific title “Babushka,” not the strange thing itself.
Evidence for and against
- The entry has a distinctive title, “Babushka.”
- The story is framed around a listener photo contest rather than an in-person haunting.
- Strange photographs, and orbs, are common motifs, as the guest acknowledges.
- No unusual detail about the strange thing is supplied.
- Originality would change substantially if the image’s content were described.
- 0:20
- 1:37
What the model inferred (not said on air): My provisional score is a judgment from the content alone. The published value is computed compared with the rest of the archive.
Scoring confidence 0.40 · analysis confidence 0.50 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The guest’s firsthand story about seeing and submitting the photograph; Claimed photograph referenced as a contest entry, not examined or described in the transcript; Secondhand report attributed to the photographer [name withheld] and to the household at [name withheld]’s sister’s house. The originality score blends the model's score (35) 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 reported strange feature may be a flaw or an unclear feature of a phone-camera image from about 2007, noticed only on later inspection (seeing a face or figure in random shapes, low resolution, or a lens or sensor flaw). · The guest says the photographer [quote withheld] and that the image dates to “around 2007,” before modern photo applications.
- The image could have been altered or staged. The guest addresses this by noting the photograph came before widely available phone photo-editing tools. · The guest raises the possibility of “trickery” on their own and dates the image to before such tools [quote withheld]
- The “creepy stuff” reportedly happening in the co-worker’s sister’s house is described only in general terms, so ordinary house noises, drafts, or other routine causes are not ruled out in the transcript. · The only description given is secondhand and non-specific: [quote withheld]
What stands out
The story does not describe the strange thing at all. The call is framed around the winning entry in a radio photo contest, and the content of the photograph titled “Babushka” is never stated, so what was seen can only be guessed from the guest’s comparisons to orbs.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.