Foot tug and a friend’s death reported on the radio
[name withheld], whom Art calls a caller from Indiana, tells of a friend named [name withheld] from the 1980s, when [name withheld] lived in Illinois. [name withheld] says someone tugging their foot woke them from sleep, and they understood it as [name withheld] saying goodbye. Later that morning they heard a radio news report that [name withheld] had died in a car accident about three miles south of where [name withheld] was. Art and the caller then discuss the farewell.
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 2:42:28). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
[name withheld], whom Art calls a caller from Indiana, says the story concerns a friend named [name withheld] from the 1980s, when [name withheld] lived in Illinois. They had mostly lost touch. [name withheld] says they later moved to a very small town called Allerton. The caller reports being in bed asleep, [quote withheld] when they felt somebody tugging on their foot. They say they wondered what it was and then understood it as their friend [name withheld] saying goodbye. They say they first wrote it off, got up, got ready for work, and turned on the radio. They say they then heard a news story that [name withheld] had died in a car accident about three miles south of where [name withheld] was. [name withheld] says the news hit hard. In answer to Art’s framing, [name withheld] says they had been very close and that they figured [name withheld] would do that. The caller gives no date beyond the 1980s, no last name for [name withheld], and no exact location besides Allerton. Art responds that it was [quote withheld] and says [name withheld]’s friend had said goodbye to them. The story ends with Art’s comments. No further events are reported.
Reported events, in order
- 0:20
[name withheld] says the story concerns a friend from the 1980s, when [name withheld] lived in Illinois. They had mostly lost touch.
- 0:33
[name withheld] says they moved to a very small town called Allerton.
- 0:44
[name withheld] says they were in bed sleeping and came out of dead sleep.
- 0:58
[name withheld] reports somebody tugging on their foot and says it was their friend [name withheld] saying goodbye.
- 1:06
[name withheld] says they first wrote it off, then got ready for work and turned on the radio.
- 1:22
[name withheld] says they heard a news story that [name withheld] had died in a car accident about three miles south of where [name withheld] was.
- 1:32
[name withheld] says it hit hard.
- 1:38
Art sums up the story as [name withheld] tugging [name withheld]’s foot to say goodbye.
- 1:45
[name withheld] says they were very close and that they figured [name withheld] would do that.
- 2:09
Art comments that it is a rough story and that the friend said goodbye.
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· 0:58
The caller reports feeling somebody tugging on their foot as they came out of sleep.
- interpretation· 0:58
The caller takes the foot tug to be their friend [name withheld] saying goodbye.
- observation· 1:22
The caller reports hearing a radio news story about [name withheld]’s death in a car accident.
- interpretation· 1:58
The caller says they figured [name withheld] would do that.
- host statement· 1:38
The host restates the story as [name withheld] tugging the caller’s foot to say goodbye.
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 story is firsthand and consistent, with some specific details. But the central link between the foot tug and [name withheld]’s death is the caller’s own interpretation, and a sleep-related explanation fits easily. The caller separates the sensation from the conclusion, which helps. No one else backs up the story.
Evidence for and against
- [name withheld] gives a first-person report: [quote withheld]
- The caller describes a concrete sensation: [quote withheld]
- The caller gives a specific later event: a radio news report about [name withheld]’s death in a car accident about three miles away.
- It happened while the caller was asleep, and they say they first wrote it off: [quote withheld]
- No date, last name, or independently examined record is given.
- The link to [name withheld] saying goodbye is the caller’s interpretation, not something they observed directly.
- The exact date of the events is not stated.
- The automatic transcript is garbled and partly unclear around the first dismissal.
- 0:44
- 0:58
- 1:27
What the model inferred (not said on air): Closeness to the source and internal consistency count in the story’s favor. The easy sleep-related explanation and the lack of anyone backing it up count against it. The score is a rough judgment about what the caller said, not a probability that the events occurred.
The only support is the caller’s own word plus details that could in principle be checked: the 1980s, Illinois, Allerton, a friend named [name withheld], and a car accident. None of these is verified. There is no physical evidence and no second witness on air.
Evidence for and against
- [name withheld] names a decade and a state: “from the 80s” and “Illinois.”
- The caller names a town: “called Allerton.”
- The caller gives a specific cause of death: “car accident.”
- No last name for [name withheld], no exact date, no police or news record, and no location beyond Allerton.
- No second witness speaks on air.
- The caller reports the news story. It was not examined or independently confirmed.
- Whether the town name and radio news report could be checked is not established in this part of the broadcast.
- The automatic transcript does not give an exact date or full identity.
- 0:20
- 0:33
- 1:27
What the model inferred (not said on air): The checkable details place this above the band for bare assertion. The lack of any actual check keeps it at the low end of that band. No outside check was done.
The story involves a death and an uncanny touch, which is mildly unsettling. But it is framed as a farewell, not as a threat or something malevolent. Its brevity and comforting framing keep it below truly frightening territory.
Evidence for and against
- The caller reports a foot tug from a friend who had just died.
- The death is reported as a car accident.
- The host calls it “rough stuff.”
- The contact is described as saying goodbye, not as an attack.
- The host frames it as the friend having had the chance to say goodbye.
- No lasting dread, escalation, or malevolent presence is reported.
- Tone and delivery are not used in this score.
- The story is brief, which limits how much atmosphere can be judged.
- 0:58
- 1:27
- 2:24
What the model inferred (not said on air): This scores the story’s likely effect on a listener, not its truth. The death plus the touch raises mild unease. The farewell framing and the lack of any threat lower it.
A farewell on the night of a death is a familiar ghost-story frame. The foot tug, rather than a visible ghost or a spoken voice, gives it some distinctiveness. This is a provisional score. It is not compared with the rest of the archive.
Evidence for and against
- The contact is by touch: [quote withheld]
- The caller takes it as a farewell: “saying goodbye.”
- A ghost appearing around the time of a death is a recurring motif.
- The story is very short and has no other unusual elements.
- A comparison with the rest of the archive is not available here.
- The broadcast part is brief, which limits confidence in the originality score.
- 0:58
- 0:58
What the model inferred (not said on air): This scores the story against common ghost-story motifs. The familiar death-announcement frame and the unusual foot-tug detail balance out to a mid-range provisional score.
Scoring confidence 0.70 · analysis confidence 0.75 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: Caller’s firsthand spoken story; No photograph, recording, document, or second witness on air. The originality score blends the model's score (50) 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 sleep-related sensation or limb movement, such as a feeling while waking up or a muscle twitch, may account for the felt foot tug. · [name withheld] says they were in bed sleeping and came [quote withheld] before feeling the tug.
- The timing with [name withheld]’s death could be coincidence. [name withheld] says they had lost touch and does not say they knew of the accident beforehand. · [name withheld] says they had mostly lost touch and that they learned of the death only later, from a radio news story.
What stands out
The reported contact is touch only: a foot tug, not a visible ghost or a voice. It is linked to a friend’s death that [name withheld] learned of later from a radio news report. The story is very brief and rests on a single sensation plus the caller’s interpretation.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.