A call to a South Dakota tribal office on the father's unknown birthday
A caller who identifies themself as [quote withheld] tells Art Bell that their father left when the caller was about two years old and that they never knew where their father was. After keeping a phone number for about two years, they say, they called it [quote withheld] one morning and reached a tribal office in South Dakota. They were told their father was dead, and that the day they called was their father's birthday, which they had not known. Art responds that it is [quote withheld] and the call ends.
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 1994.mp3”, starting at 2:58:34). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller, who gives their name as [quote withheld] opens by saying they are not sure their story is a ghost story. They say their father left when the caller was about two years old and that they never knew where their father was until about a year before the broadcast. They say they are [quote withheld] and had been given a phone number for reaching their father, which they kept for about two years without using. One morning, they say, they woke up and called the number [quote withheld] It belonged to a tribal office in South Dakota. According to the caller, a man at the office first told them he thought the father was dead, and after looking further called back to say that he was. The caller says the man also told them something they had not known: that March 31 was their father's birthday, and that March 31 was the day they had made the call. They call this [quote withheld] Art replies that it is [quote withheld] then moves to a station identification and the next part of the program. The caller does not name the tribal office or the man they spoke to. They do not say how they got the phone number or when exactly the call took place. They describe no ghost, sound, or physical event, and they give no cause for the timing. No second witness speaks on air.
Reported events, in order
- 0:08
The caller says they are unsure whether their story is a ghost story, and that their father left when the caller was about two years old and they never knew where he was.
- 0:29
They say they had been given a phone number for reaching their father and had kept it for about two years.
- 0:43
One morning the caller woke up and called the number [quote withheld]
- 0:49
The number reached a tribal office in South Dakota.
- 0:53
A man at the office said he thought the father was dead, then called back and said he was.
- 1:08
The man told the caller March 31 was their father's birthday, which they had not known, and that this was the day they had called.
- 1:23
Art comments that it is [quote withheld] and moves on.
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· 0:15
The caller's father left when the caller was about two years old, and the caller never knew where he was.
- observation· 0:37
The caller held a phone number for reaching their father for about two years before calling it on impulse one morning.
- hearsay· 0:53
A man at the tribal office told the caller, and later confirmed in a return call, that their father was dead.
- observation· 1:08
The man told the caller March 31 was their father's birthday, which they had not known, and that this was the day they made the call.
- interpretation· 0:08
The caller suggests the story might be a ghost story without saying what caused it.
- host statement· 1:23
Art Bell says the timing is either ESP or a ghost.
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 brief but coherent firsthand story with some checkable specifics (Seattle, a tribal office in South Dakota, March 31), told without exaggeration. Simple chance accounts for the timing, and nothing beyond the caller's own memory supports the sequence.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand: the caller describes making the call themself.
- Concrete specifics: a tribal office in South Dakota, a number held about two years, a stated date of March 31.
- No contradictions in the short story, and the caller's answers fit Art's framing.
- A coincidence explains it easily: one impulsive call landing on one of 365 days.
- Very brief, with no names, no date of the call, and no description of any strange event.
- The father's death and the birthday both come from a second party (the office).
- The caller's age and the exact date of the call are not stated.
- The automatic transcript mixes the caller's and host's lines under the caller's label, so who said a few phrases is uncertain.
- 0:15
- 0:43
- 0:49
- 1:08
What the model inferred (not said on air): Component judgments: source proximity 22/25 (direct participant); specificity 13/20 (place, date, and type of office given, but no names or call date); internal consistency 16/20; alternative explanations 5/20 (chance fits well); calibration 8/15 (the caller does not claim a cause, but the story is too short to show much calibration). Total 64.
The story rests entirely on the caller's word. There are checkable specifics (a tribal office in South Dakota, a March 31 birthday), but nothing was checked, and no document, recording, or on-air witness is offered.
Evidence for and against
- Specifics that could be checked are mentioned: a tribal office in South Dakota and the date March 31.
- A second party (the office) is said to have supplied the information about the father.
- No physical evidence, document, or recording is claimed or examined.
- No second witness speaks on air.
- The office and the man are unnamed, and the call date is unstated.
- Whether the office or its records could be identified at all is not stated.
- The automatic transcript mixes speakers, so it is unclear who says a few of the short lines.
- 0:49
- 1:08
What the model inferred (not said on air): Placed in the 11 to 25 range: checkable specifics are given but none are checked, and there is no other witness or physical item. No outside check was done, so the cap of 50 is not approached.
The story is sad rather than frightening: a caller learns by telephone that their estranged father has died, and the call falls on the father's birthday. There is no threat, intrusion, physical contact, or horror.
Evidence for and against
- The subject involves an unknown father and the news of his death.
- The caller presents the timing coincidence as strange ([quote withheld]).
- No ghost, sound, touch, or presence is reported.
- No escalation, menace, or unresolved threat, and the host treats it lightly.
- Delivery and tone were not assessed and were not used in this score.
- 0:53
- 1:08
What the model inferred (not said on air): Scored above the 10 anchor for comforting visits from the dead because the story involves a death and an unexplained coincidence, but well below the middle since nothing frightening is described.
The frame is familiar: an absent parent, a long-held phone number, a single call on impulse. The distinctive element is narrow: the call falling on the father's previously unknown birthday. Nothing else unusual is reported.
Evidence for and against
- A specific, fairly uncommon detail: the call is said to have been made on the father's birthday, which the caller says they did not know.
- The story has no ghost sighting or haunted place, which sets it apart from typical ghost stories in this archive.
- The underlying story (searching for an absent parent, learning of a death by telephone) is a common human one.
- The “meaningful coincidence” structure is a recurring motif in paranormal stories.
- Novelty compared with the rest of the archive cannot be judged from a single excerpt, so this score is a provisional estimate based on content.
- 0:08
- 1:08
What the model inferred (not said on air): Provisionally scored near the middle: a familiar frame with one distinctive timing detail. The published value may change once the story can be compared with the rest of the archive.
Scoring confidence 0.55 · analysis confidence 0.60 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller's firsthand story (live call).; No documents, recordings, or photographs mentioned or examined.; No second witness speaks 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.
- Chance coincidence: a call placed on impulse on one of 365 days happened to fall on the father's birthday. · The caller says they kept the number for about two years and called it [quote withheld] one morning. The office supplied the birthday afterward.
- The date came from the office's own family records rather than from any strange source, so the coincidence rests on a date the caller did not know beforehand. · The caller says the man at the tribal office [quote withheld]
What stands out
The story contains no ghost, sound, touch, or odd happening in the surroundings. The reported event is a telephone call whose timing matched a birthday the caller says they did not know. The paranormal angle comes from the host's remark, not from the caller, who says outright that they are unsure whether it is a ghost story.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.