Paper-route dog patted on a porch after the owner said it was put to sleep
Art Bell reads a letter on air that he credits to a listener named [name withheld] in Spokane, Washington. It describes a paper route the writer shares with their father. For a year and a half, the writer had been placing a newspaper on an enclosed porch where a large German shepherd was kept, and the dog always waited for a pat. After not seeing the dog for about two weeks, the writer says, they found it on the porch, patted it, and left. About a week later, the owner told the writer the dog had been put to sleep three and a half weeks earlier. The letter ends with the writer saying they now hurry in and out of that porch.
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 4:15). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The item is a letter. The host introduces it as a supposed Halloween-show story, and at the end he credits it to [quote withheld] (0:05:38). According to the letter, the writer and their father have run a paper route for three years and have listened to the show for two. For a year and a half, they have delivered to a house with a large German shepherd kept on the enclosed porch where the paper is placed. The letter says the dog was always friendly and always waited for a pat on the head (0:04:46). About a month before writing, the writer stopped seeing the dog for a while and thought little of it. Then, one morning about two weeks after the last time the writer had seen it, the dog was on the porch (0:04:58). The letter says the dog was lying down and raised its head, and the writer patted it several times and left (0:05:02). The writer says they did not see it again. About a week later, while collecting for the paper at that house, the writer asked the owner where the dog was. According to the letter, the owner said the dog was very old and suffering from spinal problems, and that it had had to be put to sleep three and a half weeks earlier (0:05:25). The writer says this instantly sent shivers up their spine, and that they now get into and out of that porch as fast as they can (0:05:29). The letter offers no cause, and the host adds no comment beyond naming the writer.
Reported events, in order
- 0:09
The writer says they and their father have been doing a paper route for three years and have listened to the show for two.
- 0:20
For a year and a half, they have delivered papers to a house with a large German shepherd kept on the enclosed porch where the paper is placed.
- 0:30
The dog was always friendly and always waited for a pat on the head.
- 0:35
About a month before writing, the writer stopped seeing the dog for a while and did not think much about it.
- 0:42
One morning, about two weeks after the last time the writer had seen it, the dog was on the porch.
- 0:46
The dog was lying down and raised its head, and the writer patted it several times before leaving.
- 0:53
About a week later, while collecting for the paper, the writer asked the owner where the dog was.
- 1:09
The owner said the dog was very old and had spinal problems, so it had been put to sleep three and a half weeks earlier.
- 1:13
The writer says this sent shivers up their spine and that they now get in and out of that porch as fast as they can.
- 1:22
The host closes the item by crediting the letter to [name withheld] in Spokane, Washington.
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· 0:46
The letter writer reports entering the porch and patting the dog, which raised its head, on a morning about two weeks after the writer had last seen it.
- observation· 0:35
The letter says the dog was on the enclosed porch that morning, after a period in which the writer had not seen it.
- hearsay· 0:53
According to the letter, the dog's owner told the writer the dog was old and had spinal problems, and that it had been put to sleep three and a half weeks earlier.
- interpretation· 1:13
The letter writer concludes that the encounter was strange, and says they now move quickly in and out of the porch.
- host statement· 1:22
The host credits the letter to a named listener and city.
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.
A specific firsthand story told in a clear order. But no one else backs it up, and it has plausible ordinary readings (another dog, rough dates) that the writer does not address. Its claims are only modestly careful: the writer separates events from their reaction, but not what they perceived from what they inferred. Estimated scores for each part: closeness to the source 20, specific detail 13, consistency 15, other explanations 8, and how carefully the claims are stated 7 (about 63). The total was lowered to 60 to be cautious, since the story comes only from a letter with a single witness.
Evidence for and against
- A firsthand story of the encounter by the person involved: [quote withheld] (0:05:02).
- A concrete, orderly sequence with a long-standing routine: three years on the route, a year and a half at the house, and a dog kept on an enclosed porch (0:04:25, 0:04:35).
- No contradiction was found in the reported timeline. The answers to the implied questions fit the story.
- The story is a written letter with no documentation and no supporting witness who speaks. It also has an easy ordinary explanation (a different animal, or rough or wrong dates) that the writer does not address.
- The strange part rests on a date given secondhand by the owner: [quote withheld] (0:05:09).
- The letter does not say whether the writer or the owner checked which dog was on the porch.
- The letter does not say how the writer knows or remembers their own dates, which are all approximate.
- 0:09
- 0:46
- 0:53
What the model inferred (not said on air): The weights for each part and the downward adjustment are my editorial judgment, not statements in the transcript.
Only the writer's word, with a few checkable details (a named city and the owner's reported statement) that were not checked. This sits in the 11–25 range. No physical evidence is claimed to exist, and no witness speaks on air.
Evidence for and against
- Details that could be checked in principle are given: a named listener, a city ([quote withheld] 0:05:38), a paper route, a specific house with an enclosed porch, and an owner who gave a date (0:05:25).
- One secondhand claim exists (the owner's statement that the dog was put to sleep), but it is reported only through the letter.
- No document, photograph, recording, veterinary record, or other artifact is presented or examined.
- No second witness speaks on air. The writer's father, who shares the route, is not said to have seen the dog on the morning in question.
- The owner is not named, so the checkable detail is only partial.
- 1:22
- 1:09
What the model inferred (not said on air): Where the score falls follows the scoring guide. The transcript itself contains no verification.
A friendly dog patted after it was reportedly put to sleep gives a quiet, unresolved, uncanny note. There is no menace, violence, or lasting dread. The score falls around the [quote withheld] range.
Evidence for and against
- The news that the patted dog had reportedly been dead for three and a half weeks turns an ordinary, comforting routine into something uncanny (0:05:25).
- The setting is a daily task at a porch the writer must still enter, so the unease goes on rather than ending.
- The dog is described as friendly and harmless. There is no threat and no contact with the writer beyond ordinary patting ([quote withheld] 0:04:46).
- The writer's reaction is mild and practical, not terror-struck: they hurry in and out of the porch.
- The transcript does not describe anything odd to the senses (cold, silence, a difference in touch) at the moment of patting.
- 0:30
- 1:13
What the model inferred (not said on air): The score is a judgment about how the story reads to a listener, not a claim about the events.
A familiar frame (an animal seen after death) made specific by the paper-route routine and the casual patting on a porch. The provisional score from content alone is around 40. An adjustment compared with the rest of the archive is not yet available for this pilot.
Evidence for and against
- The distinctive detail is the physical routine: a paper-route porch, a German shepherd that always waited for a pat, and the writer patting it before learning from the owner that it had been put to sleep three and a half weeks earlier.
- The delayed, offhand way the writer learns of the death (while collecting for the paper) is a specific framing, not a generic one.
- A dead pet or other animal still seen after death is a familiar ghost-story element.
- The story's shape (a routine encounter, the later news of a death, and a delayed realization) is a standard frame.
- Originality is provisional until it is computed against the rest of the archive.
- 0:20
- 0:42
What the model inferred (not said on air): The content-based score is my judgment. The comparison with the rest of the archive is computed later in the process and is provisional while there are few stories.
Scoring confidence 0.70 · analysis confidence 0.72 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The writer's firsthand written story, read aloud on air by the host; A secondhand statement from the dog's owner about the dog's death, reported within the letter; No document, photograph, recording, veterinary record, or other physical evidence appears in this part of the broadcast. The originality score blends the model's score (40) 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 dog on the porch may have been a different dog that looked similar, or the writer may have been patting the dog as usual without telling one dog from another. · The writer does not say they checked which animal was on the porch that morning. The writer only says a German shepherd was there, as it had been for a year and a half ([quote withheld] 0:04:35).
- Rough or misremembered dates, by the writer or by the owner, could place the last patting before the dog was put to sleep, which would remove the strange part. This is a possibility about the timeline, not a claim about anyone's honesty. · All the timings in the story are approximate ([quote withheld] [quote withheld] “about two weeks,” and [quote withheld]), and the date the dog was put to sleep comes secondhand from the owner (0:05:25).
What stands out
The writer describes an ordinary physical routine: reaching onto a familiar porch and patting a friendly dog. Only later does the writer learn from the owner that the dog had been put to sleep three and a half weeks earlier. What is odd is a mismatch in the timeline, not a strange sighting.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.