Thin five-foot figure with a gigantic head among oak trees; cat found de-gutted
A caller identified only as [name withheld], listening from Las Vegas, tells Art Bell about something that happened in 1984. Around midnight, after hearing rustling and fluttering in the leaves near their third-story house, the caller went outside with a butcher knife. They saw a thin, black, five-foot-high shape with a gigantic head moving among the oak trees. When they jumped past the tree, it had vanished. The caller says that three days later they found one of their cats completely de-gutted, with a razor-sharp cut down the center. They offer [quote withheld] as their own explanation and only partly connect the two events.
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 1999.mp3”, starting at 22:48). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The host addresses the caller as [name withheld]. The caller says they are listening from 105.1 in Las Vegas. The caller tells Art Bell about an event they place in 1984. The caller says they took a nap and woke at about 12 o’clock at night on a [quote withheld] with their window cracked. A rustling in the leaves drew them to the window, where they looked out for a few minutes and saw nothing. Unable to get back to sleep, they say they heard a fluttering sound in the leaves and decided to go outside. The caller says they grabbed a butcher knife and crept down the stairs of the third-story house to the side door. The caller rounded the corner to the garage, expecting a prowler among the many oak trees. Instead, they say, by a neighbor’s dim patio light, they saw a thin five-foot-high body with a gigantic head, black in color, scurrying from behind one tree to the next. The caller says they approached the oak tree with the knife, prepared for the worst, jumped past the tree, and found nothing there: [quote withheld] Asked what they thought it was, they say, [quote withheld] The caller adds that when they looked at it, it was “backward.” The host jokes that he is glad the caller did not have to plunge the knife into anything. The caller then says there is more. Three days later they found one of their cats, which had been missing, completely de-gutted with a razor-sharp cut down the center. The host asks whether they are sure they did not do it themself in an unaware moment. The caller says they are absolutely sure. Asked whether they connect the two events, they answer, [quote withheld] The host closes the call with thanks.
Reported events, in order
- 0:12
The caller says that one day in 1984 they became drowsy and decided to take a nap.
- 0:18
They say they woke at about 12 o’clock at night on a dark half-moon night.
- 0:26
They say a rustling noise in the leaves caught their attention. They looked out of their window for a few minutes and saw nothing.
- 0:37
Unable to get back to sleep, they say they heard a fluttering sound and decided to go outside.
- 0:56
They say they took a butcher knife and crept down the stairs of the third-story house to the side door, expecting a prowler among the oak trees.
- 1:11
They say they saw a thin, roughly five-foot-high body with a gigantic head, black in color, scurrying from behind one tree to the next.
- 1:44
They say they approached the oak tree with the knife, prepared for the worst.
- 1:58
They say they jumped past the tree and there was nothing there. Whatever it was had disappeared.
- 2:09
Asked what they thought it was, they say possibly a demonic entity.
- 2:35
They say that three days later they found a cat of theirs that had been missing.
- 2:46
They say the cat was completely de-gutted, with a razor-sharp cut down the center.
- 3:05
Asked by the host whether they could have done it themself, they say they are absolutely sure they did not.
- 3:10
Asked whether they connect the two events, they say they “kind of” do and “kind of” don’t.
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· 1:11
The caller says they saw a thin, roughly five-foot-high body with a gigantic head scurrying between oak trees, lit only by a neighbor’s dim patio light.
- observation· 2:17
The caller says the figure appeared completely black.
- observation· 2:12
The caller says that while they looked at it, it was “backward” (the wording is unclear in the transcript).
- observation· 2:02
The caller says that after they jumped past the tree, the figure had disappeared and nothing was there.
- observation· 2:46
The caller says they found their missing cat three days later, completely de-gutted with a razor-sharp cut down the center.
- interpretation· 2:09
The caller offers their own conclusion that the figure may have been a demonic entity.
- interpretation· 3:10
The caller is only partly willing to link the sighting and the cat’s death.
- host statement· 2:55
The host asks whether the caller could have killed the cat themself in an unaware moment. The caller rejects this.
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 clear firsthand report, though not backed up by anyone else, with concrete particulars that cannot be verified and no contradiction within it. Ordinary readings (a person or animal moving in poor light; a predator killing the cat) fit reasonably well, and the caller did not address them. The caller is unsure whether the two events are linked.
Evidence for and against
- A firsthand story from the person who says they experienced it: [quote withheld]
- Concrete particulars: the year (“back in 1984”), the time ([quote withheld]), a third-story house with a garage and oak trees, and a five-foot estimate for the figure.
- A coherent sequence that answers the host’s questions without contradiction in the story.
- The caller does not seriously weigh any ordinary explanation, though the host raises one about the cat.
- The caller is unsure about the link between the two events: [quote withheld]
- The sighting was brief and in poor light, which the caller admits: [quote withheld]
- The labels showing who is speaking are unreliable for a few short interjections, so the exact division of speech is uncertain.
- Where the events happened is never stated. Only the caller’s listening location (Las Vegas) is given.
- 0:12
- 1:11
- 3:10
What the model inferred (not said on air): I weighted the direct first-person telling and the specific estimates. I then lowered the score because ordinary explanations are easy to find and because the caller hedges on linking the events.
The story rests on the caller’s own word, supported only by a few identifying details that were not checked on air. No physical evidence is claimed or examined, and no independent witness speaks.
Evidence for and against
- A few specifics that could be checked are given: a first name (“Yes, [name withheld]”), a city ([quote withheld]), and a year (“back in 1984”).
- No documentation, photograph, recording, or physical evidence is presented or examined on air.
- No second witness speaks on air. The only other source mentioned is the neighbor’s patio light, used for illumination.
- The location of the events is unstated, so even the specifics given could not easily be followed up.
- 0:04
- 0:10
What the model inferred (not said on air): Under the scoring guide this falls in the low range (the caller’s word plus unchecked specifics). The cap of 50 applies because no outside check was made.
The story combines a dark, oddly proportioned figure seen at night near the home with the later mutilation of a pet, and leaves both unresolved. The step into a safe home setting (a pet, the caller’s own yard) makes it moderately unsettling.
Evidence for and against
- A featureless black shape with a disproportionately large head moving among trees at night.
- The shape appears to vanish behind a tree.
- The death of a pet, described as “completely de-gutted” with a razor-sharp cut, and the sense that something could have found the caller outside.
- The encounter itself is brief and ends with nothing found and no injury to the caller.
- The caller links the two halves of the story only loosely.
- The descriptions of the figure (“backward,” “fluttering”) are partly unclear in the transcript.
- 2:17
- 2:39
What the model inferred (not said on air): This is a judgment about the story as a listening experience, not about whether it happened.
A familiar pattern of a night figure that vanishes is combined with an unusual body shape and a later animal mutilation. That gives it more distinction than a stock haunting, but it is not an unprecedented story.
Evidence for and against
- The distinctive outline: a thin five-foot body with a “gigantic head,” described as black.
- The detail that it seemed “backward” while they watched it.
- The pet mutilation added three days later.
- A figure seen at night that vanishes when approached is a recurring ghost-story pattern.
- The setting (house, yard, trees, night) is conventional.
- The “backward” and “fluttering” descriptions are uncertain in the transcript and may change how unusual the story seems.
- 1:11
- 2:12
What the model inferred (not said on air): First-pass score based on content. The published originality score is compared with the rest of the archive and should be treated as provisional.
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.72 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand story on air (a single caller, no second speaker describing the events); No photograph, recording, document, or physical evidence presented or examined on air; The dead cat is described but not produced, photographed, or examined. The originality score blends the model's score (58) 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 person or animal (perhaps carrying or wearing something) moved among the trees and left the area before the caller rounded the tree, which made it look as if the figure had disappeared. · The caller got only a brief look at a moving shape in poor light. The caller saw the figure [quote withheld] and was [quote withheld] A person or an animal moving behind trees could look like a shape that then seems to vanish.
- A bird or other small animal in the trees made the rustling and fluttering sounds, and its movement in low light was mistaken for a large-headed figure. · The caller reports a [quote withheld] in the leaves, which they say was “in the leaves.” A bird or similar animal would make that kind of noise.
- The cat’s injuries were caused by another animal, a person, or a sharp object, unconnected to the earlier sighting. The host asks the caller about this directly, and the caller denies it. · The cat had already been missing before it was found, and its body showed a “razor-sharp cut.”
What stands out
The figure has an unusual shape: a thin body about five feet tall but with a “gigantic head.” The caller says it appeared “backward” as they watched it. They also add a separate event, the discovery of a mutilated pet three days later, which they only partly link to the sighting.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.