Silhouetted figure on a foggy Rhode Island bike path named “Mr. Colt”
A caller identifying himself as [quote withheld] a musician, says he was recording an album in Warren, Rhode Island, in 1997 and running his usual nightly route on a bike path. The first night, he was unable to enter a foggy wooded stretch. The next night, a silhouetted man in a long trench coat and huge boots charged at him and vanished as he reached him. The caller says the studio owner afterward told him the figure was “Mr. Colt” and that [quote withheld] He says he later found a photograph online and recognized the figure's form and coat. The host ends the call. The caller reports no injury and no resolution.
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 2004.mp3”, starting at 2:30:10). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller, who gives his first name as [name withheld] and says he is calling from New York City, tells Art Bell that in 1997 he was in Warren, Rhode Island, recording an album. He was a working musician. He says that after each day's recording he ran for about an hour every night along a bike path. It went roughly five blocks to a wooded area and then down by the ocean, where there were no lights. One night, he says, the wooded area was foggy. He tried to run down the path, but something he describes as fear stopped him. He told himself it was ridiculous, says he was “a grown man,” and instead ran around the block back at the studio. On the following night, he says, he ran the same route with no trouble. On the way back, after clearing the woods, he reached a street light and a large dumpster, and a man in huge boots and a long trench coat ran out from behind the dumpster straight at him. The caller says the man was completely silhouetted and disappeared just as he reached him. He says he had braced himself to fight and looked in all directions, but the man was gone. He says he ran the four blocks back to the studio and burst in without being able to explain himself. The man who ran the studio asked whether the figure had been wearing a long black trench coat and a hat, which he confirmed. According to the caller, the studio owner said it was “Mr. Colt,” that [quote withheld] and that he created the Colt 45 and had died in Rhode Island. The caller says that later, back in New York, he looked him up online, saw a photograph, and recognized the form, jacket, and coat. The host ended the call without further questions.
Reported events, in order
- 0:08
The caller, a musician identifying himself as [quote withheld] says he was in Warren, Rhode Island, in 1997 recording an album.
- 0:16
He says he ran about an hour every night along a bike path that passed five blocks to a wooded area and then down by the ocean, where there were no lights.
- 0:42
On one foggy night he could not make himself run down the path. He describes fear stopping him, says he told himself it was ridiculous, and instead ran around the block back at the studio.
- 1:06
The next night he ran the same route and says it was no problem going out.
- 1:13
On the way back, after leaving the wooded area, at a street light by a large dumpster, a man in huge boots and a long trench coat ran out from behind the dumpster straight at him.
- 1:31
The caller says the man was completely silhouetted and disappeared just as he reached him. The caller says he had braced himself to fight and looked in all directions.
- 1:45
He says he ran the four blocks back to the studio as fast as he could, burst in, and could not explain what had happened.
- 2:03
He says the studio owner asked whether the figure had been wearing a long black trench coat and a hat, and he answered yes.
- 2:18
The studio owner reportedly said it was “Mr. Colt,” that [quote withheld] and that he created the Colt 45 and had died in Rhode Island.
- 2:29
Later, back in New York, the caller says he looked the figure up online, saw a photograph, and recognized the form, jacket, and coat, though he had only seen him in silhouette.
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· 0:42
On the first night, at the wooded stretch of the bike path, the caller could not make himself run down the path. He describes this as [quote withheld]
- observation· 1:24
A man ran out from behind a dumpster toward him on the second night.
- observation· 1:31
The man was in huge boots and a long trench coat, was silhouetted, and disappeared as he reached the caller.
- hearsay· 2:18
The studio's owner told him the figure was “Mr. Colt” and that [quote withheld]
- hearsay· 2:23
The studio owner said “Mr. Colt” created the Colt 45 and had died in Rhode Island.
- interpretation· 2:29
The caller later looked the figure up online and says he recognized the form, jacket, and coat in a photograph.
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 clear, specific firsthand story with a sensible sequence and some detail that could in principle be checked. But it is not backed up by anyone else, and the hat detail first came, as the transcript shows, from the studio owner's question.
Evidence for and against
- A firsthand story of both nights by the person who says he was there.
- Specific details that could in principle be checked: year (1997), town (Warren, Rhode Island), album recording, a bike path with a dumpster under a street light.
- A coherent sequence with named points (wooded area, ocean, dumpster, four blocks back to the studio) and answers to the host's few interjections.
- The caller notes his earlier skepticism and the absurdity of the experience rather than presenting it as a settled certainty.
- The caller does not describe the figure wearing a hat. The studio owner's question ([quote withheld]) introduces it, and the caller answers “yes, he was.”
- Identifying a specific person from a back-lit silhouette he never saw clearly, and a photograph, is a large step.
- The central event, a man vanishing at arm's length, has nothing in this part of the broadcast to support it.
- Whether the caller had mentioned or thought of a hat earlier cannot be recovered from the transcript.
- The studio owner's remarks are reported secondhand, and their wording cannot be verified.
- 0:08
- 1:31
- 2:14
What the model inferred (not said on air): The split among components is my judgment about the quality of the telling, not about the caller's honesty. Proximity and specificity are high because he took part directly and gave a place and year. Consistency and calibration are marked down for the hat sequence and the claim that he recognized the figure.
Details that could be checked and claimed additional witnesses exist, but none is examined or verified in this part of the broadcast. Nothing was produced on air.
Evidence for and against
- Details that can be checked are given but not checked: 1997, Warren, Rhode Island, a bike path with a wooded stretch and a dumpster under a street light, a recording studio.
- A photograph is claimed to exist and to have been viewed privately.
- Other witnesses are claimed by the caller through the studio owner.
- No photograph, recording, or document is produced or examined on air.
- No second witness speaks on air; the studio owner's [quote withheld] is hearsay.
- Whether the alleged photograph was ever shown to anyone or is documented anywhere is not stated.
- 2:29
- 2:18
What the model inferred (not said on air): A score of 11 to 25 under the scoring guide: details that can be checked are given but not checked, plus witnesses claimed rather than heard.
A brief but truly startling close-range charge on a dark path, with no harm and no lasting aftermath. It is unsettling rather than frightening or sustained.
Evidence for and against
- Being charged at by a silhouetted man at close range on an unlit path at night, to the point of bracing to fight.
- Intrusion into a nightly solo routine, and the unexplained fear on the night before that kept him out of the wooded stretch.
- The disappearance at touching distance and the lack of any resolution.
- No injury and no reported after-effects, and the story is told as an anecdote with a wry framing ([quote withheld]).
- The figure does not follow, touch, or threaten him further; the encounter is over in seconds.
- Few details of the figure can be observed because the caller says he saw him silhouetted.
- 1:24
- 1:31
What the model inferred (not said on air): Creepiness is judged from the content of the story (threat, darkness, vanishing), not from the caller's voice or the host's reaction.
A familiar vanishing-figure frame with a distinctive detail of local naming. Mid-range on the model, and provisional at pilot scale.
Evidence for and against
- The distinctive detail is a bystander immediately naming the figure, and the local claim that [quote withheld]
- The lead-in is unusual: a first night of unexplained fear that prevented entry into the wooded stretch, with no sighting.
- A figure that appears on a dark path and vanishes at close range is a familiar ghost-story frame.
- The later [quote withheld] beat is a common ending.
- Novelty compared with the rest of the archive cannot be judged from a single part of a broadcast.
- 2:18
- 0:42
What the model inferred (not said on air): The model's own score is my estimate from the content. The published score, compared with the rest of the archive, is computed automatically and would be provisional at this archive size.
Scoring confidence 0.70 · analysis confidence 0.80 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller's firsthand story only.; No second witness speaks on air; the studio owner's remarks are reported by the caller, not heard directly.; A photograph is claimed to exist and to have been viewed privately by the caller; it is neither produced nor examined on air.. The originality score blends the model's score (55) 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 living person, such as a night runner, a local, or a prankster, ran out from behind the dumpster. He then left the lit area for darkness or fog faster than the caller could track, so the caller lost sight of him at close range. · The caller describes fog, an unlit path by the ocean, a single street light, and the figure being “totally silhouetted.” He says he looked “on all directions” and could not find him.
- The hat detail and part of the figure's description may have come from the studio owner's question, or been reinforced by it, rather than being independently observed at the time. · The caller says the studio owner's question came first: the owner asked [quote withheld] before the caller described a hat himself.
- A dark, foggy, unlit wooded stretch can produce strong apprehension or misperception of shapes. This does not account for the second night's encounter. · The first night's experience is described as a strong feeling of fear with no visible cause, in fog, on a dark wooded path.
What stands out
What stands out is the immediate local naming. A studio owner who did not see anything supplies the identification, [quote withheld] and [quote withheld] and mentions a hat the caller had not described himself. The caller then says he confirmed the figure from an online photograph, despite having seen him only in silhouette.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.