Backdoc Posted May 16 Posted May 16 Q: Does anyone know if this is real? Does anyone know if the story behind this was investigated? I have seen this audio featured in a Bigfoot Documentary or two. It sounds pretty interesting. What effort if any has been done to investigate it? 911 can track who calls and from where. I didn't know if there was an effort from law enforcement (police report), local TV, or whatever to look into this further. The caller sounds pretty convincing and the call sounds pretty natural. Anyone know?
Huntster Posted May 16 Posted May 16 It is unverified and will remain that way. This is yet another example of "government" power to simply close the book on the phenomenon if it so chooses.
socialBigfoot Posted May 17 Posted May 17 The BFRO refers to this as the "Northwest 911 Call" and says the recording is available on Ron Morehead's bigfoot recordings CD. (https://www.bfro.net/avevid/sierrasounds/911.asp) On Morehead's website the description of the recording is confusing at best. The site says, "On Track 10, Ron placed an emergency 911 call that is completely unrelated to the story but nevertheless it provides the listener with a live eyewitness account of an actual sighting." ... which sounds like Ron heard the story and then faked a 911 call to dramatize it?? This is news to me. If I'm reading this right, that voice we hear on the 911 call is Ron Morehead pretending to be the witness he and Peter Byrne interviewed. It's a sketchy thing to do, in my opinion. Judge for yourself: https://ronmorehead.com/about-bigfoot-recordings/ Someone please correct me if this is inaccurate. Gotta say, though, the 911 caller sounds similar to Morehead. 3
socialBigfoot Posted May 18 Posted May 18 3 hours ago, guyzonthropus said: This was in Washington state wasn't it? BFRO says this occurred on the Kitsap Peninsula, Washington (west of Seattle, across Puget Sound, and east of Olympic National Park). https://maps.app.goo.gl/97mMt8myvkbniM4f7
JKH Posted May 19 Posted May 19 It took me a long time to figure this out, years ago the BFRO didn't have as much detail, so I remember thinking it was Pierce County. Later I learned more through various sources. It's a classic, legit for sure, think Ron was in BFRO but could be wrong. He may have said more in recent years, IDK.
Backdoc Posted May 20 Author Posted May 20 On 5/16/2025 at 3:36 PM, Huntster said: It is unverified and will remain that way. This is yet another example of "government" power to simply close the book on the phenomenon if it so chooses. If we call 911 for an emergency, I am confident immediately they know the phone number, name, location and so on of the caller. Further I have to think it is recorded and kept for some period of time. Even if the tape would be erased, you would think we could go through some freedom of information act stuff to find out who made the Bigfoot call. We might even find out other details as to what actions the cops took that night-if any For example: the 911 call of Nichole Brown Simpson... I don't think any local dispatcher, cop, or sheriff would remove the recording or the info that goes with it in some sort of conspiracy. 1
Backdoc Posted May 20 Author Posted May 20 On 5/17/2025 at 5:31 PM, socialBigfoot said: The BFRO refers to this as the "Northwest 911 Call" and says the recording is available on Ron Morehead's bigfoot recordings CD. (https://www.bfro.net/avevid/sierrasounds/911.asp) On Morehead's website the description of the recording is confusing at best. The site says, "On Track 10, Ron placed an emergency 911 call that is completely unrelated to the story but nevertheless it provides the listener with a live eyewitness account of an actual sighting." ... which sounds like Ron heard the story and then faked a 911 call to dramatize it?? This is news to me. If I'm reading this right, that voice we hear on the 911 call is Ron Morehead pretending to be the witness he and Peter Byrne interviewed. It's a sketchy thing to do, in my opinion. ^^^^^ This is my point in asking the Question starting the thread. If this is an authentic 911 tape/ recording it is a pretty amazing thing to consider. If it is not, we need to know. If someone is portraying a transcript of such a recording it needs to be made very clear this is a RECREATION or a DRAUMITIZATION of some report. Even then, we should find the person who called (recreation or not) and further document their story behind the events which lead up to the call. If it is real 911 call it should leave traces for us to find out more about the incident. I'm just trying to find out the truth. Thanks again for posting. If this Bigfoot call is bogus, we lose credibility if we promote it as authentic. 1
Huntster Posted May 20 Posted May 20 5 hours ago, Backdoc said: If we call 911 for an emergency, I am confident immediately they know the phone number, name, location and so on of the caller. Further I have to think it is recorded and kept for some period of time. Even if the tape would be erased, you would think we could go through some freedom of information act stuff to find out who made the Bigfoot call. We might even find out other details as to what actions the cops took that night-if any For example: the 911 call of Nichole Brown Simpson... I don't think any local dispatcher, cop, or sheriff would remove the recording or the info that goes with it in some sort of conspiracy. ^^^^^ All correct. However........ 1) If this recording was a hoax or "re-enactment" of a call nobody can locate, there is no "conspiracy", or....... 2) If an officer responded and found no evidence of anything, the incident disappears into the nexus of millions of such calls throughout the PNW over a decade or so, even if filed in a box in storage, or........ 3) Any number of other such scenarios where nobody (especially a law enforcement agency) cares about the call and recording, and........ 4) Would scoff ("cover up") if a "bigfoot researcher" showed up with a FOIA demand which would require lots of valuable resources to research and find, and which wouldn't really prove anything even if found. Personally, I find the recording and story very entertaining, but ultimately, like so much other bigfoot evidence, is essentially worthless for anything other than entertainment. No need for s "conspiracy" if government is wise enough to think likewise. 1
Trogluddite Posted May 21 Posted May 21 On 5/16/2025 at 4:36 PM, Huntster said: It is unverified and will remain that way. This is yet another example of "government" power to simply close the book on the phenomenon if it so chooses. On 5/17/2025 at 6:31 PM, socialBigfoot said: The BFRO refers to this as the "Northwest 911 Call" and says the recording is available on Ron Morehead's bigfoot recordings CD. (https://www.bfro.net/avevid/sierrasounds/911.asp) On Morehead's website the description of the recording is confusing at best. The site says, "On Track 10, Ron placed an emergency 911 call that is completely unrelated to the story but nevertheless it provides the listener with a live eyewitness account of an actual sighting." ... which sounds like Ron heard the story and then faked a 911 call to dramatize it?? This is news to me. If I'm reading this right, that voice we hear on the 911 call is Ron Morehead pretending to be the witness he and Peter Byrne interviewed. It's a sketchy thing to do, in my opinion. Judge for yourself: https://ronmorehead.com/about-bigfoot-recordings/ Someone please correct me if this is inaccurate. Gotta say, though, the 911 caller sounds similar to Morehead. This was a great question to ask and I've wondered the same thing. socialBigfoot links to the BFRO's discussion of the audio, which is on their Bigfoot/Sasquatch-related Sound Recordings page. Interestingly, the BFRO does not list this incident on its page for encounters in Kitsap County. That suggests to me that the BFRO may have concerns about the authenticity of the recording. I think that there are easier explanations for the inability to confirm this incident than a cover-up, particularly for incidents from the pre-internet, pre-everything-is-connected-by-one-big-computer age. Law enforcement organizations (LEO's) keep "blotters" in addition to 9-1-1- tapes and full-blown investigative files. A blotter, by whatever name its called, records what the officers did on any given shift even if its not important at the time. Someone calls in a missing pet? Blotter entry. Someone gets their knickers in a knot because someone said mean words to them, but the incident doesn't even constitute a mere assault? Blotter entry. Spend some time parked near a broken water main to alert traffic of the hazard? Blotter entry. Catch some kids egging a house? Blotter entry. The point is that there would be more evidence of this incident than just the 9-1-1- audio tapes. And those could be easily FOIA'd EXCEPT.... Information that is in a government system of records (whether state or federal) has different "Destroy by" dates. Blotter entries likely have a very short (5-7 years) expiration date. Audio tapes may not have even been covered by state FOIA laws in the 1990s, as these are relatively recent laws and were focused on paper records when originally enacted. So if the researchers got a bootleg copy of a 9-1-1- call (possibly in violation of state privacy protection laws), they might have more of an incentive to protect their source than the government. And all the records related to one minor incident have long since been destroyed due to bureaucratic inertia, not due to an active cover-up. Finally, I listened to the 9-1-1- call from the Sierra Sounds CD. Interestingly, the recording includes the first 9-1-1- call reporting the witness's dog being killed. Different 9-1-1- operator (a male) who seems a bit skeptical ('nnnnnkay) when he finds out that someone is calling in to report a dead dog.
JKH Posted May 21 Posted May 21 (edited) Quote This sound file contains excerpts from an authentic 911 call from the Pacific Northwest. The incident happened on the Kitsap Peninsula, Washington State, in the 1990's (not the 1970's). The sheriffs did show up eventually, but the figure was gone at that point--it didn't stick around for long. The dispatcher's protocol was to verify man's name and address in the beginning. She does that in the unedited, original version of the 911 call. The original version also has some pauses where only the dispatcher's typing is heard. In order to make the sound clip as compact as possible, everything extraneous has been removed. The clip only contains the parts of the conversation related to the appearance and behavior of the figure outside. All other dialogue is either irrelevant or personal. This recording, and several others from the field, were collected over the past four decades by Ron Morehead (California) and Al Berry (California). Their collections of recordings are available on CD. We highly recommend them. Quote from the BFRO link, bold mine. 8 hours ago, Trogluddite said: I think that there are easier explanations for the inability to confirm this incident than a cover-up, particularly for incidents from the pre-internet, pre-everything-is-connected-by-one-big-computer age. Law enforcement organizations (LEO's) keep "blotters" in addition to 9-1-1- tapes and full-blown investigative files. Information that is in a government system of records (whether state or federal) has different "Destroy by" dates. Blotter entries likely have a very short (5-7 years) expiration date. Audio tapes may not have even been covered by state FOIA laws in the 1990s, as these are relatively recent laws and were focused on paper records when originally enacted. The points above I pulled out are all good, common-sense and logical. We are talking about thirty years ago. Perhaps the youngest the witness could be at this time is around 70, likely more. Ron's been in many interviews, I remember him once saying that the witness later moved away. Edited May 21 by JKH 1
Trogluddite Posted Thursday at 10:02 PM Posted Thursday at 10:02 PM ^^^ JKH, yes, I know that the BFRO says at one place on their website that they believe it to be an authentic 9-1-1- tape, I'm just surprised that they don't list it as an encounter on their encounter map. Could be nothing at all. One other thing that I forgot to mention. I've spent roughly half of the last 40 years listening to people testifying and listening and looking for "tells" that they were lying so that I could find a thread to start pulling on to unravel those lies. I am pretty good at it and there are certain things that consistently tip off a memorized, made-up story.* Additionally, it's pretty hard for most laymen/laywomen to pretend to be emotionally triggered or afraid or reliving a past fear - the inflections are in the wrong place, they "over-act," they miss places where there should be an emotional response, etc., etc. It's possible that the "victim" calling 9-1-1- is a trained actor, but he sounds to me pretty much like I'd expect of an actual frightened, shocked, or surprised witness to an unexpected event. *True story, there I was, trying to tamp down a problem in a foreign country, listening through an interpreter to a cock-and-bull story about American troops being really, really mean to a person (they were actually stationed in the area to prevent ethnic cleansing against this guy and a few remaining other members of that ethnic minority). The guy had led us to a storage area above his garage or shed and listed everything that the American troops had broken, ripped, shattered, etc., and his last line was, "... and then they broke the holy icons." Now, this garage or shed looked like every garage, shed, barn, attic, outbuilding, etc., that I had ever seen in rural Pennsylvania and it was full of a lot of old stuff with dust two inches thick on everything. And it didn't help that the interpreter's tone in translating the last line sound just like a beer commercial where a guy was telling a sob story to get his buddy's bud light. I responded with a one word epithet that made it pretty clear to everyone that spoke English that I didn't believe the story. The interpreter was so stunned that he just stood there, jaw hitting the floor and I asked, "Do you need to interpret that for him?" He immediately answered, "Oh no, he knows exactly how you feel about this." Not telling this story to discuss politics, nation-building, etc., but just to point out some things that make it easier to pick out false stories - over-emoting, visual facts that don't add up to the story, and repeating the story like a kid rehearsing a poem and trying not to miss any lines. I don't hear any of that in either of the 9-1-1- calls. 1
Recommended Posts