Campus Alert Archive
BGSU

Hoax call claiming a library shooter; two sweeps found no threat

AI-generated · every claim is source-linked
OHswattingemergency notificationhigh confidence
Compare →
Confirmed HoaxDetermined to be a hoax. The institutional response is documented because it reveals how the alert system performed under a perceived real threat.

At 9:53 AM EST on November 10, 2025, the City of Bowling Green Police Division received an anonymous call to a non-emergency line claiming an active shooter was inside Jerome Library at Bowling Green State University. BGSU Police responded, swept the building twice, and found no threat. The university's first AlertBG message did not reach students until 11:14 AM EST, 81 minutes after the call and after the all-clear had already been declared. The incident was determined to be a swatting hoax and BGSU's first.

Alerts
2
Response
—
Killed
—
Injured
—
Institution
Bowling Green State University
Public R2 · OH
All BGSU cases →
~20,000 studentsAlertBG
Documented Timeline

Alert Sequence

2 messages in sequence · 1 verified verbatim

Some messages in this sequence are documented (their existence, timing, and channel are sourced) but their exact wording is not preserved in the public record. Those entries appear as placeholders; only confirmed text is displayed.

ALL CLEARSMS
Verified verbatimBG Falcon Media (student newspaper) quoting full AlertBG SMS: 'The alert read, ...'192 chars
All clear: BGSUPD responded to an anonymous call of threat at the library, received by City of Bowling Green. BGSUPD has determined no immediate threat. More information to be shared in email.
This 'all clear' was actually the first AlertBG notification students received, sent 81 minutes after the 9:53 AM EST call to the Bowling Green Police Division
The decision to skip an initial alert and only send an all-clear is highly unusual and drew significant criticism from BGSU students and Falcon Media editorials
The phrase 'received by City of Bowling Green' is unusual jurisdictional attribution; it clarifies that the call did not come through BGSU's own dispatch line
FOLLOW-UPEmail
Wording not preserved
A follow-up message is documented at this point in the sequence, but its exact wording is not preserved in the public record. The public edition displays only confirmed alert text.
Message elements

How the first alert is built

To check this alert, Claude (an AI) read it in full 25 separate times, independently. Each read decided whether the message answers each of the six questions and gave a short reason. A final reviewer then weighed all 25 and wrote the plain-English verdict you see when you open a row. The score (for example 22/25) is how many reads agreed; the 25 individual reads are tucked underneath if you want to check them.

All clear: BGSUPD responded to an anonymous call of threat at the library, received by City of Bowling Green. BGSUPD has determined no immediate threat. More information to be shared in email.

  • Sourcepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: BGSUPD and the City of Bowling Green are named as the responding authorities.

    Who is sending the alert and who is responding. People act faster on a message from a clearly identifiable, credible sender, such as a named department, the police, or a branded alert system, than on an anonymous notice. A branded signature counts.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Identifies "BGSUPD" as the responding authority.
    2. present: Named "BGSUPD" identifies the responding authority.
    3. present: Names "BGSUPD" and "City of Bowling Green", the responding authorities.
    4. present: Branded "All clear" and names "BGSUPD", identifying the source.
    5. present: References "BGSUPD" and "City of Bowling Green", naming the authorities.
    6. present: The signature "BGSUPD" names the issuing police authority.
    7. present: Names "BGSUPD" as the responding authority in the all-clear.
    8. present: It names "BGSUPD" and "City of Bowling Green", identifying the source.
    9. present: "BGSUPD" identifies the responding police authority.
    10. present: Names "BGSUPD" and "City of Bowling Green", responding authorities.
    11. present: Names the authority, "BGSUPD" and "City of Bowling Green".
    12. present: Names "BGSUPD" as the responding authority.
    13. present: Opens "All clear" and names "BGSUPD" and "City of Bowling Green", identifying sender and authority.
    14. present: It names "BGSUPD" and "City of Bowling Green" as the responding authorities.
    15. present: Names "BGSUPD" and "City of Bowling Green", identifying authorities.
    16. present: Names "BGSUPD" and "City of Bowling Green", identifying the responders.
    17. present: Names "BGSUPD" as the responding authority.
    18. present: Names "BGSUPD" and "City of Bowling Green", the authorities.
    19. present: Names "BGSUPD" and "City of Bowling Green", identifying the source.
    20. present: Names "BGSUPD", identifying the responding authority.
    21. present: It names "BGSUPD" and references the "City of Bowling Green", authorities.
    22. present: Names "BGSUPD" and references "City of Bowling Green" as the authorities.
    23. present: Names "BGSUPD" as the responding authority.
    24. present: Names "BGSUPD" and "City of Bowling Green", the responding authorities.
    25. present: Names "BGSUPD" as the responding authority.
  • Hazardpresent23/25

    Final assessment

    Strong majority finds an anonymous call of threat at the library names the hazard; two reads found it too generic.

    What the threat actually is. A complete warning names the specific danger, such as a shooter, a fire, a tornado, or a gas leak, rather than a vague emergency, because people decide what to do based on what they are facing.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: States the hazard: "an anonymous call of threat at the library."
    2. present: Names the hazard, "an anonymous call of threat at the library".
    3. present: Names "an anonymous call of threat at the library", a specific threat.
    4. present: Names a specific threat, "an anonymous call of threat at the library".
    5. present: Names a specific threat: "an anonymous call of threat at the library."
    6. present: It names "an anonymous call of threat at the library", a specific threat.
    7. absent: Refers to "an anonymous call of threat" but names no specific hazard.
    8. absent: It cites "an anonymous call of threat" generically but names no specific hazard.
    9. present: Names a specific threat: "an anonymous call of threat at the library".
    10. present: Names "a call of threat at the library", a specific threat.
    11. present: Names a specific threat, "an anonymous call of threat at the library".
    12. present: Names "an anonymous call of threat", a specific threat scenario.
    13. present: Names "an anonymous call of threat at the library", a specific threat.
    14. present: It names a specific threat, "an anonymous call of threat at the library."
    15. present: Names "an anonymous call of threat at the library", a specific hazard.
    16. present: Names a specific threat, "an anonymous call of threat at the library".
    17. present: Names "an anonymous call of threat at the library", a specific threat.
    18. present: Names "an anonymous call of threat", a specific threat reference.
    19. present: Names "an anonymous call of threat at the library", a specific threat.
    20. present: Names a threat, "an anonymous call of threat at the library".
    21. present: It names "an anonymous call of threat at the library", a specific threat.
    22. present: Names "an anonymous call of threat at the library", a specific threat.
    23. present: Names a specific threat: "an anonymous call of threat at the library".
    24. present: Names "an anonymous call of threat at the library", a specific threat.
    25. present: Names a specific threat, "an anonymous call of threat at the library".
  • Locationpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: a specific location is given, at the library.

    Where the threat is. Saying whether danger is in a specific building, a part of campus, or area-wide lets people judge their own proximity and choose a safe direction. Without a where, a warning is hard to act on precisely.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Gives location "at the library."
    2. present: Locates it at "the library".
    3. present: Locates it "at the library", a specific building.
    4. present: Gives the location, "the library".
    5. present: States it is "at the library."
    6. present: It locates it "at the library", a place.
    7. present: Locates it "at the library", a specific place.
    8. present: It locates it "at the library", a place.
    9. present: Locates it "at the library", a campus place.
    10. present: Specifies "the library".
    11. present: Specifies "the library".
    12. present: Locates it "at the library", a place.
    13. present: Says it concerned "the library", a specific place.
    14. present: It locates it "at the library."
    15. present: Locates it "at the library", a specific place.
    16. present: Specifies "the library".
    17. present: Specifies "the library".
    18. present: Specifies "the library", a location.
    19. present: Says "at the library", a named place.
    20. present: States the location, "the library".
    21. present: It locates it "at the library", a building.
    22. present: Says it concerned "the library", a specific location.
    23. present: Specifies "the library".
    24. present: Says "the library", a specific building.
    25. present: Locates it "at the library".
  • Guidanceabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: this is an all-clear that lifts restrictions and directs no protective action.

    The protective action to take. A clear, specific instruction, such as shelter in place, evacuate, avoid the area, or run-hide-fight, drives faster and more correct protective behavior than describing the threat alone.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. absent: An all-clear that lifts restrictions, with no protective action instruction.
    2. absent: "All clear" lifts restrictions but gives no protective action to recipients.
    3. absent: An "All clear" message; no protective action is instructed.
    4. absent: An all-clear with no protective action instruction directed to recipients.
    5. absent: An "All clear" notice; describes the response but gives recipients no protective action.
    6. absent: The "All clear" message gives no protective action to recipients.
    7. absent: An "All clear" with no protective instruction to recipients.
    8. absent: It is an "All clear" describing the response but gives no current instruction to recipients.
    9. absent: An "All clear" message gives recipients no protective action.
    10. absent: An "All clear" gives no active protective-action instruction to recipients.
    11. absent: No protective action is instructed to recipients, it is an all-clear describing past response.
    12. absent: An all clear with no protective action instruction to recipients.
    13. absent: Announces an all clear but gives no protective action to recipients.
    14. absent: As an all clear it gives no protective action instruction to recipients.
    15. absent: Marked "All clear" and gives no protective-action instruction to recipients.
    16. absent: Reports the all clear but gives no protective action to recipients.
    17. absent: An all-clear with no protective action directed to recipients.
    18. absent: No protective action is directed to the recipient; it is an all-clear.
    19. absent: An "All clear" announcement gives no protective action instruction.
    20. absent: No protective action is directed to recipients, the message is an "All clear" describing the response.
    21. absent: It is an "All clear" but gives no protective action instruction to recipients.
    22. absent: An all-clear that gives no protective action instruction to recipients.
    23. absent: The "All clear" status gives no protective-action instruction to recipients.
    24. absent: An all-clear that gives recipients no protective action instruction.
    25. absent: An "All clear" describes resolution but gives no protective action to recipients.
  • Timepresent14/25

    Final assessment

    Slim majority treats All clear as a recency cue conveying current resolved status; a substantial minority found no time cue.

    When the message applies. A timestamp, the word now or immediately, or a phrase like until further notice tells the reader whether the danger is current and how quickly to act.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Conveys recency with "All clear" status now.
    2. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    3. present: Begins "All clear", conveying current resolved status, a recency cue.
    4. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" appears.
    5. absent: "All clear" indicates resolution but gives no clock time, date, or explicit recency word.
    6. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears beyond "All clear".
    7. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the message.
    8. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears beyond "All clear" status.
    9. present: "All clear" is a recency cue indicating the situation is now resolved.
    10. present: Says "All clear", a recency status cue.
    11. present: Conveys recency with "All clear".
    12. present: Marked "All clear", a status recency cue.
    13. present: Opens with "All clear", conveying current resolution and recency.
    14. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears; "All clear" is a status, not a time.
    15. present: Says "All clear", a recency cue indicating the current status.
    16. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    17. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    18. present: Begins "All clear", a recency/status cue.
    19. present: Says "All clear", a status/recency cue.
    20. present: Conveys recency with "All clear", indicating the current resolved status.
    21. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue beyond "All clear" is present.
    22. present: Begins "All clear", conveying current resolution status.
    23. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word appears.
    24. present: Says "All clear", conveying present resolution status.
    25. present: Says "All clear", a recency/status cue.
  • Impactabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Absent by unanimous agreement; all reads note this all-clear describes an anonymous threat call with no stated harm or danger.

    What the hazard could do to the people in its path. Beyond naming the threat, a complete warning conveys its potential consequences or severity, such as that a tornado can level buildings or that a leak could be explosive, so recipients grasp how much danger they are in. Research on warning message content finds that a concrete impact statement helps people personalize their risk and act sooner.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. absent: All clear message about an anonymous threat call with no stated harm or danger.
    2. absent: An all clear noting an anonymous threat call with no harm or stated danger.
    3. absent: It gives an all clear after an anonymous threat call, stating no harm or danger occurred.
    4. absent: It is an all clear stating an anonymous threat call was responded to, indicating no harm occurred.
    5. absent: All-clear stating a threat call was responded to with no harm or consequence described.
    6. absent: It is an all-clear for an anonymous threat call with no harm stated.
    7. absent: An all-clear noting a threat call to the library was responded to, with no stated harm.
    8. absent: An all clear for an anonymous threat call with no stated harm.
    9. absent: An all-clear stating police responded to an anonymous threat call, with no harm conveyed.
    10. absent: An all clear stating police responded to an anonymous threat call, with no stated harm or danger.
    11. absent: An all clear noting an anonymous threat call with no harm or consequence stated.
    12. absent: An all clear stating a threat call was responded to with no stated harm or danger.
    13. absent: An all clear stating police responded to an anonymous threat call with no stated harm.
    14. absent: An all clear stating police responded to an anonymous threat call with no stated harm.
    15. absent: It is an all clear for an anonymous threat call with no stated harm or danger.
    16. absent: An all-clear noting an anonymous threat call with no stated harm or danger.
    17. absent: An all clear stating police responded to an anonymous threat call with no harm or severity described.
    18. absent: All clear for an anonymous threat call with no stated harm or danger.
    19. absent: It is an all clear noting police responded to an anonymous threat call, stating no harm or danger.
    20. absent: An all clear stating police responded to an anonymous threat call with no stated harm or consequence.
    21. absent: An all-clear stating police responded to a threat call with no harm described.
    22. absent: It is an all-clear stating police responded to an anonymous threat call with no harm described.
    23. absent: An all clear stating police responded to an anonymous threat call, no stated harm or danger.
    24. absent: An all clear stating police responded to an anonymous threat call with no harm conveyed.
    25. absent: It is an all-clear about an anonymous threat call with no stated danger or potential harm.

Systematic AI judgments with visible reasoning, not human-validated codings.

About this analysis
Context

Background

Bowling Green State University is a public R2 doctoral university in Bowling Green, Ohio, with about 20,000 students. On the morning of Monday, November 10, 2025, at 9:53 AM EST, the City of Bowling Green Police Division received an anonymous call to a non-emergency line claiming an active shooter was inside Jerome Library, BGSU's main academic library. The dispatcher flagged the call as potentially false but, out of an abundance of caution, BGSU Police, city officers, and Wood County deputies responded. Officers conducted two full sweeps of the library, talked with people on scene who reported nothing unusual, and declared an all-clear. The first AlertBG text message reached students at 11:14 AM EST, 81 minutes after the call and after the police all-clear had already been issued. An email followed at 11:28 AM EST and a final email at 4:46 PM EST. The incident was BGSU's first swatting call, and the delayed notification drew sharp criticism from students and Falcon Media. The same morning, Eastern Illinois University received a parallel anonymous armed-person call, but EIU sent its first alert in about 5 minutes, roughly 76 minutes sooner.
Analysis

Key Findings

BGSU's first AlertBG notification arrived 81 minutes after the call to police
The first message students received was an 'all-clear' rather than an 'initial' alert, an unusual sequence that left students learning about the threat from rumors rather than the university
On the same morning, Eastern Illinois University received a parallel anonymous threat call and sent its first alert in about 5 minutes
BGSU followed the SMS all-clear with emails at 11:28 AM and 4:46 PM EST, a multi-message sequence spanning about six hours
Outcome
No injuries occurred. BGSU Police, Bowling Green Police Division, and Wood County Sheriff's deputies conducted two full sweeps of Jerome Library, confirming no shooter, no firearm, and no signs of an active threat. The call was determined to be a swatting hoax. BGSU faced significant student criticism over the 81-minute delay between the call and the first AlertBG notification.
Provenance

Sources

  1. Student Paper
    BGSU's swatting call: What went wrong? (BG Falcon Media)
    bgfalconmedia.com
    archived copy
  2. Student Paper
    BREAKING: BGSUPD responds to threat at Jerome Library (BG Falcon Media)
    bgfalconmedia.com
    archived copy
  3. News
    'False alarm': Authorities determine 'no immediate threat' at BGSU library (13abc)
    13abc.com
    archived copy
  4. News
    BGSU receives swatting call for active shooter (Sentinel-Tribune)
    sent-trib.com
    archived copy
  5. News
    'No immediate threat' on BGSU campus after anonymous call (WTOL)
    wtol.com
    archived copy
  6. News
    Anonymous threat made on BGSU campus; determined to be false alarm (BG Independent News)
    bgindependentmedia.org
    archived copy
  7. Official
    AlertBG (BGSU Public Safety)
    bgsu.edu
    archived copy
Cite this case

Campus Alert Archive. "Bowling Green State University: Hoax call claiming a library shooter; two sweeps found no threat." Incident of November 10, 2025. Added May 2026; last updated July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/bowling-green-state-university-swatting-2025-11-10/

Download case JSON

Alert text quoted on this page remains the work of the issuing institution; the archive is a secondary source.

Tags
swattingfalse-alarmohiopublic-r2alertbgnotification-timingdelayed-notificationlibrary-targetverbatimHoax
Added May 2026Updated July 2026Via ingestion