E-mail: Floating woman in nightgown crossing road by old church, 1978
An e-mail read on air from an unnamed listener who describes themselves as a longtime shortwave listener and Coast to Coast AM fan. They recount a night in 1978. They say they were driving their date home in a secluded rural area after midnight when they saw what appeared to be a woman in an old-style nightgown and nightcap cross the road in front of the car by an old church with a graveyard. She was floating above the ground, with no legs and eyes that were “just dark holes.” The woman continues through roadside vines, their date is nearly hysterical, and the writer insists it was [quote withheld]
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 2006.mp3”, starting at 5:38). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The story is read as an e-mail from an unnamed listener who describes themselves as a [quote withheld] They say that in 1978 they were in a secluded rural area after midnight on a date with a young lady. They parked on a deserted country road. They report that all the dogs and coyotes nearby began howling “like crazy,” which spooked them. They drove her home because she was past the time she was supposed to be back. Taking the long way round, they approached an old church with a graveyard behind it, about an eighth of a mile from her house. Their date said, “look at that,” and they saw what appeared to be a woman crossing the road on foot from the church. They slowed to a near stop. They say she crossed not more than 50 feet in front of the car. In the headlights they describe an old-style nightgown and nightcap, a figure floating about two feet off the ground with no legs, and eyes that were [quote withheld] She never looked at them, they say, but stared straight ahead. Their date was “totally freaking out.” They stopped the car and opened the door, meaning to take a closer look. Their date screamed at the writer to leave, and they did. The woman continued across the road, passing through rows of vines. They say their girlfriend was nearly hysterical and made them promise to sit outside her house for a while. They end by calling it the most fantastic thing they have ever seen and [quote withheld]
Reported events, in order
- 0:11
The writer says that in 1978 they were driving in a secluded rural area after midnight on a date with a young lady.
- 0:25
They parked on a deserted country road to talk. Then they noticed all the dogs and coyotes in the area howling “like crazy,” which they found spooky.
- 0:32
Their date was past the time she was supposed to be home, so they drove her home, out in the countryside.
- 0:50
They approached her house the long way round, and they came to an old church with a graveyard behind it, about an eighth of a mile from her house.
- 1:06
Their date said, “look at that.”
- 1:10
They saw what appeared to be a woman crossing on foot from the old church across the road in front of them.
- 1:18
They slowed the car to a near stop, and the woman crossed not more than 50 feet in front of the car.
- 1:27
In the headlights they saw a woman in an old-style nightgown and nightcap, floating about two feet off the ground, with no legs.
- 1:41
They saw that her eyes were [quote withheld]
- 1:48
She never looked at them but stared straight ahead.
- 1:51
Their date was, in the writer’s words, “totally freaking out.”
- 1:54
They stopped the car and opened the door, meaning to get out for a closer look.
- 2:05
Their date screamed at the writer to get them out of there.
- 2:11
The woman continued across the road, passing through rows of vines that grew parallel to the road.
- 2:18
Their girlfriend was nearly hysterical and made them promise to sit outside her house for a while to make sure nothing was around.
- 2:25
They close by calling it the most fantastic thing they have ever seen and insisting it is a true story.
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· 0:25
Dogs and coyotes in the area were howling “like crazy” just before the pair left the parked spot.
- observation· 1:10
The writer reports seeing what appeared to be a woman crossing on foot from the old church across the road.
- observation· 1:27
In the headlights the figure appeared to wear an old-style nightgown and nightcap, floated about two feet above the ground, and had no legs.
- observation· 1:41
The figure’s eyes appeared as dark holes with no eyes visible.
- observation· 1:48
The figure never looked at the people in the car and stared straight ahead.
- observation· 2:11
The figure continued across the road and passed through rows of vines growing parallel to the road.
- interpretation· 2:25
The writer says the story is true and calls it the most fantastic thing they have ever seen.
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 direct-witness story with a clear, consistent sequence and plenty of detail about the situation, which puts it above the middle of the scale. Against that, it offers no checkable specifics and does not consider ordinary explanations. Its only verification is the writer’s closing assurance.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand telling by the supposed witness, in the first person throughout.
- Concrete detail about the circumstances: the year (1978), after midnight, a deserted country road, a church [quote withheld] a crossing distance of [quote withheld] and [quote withheld]
- The sequence is coherent and answers its own questions: why they left, why they slowed, why they did not get out.
- The story gives no names of people or places, no institution, no record, and no physical evidence, so nothing can be checked.
- The writer does not consider any ordinary explanation for what they saw. They simply insist it is true: [quote withheld]
- Insisting on one’s own truthfulness is not backing from someone else.
- The writer calls her both “my date” and “my girlfriend.” That is a minor change in wording, not a real contradiction.
- The labels in the automatic transcript mark every line as the host, even though most of this part is the letter writer’s first-person text. The text is credited to the e-mail writer from its content, not from the labels.
- Transcription errors in the introduction ([quote withheld]) leave the writer’s description of themselves slightly unclear.
- 0:11
- 1:27
- 2:25
What the model inferred (not said on air): The component judgments are mine. Source proximity counted as a firsthand direct witness (22/25). Specificity was 13/20: concrete circumstances, but no names or places. Internal consistency was 16/20, with a minor shift in wording between date and girlfriend. Alternative explanations were 9/20 because the writer does not address any natural possibility. Calibration was 5/15 because the writer insists it is true rather than separating what they perceived from what they concluded. No cap applies: the story is firsthand, complete, and not presented as fiction.
This sits in the range for a claimed witness plus a date, but with no names, places, or records and no physical evidence. The claimed second witness is not independent confirmation, since she never speaks on air and no documents are examined.
Evidence for and against
- A year is given: 1978.
- A second witness is claimed in the text: [quote withheld]
- Specifics about the circumstances are offered: an eighth of a mile from her house and a crossing distance of about 50 feet.
- No photograph, recording, document, or physical trace is claimed.
- No names of people, no church name, no town, no road, and no newspaper or record is given, so nothing can be checked.
- The claimed second witness does not speak on air. Her reaction is reported only by the writer.
- The writer comes to us through the host, so there is no way to question the writer or the claimed second witness.
- 1:06
- 0:11
What the model inferred (not said on air): I applied the scoring guide’s ranges: “other witnesses claimed” and [quote withheld] (11 to 25). No physical evidence is claimed, which would put it at 26 to 40. No outside check was done, so the cap of 50 applies but is not close.
The imagery is genuinely unsettling: a legless woman with no visible eyes, floating in antique nightclothes across the headlights by a graveyard. The second witness’s terror is part of the telling. It stops short of the top range because nothing malevolent or intrusive happens and the encounter simply ends.
Evidence for and against
- Vivid, disturbing detail: [quote withheld] and “no legs.”
- The setting is isolated: a secluded rural road after midnight beside an old church graveyard.
- Animal noise raises tension before the sighting: [quote withheld]
- The other person in the car reacts with strong emotion and [quote withheld]
- The figure does not threaten, approach, touch, or acknowledge the witnesses: [quote withheld]
- There is no physical harm, no return visit, and no escalation in the story.
- The ending is a promise to sit outside a house, not a continued pursuit.
- The description of the face and eyes is short and depends on the writer’s memory of what they could see in the headlights.
- 1:41
- 2:05
- 0:59
What the model inferred (not said on air): My rating reflects the imagery and the isolated nighttime setting. It is a judgment about the story as heard, not about whether anything happened.
The frame is familiar: a nighttime roadside ghost in period dress near a graveyard. It carries several distinctive details: a legless floating figure with hollow eye sockets passing through vine rows, and the writer’s urge to approach. That puts it above stock material but below something wholly unusual. The score is a first estimate from the content alone, without comparison to the rest of the archive.
Evidence for and against
- The combination is distinctive: no legs, floating about two feet up, dark empty eye sockets, and a nightgown-and-nightcap outfit.
- The figure passes through rows of vines parallel to the road, an unusual detail tied to this spot.
- The writer’s urge to stop the car and step out for a closer look is an uncommon reaction.
- The core elements are familiar ghost-story material: a roadside sighting at night, a figure in antique clothing, and a church and graveyard as the setting.
- The [quote withheld] frame is a common template.
- The originality score is a first estimate, because it was not compared with the rest of the archive.
- 2:11
- 1:54
What the model inferred (not said on air): My placement follows the scoring guide’s example of [quote withheld] (50), raised a little for the unusual combination of details.
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.80 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The writer’s own written story, read on air (a firsthand account in letter or e-mail form); A second witness is claimed in the text (the date or girlfriend), but she does not speak on air and gives no statement of her own; No photograph, recording, document, mark, or other physical evidence is claimed or examined; No names of people or places, and no institution or record that could be checked.
Ordinary explanations to consider
These are possibilities only. None is a finding about what happened.
- A living person walking at night in nightclothes, misjudged in headlight glare and partly hidden by the roadside, could produce the reported “floating, legless” look. · The figure is described as a woman in an old-style nightgown and nightcap, seen at about 50 feet in car headlights after midnight. Low light, glare, and roadside vegetation hiding part of the figure could explain the “floating” and the missing legs.
- The apparent passage through the vine rows is an effect of one object hiding another. A person walking behind or between vines can seem to move through them. · [quote withheld] The “passing through” impression could arise if a figure walks between or behind a screen of vines.
- The howling was ordinary activity by wild animals and domestic dogs in a rural area. It happened to come before the sighting and did not cause it. · [quote withheld] Animal noise in rural areas has ordinary causes and need not be connected to the later sighting.
What stands out
The writer says they stopped the car and opened the door to approach the figure. The appearance is also very specific: an old-style nightgown and nightcap, no legs, floating about two feet up, and eyes that were “just dark holes.” The figure passing through rows of vines parallel to the road is another detail particular to this telling.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.