45 replies to this topic

[rashore]

Probably the simplest way to find out the history of your area is to hit your local library and check their newspaper logs. Depending on the newspaper, you can do some digging through the newspapers archives online. Yep, it's a long and tedious route, but it works. Keep an eye on deaths/obits, but also keep an eye out for violent crimes in general, as well as things like fundraisers. You're keeping an eye open for dead people and living people. Living people you probably only need to search back for a few years, dead people might need more. If you can remember her style of dress and hair it can help you with knowing what time frame to check
Personally, I wouldn't take the cop shop angle. IMO it is kind of creepy to walk in and ask for general violence. I would do some digging first and find out if there's anything to ask the cops about first.

Yeah, you could have had a spooky experience, or encountered a living being.. Or you might have had a wee mind trip. It's also getting to be the right time of year for testing out halloween craziness. Not trying to be rude by saying that, just covering the avenues. Sometimes it's helpful to cross off what it isn't as much as try to find out what it is. I applaud Sakari for always doggedly sticking the logical avenues. I'll leave him to it, he does it far better than I.

So, spooky. Some faceless ghosts do pop up all over the place. Weeping women are more common. Usually they are associated with badness- but that makes sense, since being faceless and crying are not usually noted for being good things. Something to fear? Not usually, seems like most of the stories are about viewing a tragedy rather than something bringing tragedy to the viewer. There are stories about weeping women foretelling tragedy, but to a lesser extent. I remember one good story about a faceless ghost that caused harm, but it was male.
If it was some other kind of spooky, it could be a whole odd assortment of things. Doppelganger or shapeshifter caught not entirely in the right phase, something nether-realmish or fae just having a chuckle, the byproduct of hexing or summoning, alien crossbreed or experimental project got loose... All sorts of fun stuff in the paranormal realm

I suppose right now I would say write down the entire account in as much detail as you can. It's creeping you out, I know. But if it's spooky or not, you need to get this out of your system.

[portraitartist]

GasmaskCowgirl, on 20 September 2011 - 07:33 PM, said:

Sorry, I know I could've drawn that a whole lot better, but I just wanted to go through it fast as it gives me the creeps just trying to sketch it out. The "wound" wasn't just red, it looked mushy, red and white and the "hole" itself looked like the face was slightly hollowed out, not just like skin was peeled or anything of that sort. Again, my rendition kind of sucks, I apologize for that. The whole event messed me up so bad that after I ran in, locked my door, turned all the lights on, called and confided in someone, I had to hang up because I had to run to the bathroom to throw up. Even now, I'm still tense about it. When I washed my face the other night before going to sleep, I felt so spooked to have my eyes closed like that and felt so vulnerable. I'm normally not at all so easily spooked like that and I hate that I feel like that now. I know it sounds crazy... I guess I just posted because I wanted to see if there was any information on this sort of thing because it makes me feel stupid and embarrassed. I know what I saw and I know how crazy it must sound.

That picture you sketched is pretty gruesome. Anybody would have been a little freaked out about it.

[Mike G]

Sakari, on 20 September 2011 - 06:20 PM, said:

Don't include me in that, I do not think the " Paranormal " exists, I call it mistaken identities, dreaming, fantasy, very wishful thinking,  fairy tales ( nice way of saying lying ), or mental issues, or even brain issues.....

I can never say "A valid logical conclusion " is to say anyone saw something paranormal........I doubt that in my life time, nor anyone else's that that will even be possible to say.

Something has to exist to call it a " logical explanation "....

That is because you obviously don't know what a valid logical conclusion means. It doesn't infer that something is true, or "makes sense". For those that study logic, there are proper measures which can be implemented to test to see if an argument is logically valid or not. Take for example:

p1: All dogs are red.
p2: I have a dog.
c: Therefore, my dog is red

Two premises and one conclusion. Believe it or not, logically that is a valid argument. Not because it is necessarily true, but because it follows the dynamics set forth within the science of logical thought. To test a conclusion, we set the premise values to true. Google it if you still... disbelieve.

In this case, we have an argument like this:

p1: If a person has no face whatsoever, they could not be alive. (true)
p2: If a person is not alive, they cannot cry. (true)
p3: GasmaskCowgirl saw a person with no face whatsoever who was crying. (true)
c: Therefore GasmaskCowgirl saw a person that couldn't have been alive.

p1: If GasmaskCowgirl saw a person that couldn't have been alive, she witnessed something paranormal. (true)
p2: GasmaskCowgirl saw a person that couldn't have been alive. (true)
c: Therefore GasmaskGirl witnessed something paranormal.

Again, that this was something paranormal is a valid and logical conclusion. See, I think you are making the common skeptic (and layman) mistake of confusing validity and logic with truth and believability.

Thanks for the drawing, GasmaskCowgirl. I don't think there is any more point in anyone arguing that you saw a deformed person with a wound like that rummaging around your garbage cans:



If you are telling the truth, it had to have been something outside of the norm. In any case, I doubt you will ever see anything like this again, and you should consider yourself fortunate, as you can now research and pull up all of those reports of weeping, faceless figures and be 100% certain yourself that there is something to them, unlike most of us.

Edited by Mike G, 20 September 2011 - 09:40 PM.

[Sakari]

Mike G, on 20 September 2011 - 09:38 PM, said:

In this case, we have an argument like this:

p1: If a person has no face whatsoever, they could not be alive. (true)
p2: If a person is not alive, they cannot cry. (true)
p3: GasmaskCowgirl saw a person with no face whatsoever who was crying. (true)
c: Therefore GasmaskCowgirl saw a person that couldn't have been alive.

p1: If GasmaskCowgirl saw a person that couldn't have been alive, she witnessed something paranormal. (true)
p2: GasmaskCowgirl saw a person that couldn't have been alive. (true)
c: Therefore GasmaskGirl witnessed something paranormal.

You forgot many, and I will only state 2 for now....Actually, probablly for good on this topic....

Quote

GasmaskCowgirl saw a person that couldn't have been alive. (true)

And we know this is true how?

Quote

If a person has no face whatsoever, they could not be alive. (true)

Absolutley 100% false......Sorry.

Your logic makes 0 sense.As I said nothing " Paranormal " has ever been even close to have been proven true, so calling anything paranormal is not logical at all.Especially when there are numerous other answers that can be proven to be real.

[Mike G]

Sakari, on 21 September 2011 - 02:58 AM, said:

You forgot many, and I will only state 2 for now....Actually, probablly for good on this topic....



And we know this is true how?



Absolutley 100% false......Sorry.

Your logic makes 0 sense.As I said nothing " Paranormal " has ever been even close to have been proven true, so calling anything paranormal is not logical at all.Especially when there are numerous other answers that can be proven to be real.

I still don' think you get the concept. In logic, we artificially set the premises to "true" for the sake of checking the argument's validity. You are taking the premises literally. I understand your confusion though. If you have never formally studied the science of logic (and perhaps unsurprisingly enough, most people who argue on message boards probably haven't), this looks counter-intuitive. Regardless, the argument I made here that the witness saw something paranormal is in fact logically valid.

[Sakari]

Mike G, on 21 September 2011 - 05:28 AM, said:

I still don' think you get the concept. In logic, we artificially set the premises to "true" for the sake of checking the argument's validity. You are taking the premises literally. I understand your confusion though. If you have never formally studied the science of logic (and perhaps unsurprisingly enough, most people who argue on message boards probably haven't), this looks counter-intuitive. Regardless, the argument I made here that the witness saw something paranormal is in fact logically valid.

Quote

In most definitions of the word paranormal, it is described as anything  that is beyond or contrary to what is deemed scientifically possible.[

Quote

Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)^[1] is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.

Quote

Just as there is disagreement over what logic is about, so there is disagreement about what logical truths there are.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.........

[Mike G]

Sakari, on 21 September 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.........

Nice quotes, but you forgot to source them. On this, I assume we can both agree?

In any case, it seems that you are simply trying to toss up a few out of context quotes and bring them together to create some kind of collective point, which in reality, doesn't really contradict anything I have said, neither together or by their individual parts. An un-cited definition of paranormal and logic, followed by an un-cited opinion doesn't go far far towards swaying, I'm afraid. As I said, I don't think you even comprehend the ideas which you are attempting to launch a rebuttal against. Not exactly the smartest position.

Back to Google for you, I suspect.  

Quote

In most definitions of the word paranormal, it is described as anything that is beyond or contrary to what is deemed scientifically possible.

I would saying that seeing that...

... crying in your driveway, by your own definition, would qualify as paranormal then.

Quote

Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.

Yeah. And I showed you how that formal system is carried out. Then I applied it to my conclusion here and demonstrated how, by way of those principles, my argument was logically valid.

Quote

Just as there is disagreement over what logic is about, so there is disagreement about what logical truths there are.

What does this prove, besides that some nameless person on the internet has an opinion?

Edited by Mike G, 21 September 2011 - 04:52 PM.

[Sakari]

Mike G, on 21 September 2011 - 04:23 PM, said:

Nice quotes, but you forgot to source them. On this, I assume we can both agree?

In any case, it seems that you are simply trying to toss up a few out of context quotes and bring them together to create some kind of collective point, which in reality, doesn't really contradict anything I have said, neither together or by their individual parts. An un-cited definition of paranormal and logic, followed by an un-cited opinion doesn't go far far towards swaying, I'm afraid. As I said, I don't think you even comprehend the ideas which you are attempting to launch a rebuttal against. Not exactly the smartest position.

Back to Google for you, I suspect.  

Not back to Google, back out of these ridiculous arguments I told myself I would stay out of, and off to the river to fish for salmon.....As for the source quotes, just the dictionary.



Bottom line, someone says they saw a faceless person, we gave our explanations, they can do what they want with them.

Breaking down from the topic to argue about the meaning of logic is just a waste of time.( seems to happen a lot on the ghosts section, one reason I steer away as much as possible anymore ).....So, let's stay on topic shall we?

Have a good day.

Edited by Sakari, 21 September 2011 - 05:04 PM.

[Mike G]

Sakari, on 21 September 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

Not back to Google, back out of these ridiculous arguments I told myself I would stay out of.....As for the source quotes, just the dictionary.

Bottom line, someone says they saw a faceless person, we gave our explanations, they can do what they want with them.

Breaking down from the topic to argue about the meaning of logic is just a waste of time.( seems to happen a lot on the ghosts section, one reason I steer away as much as possible anymore )

Have a good day.

Hey, you decided by your own free will to counter my stance. If you had somehow been successful, I am sure that your opinion wouldn't have been that this is a waste of time.  

But you could not, so suddenly this is a fruitless exercise. I get it.

In this instance, the explanations given were just as improbable as the paranormal one. A self-infliced shotgun blast victim? Really?

Or your pet proposal that, since that guy from Ripley's Believe it or Not could survive fine with part of his face missing, a woman with a gaping red crater for a face could not only viably live out on the street, but in fact audibly cry, and furthermore flee without a trace somehow. It simply goes contrary to the testimony given, and is just not a very strong explanation.

Edited by Mike G, 21 September 2011 - 05:08 PM.

[Sakari]

Mike G, on 21 September 2011 - 05:02 PM, said:

Hey, you decided by your own free will to counter my stance. If you had somehow been successful, I am sure that your opinion wouldn't have been that this is a waste of time.  

But you could not, so suddenly this is a fruitless exercise. I get it.

In this instance, the explanations given were just as improbable as the paranormal one. A self-infliced shotgun blast victim? Really?

Or your pet proposal that, since that guy from Ripley's Believe it or Not could survive fine with part of his face missing, a woman with a gaping red crater for a face could not only viably live, but cry and flee without a trace somehow. It simply goes contrary to the testimony given, and is just not a very strong explanation.

Here you go Mike G, I know your type, and before I go off to cast some bait into the Coos River I will leave with this :

Mike G, you beat me, you won, you are right and I am wrong.I bow down to your wisdom and admit defeat.

I now believe there is a faceless Ghost running around, and hope to someday see one, because this is a logical explanation.You have convinced me, and I mean that.

I think that should make your day, so please enjoy it now.As I said ( and did not follow through ), it is crap like this that has kept me away from the forums, and not as active.Especially on the ghost section.

I know, you want to win, so there you go, you just did, I throw in the towel Mike......

Edited by Sakari, 21 September 2011 - 05:10 PM.

[Mike G]

Sakari, on 21 September 2011 - 05:09 PM, said:

I now believe there is a faceless Ghost running around, and hope to someday see one, because this is a logical explanation.You have convinced me, and I mean that

My point wasn't to convince, and I myself don't necessarily believe that there is an overly melancholy faceless ghost out rummaging through garbage in Texas somewhere. If the witnesses' story is in fact completely truthful and accurate, well, that may be a possibility. But in reality, we will never know for sure.

Coos river? They have those big salmon out there, right? Had a friend who lived up that way. Nice area, some great fishing no doubt.

Edited by Mike G, 21 September 2011 - 05:21 PM.

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

Mike G, on 21 September 2011 - 05:02 PM, said:

Hey, you decided by your own free will to counter my stance. If you had somehow been successful, I am sure that your opinion wouldn't have been that this is a waste of time.  

But you could not, so suddenly this is a fruitless exercise. I get it.

In this instance, the explanations given were just as improbable as the paranormal one. A self-infliced shotgun blast victim? Really?

Or your pet proposal that, since that guy from Ripley's Believe it or Not could survive fine with part of his face missing, a woman with a gaping red crater for a face could not only viably live out on the street, but in fact audibly cry, and furthermore flee without a trace somehow. It simply goes contrary to the testimony given, and is just not a very strong explanation.

If ghosts are real then you have to have died.A suicide victim has died and some even use shotguns to do the grisly deed....hence you see a ghost of a shotgun suicide...that was my point if you do believe in the paranormal....i dont and it was in jest...hey ho...clears up my points...

Edited by BrianPotter, 21 September 2011 - 06:23 PM.

[Mike G]

BrianPotter, on 21 September 2011 - 06:08 PM, said:

Errrrm..i didnt say self inflicted LIVING victim....i was saying if you believe in the  paranormal then a ghost of a suicide victim who used a shotgun to inflict the fatal wound would possibly show themselves as a weeping faceless victim.....not that they are still out and about in the world breathing....seeing as i think its all hogwash anyhow and did it in jest i cant see any point debating it but just wanted to clear up my point.

Fair enough.

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

Mike G, on 21 September 2011 - 06:19 PM, said:

Fair enough.

Must have changed it as you were writing...sorry bout that Mike...im off to my box under the stairs..lol.

[Ninhas]

Hi! ^^

That could've been a temporal visual disfunction, some kind of partial blindness provoked by a bright light... since it happened during nighttime, a car's bright headlights or some lamp in the darkness could have provoked such thing. You basically stay with some kind of a spot embedded in your sight. That spot could have overlapped with the woman's face, thus creating that image.
I'm not neglecting the possibility of it being a paranormal appearance, just sharing what I think of as a possible explanation.  

Do you recall looking at any bright light before seeing the woman?