Spotted! A Ghost at Glencoe!!!

Let me preface this blog entry by saying that I don't believe in ghosts. In my opinion, the vast majority of paranormal experiences are simply tricks of the brain. Our senses are often unreliable narrators that we believe without question, and that gets us into all kinds of trouble and causes people to believe some of the dumbest shit imaginable. Chemtrails, for example.

Having said that, while I don't believe in ghosts, I am open to the possibility so long as there is some kind of rational scientific explanation. I realize that that last sentence completely obliterates my credibility as a skeptic, but hey, my mind is that of artist; not a scientist. Maybe ghosts are something to do with the multiverse, simulation hypothesis, or quantum mechanics...three things I do not understand in the least which allows me to shoehorn paranormal personal experiences into some kind of rational, scientific context.

I know the chances of ghosts being real are infinitesimally small, but as I said, I try to keep an open mind.

First, a little background.

My wife and I recently returned from a two weeks-long trip around the UK. We visited (in order) Bath, Stratford-Upon-Avon, Keswick, Oban, Edinburgh, York, and London, driving 1,300 miles in a rented Vauxhall. During our drive between Oban and Edinburgh we decided to stop at the site of the Glencoe Massacre, which is in western Scotland.

Now I'll give you a brief history of the massacre as I understand it. Feel free to skip past this part if you don't care to learn a little Scottish history and you just want to see the goddamn pictures.

The massacre took place in 1692 following The Glorious Revolution, which refers to the revolution that took place in England where the Catholic King James II was overthrown by English nobility and replaced by his nephew and daughter, Protestants William of Orange and Mary II (known as William and Mary...probably familiar to US audiences because of the American college established in their name).

The mostly-Catholic Scottish highlands wanted to return James to the throne, and staged the first of several Jacobite uprisings (Jacob = James) meant to restore their Catholic monarch to the English throne. The uprising was ultimately quashed after several battles, and Now-King William graciously offered amnesty to the clans who had risen against him on the condition that they pledge their loyalty. He issued the amnesty offer in August 1691, to be taken no later than January 1, 1692.

The clans did not jump at the offer, but after it became clear that James was unlikely to reclaim his throne, one-by-one the clan chiefs reluctantly pledged their fealty to the new king. None of them more reluctantly than Alastair Maclain, chief of the MacDonald clan in Glencoe, who waited until the last possible day (December 31) to sign.

Unfortunately for Alastair, he went to the wrong city. He arrived at Fort William only to be told that he needed to take the pledge at Inveraray, which was over 70 miles away. Alastair arrived in Inveraray three days later, and eventually gave the pledge to the Sheriff of Argyle about a week after the deadline had passed.

The MacDonalds had a bit of a bad reputation in the highlands. They were known as poachers, cattle rustlers, and general all-around ne'er-do-wells. Alastair's failure to sign the loyalty oath was seized upon by one of Alastair's enemies; John Campbell, chief of the powerful Campbell Clan. John Campbell brought this oversight to the attention of John Dalrymple, the English secretary of state, who, in turn, brought it to the attention of the king.

It was decided that the crown needed to make an example of the MacDonalds. And by "make an example," I mean, "completely wipe out."

A force of 120 soldiers were dispatched to Glencoe in February, ostensibly to collect taxes from the MacDonald clan. The troops were billeted in the MacDonald buildings, no doubt causing great hardship (as it was the middle of winter). After two weeks of waiting, the commander received the following order, directly authorized by the king:

"You are hereby ordered to fall upon the rebells, the McDonalds of Glenco, and put all to the sword under seventy."

Early the next morning the troops set about the grim task of murdering their unsuspecting hosts as they slept. Militarily, the operation was botched pretty badly, partly due to the bad weather, but also due to the reluctance of many soldiers to murder the families who had hosted them for the last two weeks.

Regardless, 38 men were killed by the soldiers, and an additional 40 women and children died of exposure in the hills of Glencoe as they fled their burning houses. It was one of the most heinous massacres in modern English history, and every February 13th a wreath is laid at the site of the memorial to remember those who were lost.

History lesson over.

On our trip, Erika and I went to the Glencoe Visitor Center, a small museum with exhibits about the fascinating history and geology of the area. But before going inside we decided to do a little mile-long walk through a recently-clear cut forest to the site of ruins which date back to the massacre.

As we were walking we saw the stone foundation of a building and decided to explore a bit. I took a crapload of pictures because there was a cool, gloomy, spooky forest in the background.

Full disclosure -- part of my motivation for taking these photos was to try to capture something that would look like a ghost in the background, either to spook my wife, or to make for an interesting blog entry.

We originally thought the ruins we found were from one of the buildings involved in the massacre, but as it turns out the ruins were more recent -- dating from the last 200 years or so. The foundation from one of the original structures (which we came across later in the walk) was barely recognizable, and had been built over several times.

Anyway, once we were back in LA I decided to have a peek at the images to see if there were any spooky-spooky ghosts in the background. I zoomed in and started to pan around, and funnily enough I actually saw something that sent a legit chill down my spine.

Here are three of the photos I took. Please note, none of these photos have been digitally manipulated in any way.

Note: The woman walking behind the ruins in the first two pictures is my wife, not a spooky ghost. I know what my damn wife looks like, knucklehead.

Anyway, when I was looking for spooky ghosts I decided to zoom in on the third picture (because it was the clearest and best of the three) and I'll show you what I saw.

See it yet?

How about now?

Ah. There she is.

Color corrected.

And closeup.

From wide #1

And wide #2

So. What is that thing? I have no idea. I have several theories. It could be a Banksy-esque drawing, which seems kind of unlikely (that's a lot of effort to put into something so remote and ambiguous).

It could be an optical illusion of light and shadows.

It could just be a pattern in the moss, or a burn mark or some other natural phenomenon.

Most likely it's just another example of pareidolia, to be filed away with countless images of the Virgin Mary on toast, underpasses, pizza pans, and pretzels. I don't find images like this particularly compelling without further investigation, which would no doubt debunk this bit of silliness.

But...

If I were to stash my skeptic hat for a bit, I could dig up some pretty neat stuff that probably makes for a much better story.

I decided to do some very scientific Google research to see if there were any other reported hauntings at the Glencoe site. Scotland Magazine did an article, and there are several others making reference to ghosts in the area.

But one manifestation in particular stood out. A blog entry named The Banshee of Glencoe Scotland talked about the Scottish version of the banshee (called the Bean-nighe, or "Washer Woman") which was supposedly heard on the night of the massacre. I decided to do a Google search, and I found the following spooky-scary images of the apparition:

 

I don't know. What do you think? Is this a wee little Bean-nighe creeping about in the woods?

 

Another theory creeping around my brain is that, perhaps, the entity in the woods was actually a picture of my wife. Compare what she was wearing that day to the image:

 

Anyway, I just thought I'd share this with you. We didn't hear a banshee wail while we were there (it was actually quite quiet and peaceful) so I don't think either of our lives is in danger from this imaginary creature.

But...

In case one of shuffles off of this mortal coil in the next couple of days under suspicious circumstances, well, I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility that the wee bonnie Bean-nighe finally got to us.

Elliot Rodger's True Motive

David Berkowitz did not kill six people because his neighbor's dog told him to "kill pretty young girls."

Kyle Huff did not kill six people in Seattle because of the drug use and sexually permissive lifestyles of the "rave" culture.

Jared Laughner did not shoot Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tuscon because the "government used language to control peoples' minds."

Seung-Hui Cho did not commit the Virginia Tech Massacre because of "rich kids, debauchery, and charlatans."

Finally, Elliot Rodger did not go on a killing spree in Isla Vista because he was rejected by women, or because he was a privileged white male (whose mother happens to be Asian), or because he was influenced by misogynistic movies, or because he managed to purchase a firearm, or because of a culture of entitlement.

The motives given by the mass murderers are only justifications imagined into existence by profoundly disturbed minds. They are excuses, and they are ultimately meaningless. Searching through a killer's ravings for some kernel of truth has always been a fruitless endeavor.

There has been quite a lot of research done on mass murderers, and the consensus is generally that their stated motive is meaningless. If you are curious, here are some articles and books about the topic, written by people who are much more educated than I am:

• There Is No Such Thing as a Motive for Mass Killings by Ari Schulman
• When It Comes to Mass Murder, Think Method and Means, Not Motive by Allen Frances
• Columbine by Dave Cullen
• The autogenic (self-generated) massacre by Paul E. Mullen

After Seung-Hui Cho went on his killing spree, did we blame media portrayals of wealth for the attack? Did we blame Jodie Foster's appearance in Taxi Driver after John Hinckley Jr. tried to assassinate the president? Did we blame David Berkowitz's neighbor's dog for enticing him to kill?

No. Of course not.

Elliot Rodger is no different, and his justification is just as flimsy. Yes, he blamed his rage on attractive women, his virginity, happy couples, and his feelings of isolation, loneliness, and inadequacy (especially as perceived by the opposite sex). He wrote a lengthy document detailing the history of his rage where he painstakingly recounted each negative encounter that led him down his dark path.

But Elliot Rodger was sick, demonstrated by the fact that he had extensive contact with multiple mental health professionals and law enforcement. He was described by his mother as "special needs," and it was known that he had "high-functioning autism" since at least 1999. Elliot Rodger had serious mental diseases, and we will probably never learn the true extent of his illness.

But if you asked Elliot Rodger, the true cause of his suffering was women. He shared this hatred with previous mass murderers George Sodini and Marc Lépine. But Elliot Rodger's obsession could just have easily been a neighbor's dog, or the government, or jocks in white hats, or Jodie Foster, or rich kids.

If he had not been obsessed with women he would have had the same murderous instinct, but with a different justification.

Now I shouldn't have to do this, but I figure I should. I am not in any way excusing his actions or his justifications. In addition, violence against women is an epidemic, and conversations about misogyny, feminism, entitlement, privilege, and media depictions of violence are invaluable. The more conversations we have about these topics, the better off we are as a society. And I have no problem with the #YesEveryWoman hashtag. If anything valuable were to come out of this tragedy, it would be for us to continue to bring attention to the dangers that women face on a daily basis, based entirely on their gender.

Having said that, can we please stop invoking Elliot Rodger when we discuss these things? It is not productive to associate an opposing point of view with the actions of a mass murder.

Yes, some men get frustrated when they are unable to find a girlfriend. They invent somewhat offensive terms like "Friend Zone" to characterize that frustration. People like Seth Rogen write movies where some of the characters are sexually frustrated men. Men who think they are "nice guys" are often dismayed when women are attracted to what they perceive are inferior men.

But linking those relatively banal cultural touchstones to the actions of a mass murderer is, frankly, incredibly insulting. Seth Rogen and Judd Apatow were right to be pissed off.

Further, I believe making that association is a disservice to the actual victims of Elliot Rodger's violent spree, and it fulfills the dead killer's overwhelming narcissism. This is exactly what he wanted. He wanted the world to talk about his actions, and they gleefully obliged. That is why he published the now-famous YouTube videos as well as his "manifesto."

Unfortunately, we've now found ourselves firmly locked into the timeline that follows every mass shooting in the United States. In the days following the tragedy, people will blame things that fit their own agendas and belief systems. Some will rail against congress and demand better gun control laws. Some will demand that Congress do more to strengthen mental health programs and leave guns alone. Some will blame pharmaceutical companies, and demand that Congress investigate. Congress will pay lip service to all of those demands, but ultimately they will do nothing (as they have done dozens of times before). Memorials will be held. Victims will be buried. Families will mourn, and eventually the news cycle will turn. The next mention of this horrible killing will be the one year anniversary, where we will bemoan the fact that nothing has changed. Or maybe we'll be subjected to another mass shooting before the anniversary arrives, and the Isla Vista attack will be listed in a long line of avoidable and unacceptable tragedies.

Yes. Avoidable.

And here's the part where I talk about gun control.

Here's why: The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. That's mostly true. But the only way to prevent a bad guy with a gun from shooting a bunch of people is to make sure the bad guy never gets a gun in the first place.

Before you start, I realize he killed three people with a knife and hit several people with his car. That's irrelevant. He shot eleven people. Three of those gunshot victims died. Those deaths were made possible only because of the presence of a firearm. Without the firearm all you'd have is a criminal who murdered his roommates and injured a bunch of people on the street. Sad, of course, but not the national tragedy it is now.

Having said that, I should tell you that I am a gun owner. I enjoy the peace of mind I get from having a firearm in my house. I enjoy going to the range and shooting my gun. But I would gladly give up my firearm if the US began enacting gun laws similar to what you see in every other industrialized country in the world.

Gun laws that are responsible for this map:

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

But it will never happen. If a man bringing an assault rifle to an elementary school and gunning down a room full of kindergarteners did not entice lawmakers into introducing more restrictive guns laws, then there is literally nothing that will change their minds.

So we wait until the next time, when we will trot out the same scapegoats and rage against the same government who is too inept to make meaningful change.

I don't look forward to it.