Not exactly a "true story"
-
LisaLQ — 21 years ago(June 27, 2004 11:43 AM)
I always assumed it was Cottingley near Bradford, although Leeds is also close by, but apparently there are two Cottingley's in West Yorkshire.
Reading through the websites, it would seem that it's probably the one near Bradford though, as it mentions them getting the train from Bridlington, to Bradford, to Cottingley, and it wouldn't make sense if it was the place in Leeds, surely they'd go to Leeds then?
Just watched this on C5 here in the UK (with the kids honest!) and there were some scenes filmed in our town's steam train station (Keighley and Worth Valley Railway), so came to look it up.
Sheesh I sound like a right nerd now -
martinu-2 — 21 years ago(June 27, 2004 12:05 PM)
Blimey. I was born and brought up in Leeds and I never knew that there were two Cottingleys. Mind you, knowing the rivalry between Leeds and Bradford, I probably thought of Bradford as being beyond the pale, second only to The Other County Across the Pennines (the one that begins with L)!
I'd assumed it was Cottingley near Leeds because that's the one that I'd heard of and it's the one that's got a station (although it was called Churwell until it reopened in the 1980s). But I'm sure you are right: that reference to Bridlington to Bradford to Cottingley is pretty conclusive. I've just checked on an old Ordnance Survey map and the Leeds Cottingley isn't even named whereas the Bradford one is a well-defined place.
OK, I was wrong and you are right. You've out-nerded me! -
clewis2666 — 21 years ago(July 04, 2004 12:41 PM)
i just saw the film on video. i thought it was utterly enchanting (on a par with Railway children, and Amazing Mr Blunden- a real work of art and the children (far youger than elsie and frances actually were at the timer were amazing. Willing suspension of disbelief is called for!!!
For a full account of the whole episode i searched aginst 'conan doyle and the fairies' , found a likely site (all about C Doyle)and then chose an article low down on the list under 'Cottingley fairies' by Donald or Joe someone very good too
from clewis2666@aol.com -
twigs17 — 21 years ago(December 25, 2004 10:08 PM)
Your assumption is correct, the Cottingley in question here is in fact the one near Bradford. My fiance was born in Pollard House in Cottingley,UK near Bingley, her grandmother was a close childhood friend of Elsie Wright. We have 2 of Elsies paintings, one of Pollard House, and another of a farmstead in Cottingley.
As for the validity of the "Cottingley Fairies"? I guess it depends on whether one wishes to believe in the supernatural or not. But, can you really think that 2 young girls in rural England in 1917 would pull the wings from butterflies and glue them to paper cutouts?? When Kodak labs analized the photos and plates, they could see background through the gossamer wings, that's hard to do with cutouts or butterfly wings. I suspect that they admitted a forgery just to achieve some peace of mind. -
princesspeanutforever — 19 years ago(March 18, 2007 03:06 PM)
No- take a look at the pictures yourself. I have- and it's obvious they're fake. Take for example the first picture- the one of Frances in front of a waterfall with the "fairies" dancing in front of her. The waterfall in the picture is fuzzy- meaning that the picture was taken over a long exposure, and the water is unclear because it is moving. But the fairies are perfectly clear, meaning that even though they are supposed to be dancing, they are not moving. And if you look closely at the picture of Elsie with the gnome, you can see the head of the hatpin sticking out of the gnome's chest. In the photograph of Elsie with the fairy handing her a bouquet of bluebells, the fairy is obviously two-dimensional. In the picture of Frances with the fairy leaping beside her, the fairy's back leg is not properly attached to her body (Elsie later admitted in an interview to having drawn it wrong). And lastly- the picture of the "fairies sunbath". The blurred images are the result of two different things: first, Elsie put the pictures in a frame which she pushed into the grass and let the fairies "fall" as the picture was taken- it's what gave the images a "see through" effect and probably explains the findings of Kodak. Also if you look closely at the pictures, you can see that some fairies are photographed twice- a double exposure, which would not have happened if they fairies were not standing in the same place. It also explains why Elsie and Frances later both claimed to have taken the picture- both did.
The editor of the British Journal of Photography examined the pictures and found evidence of airbrush touchings. Elsie was known to have been a very talented artist (You have some of her pictures yourself) and she was also known for her photographic ability. And yes, both ladies maintained to their grave that they really had seen fairies- people can believe or disbelieve that as they like, I suppose. But as for the pictures- they are definately fakes. -
twigs17 — 19 years ago(April 05, 2007 09:46 PM)
I have tried to look at this legend with an open mind, even though most rational people will discount it. However, to answer your refute I will add this; the time is 1917 this was a very simple Kodak box camera with a single photographic plate, there was no setting for extended exposure so your arguement for the "fuzzy" waterfall just doesn't hold. Secondly you stated that there was evidence of airbrush touching? in the 1917s?? I think not! Whether or not the faries really exist will be fodder for debate for years to come, but we must keep an open mind. As we all know, there are things here on earth that we as humans have yet to fathom.
-
heather_blus — 18 years ago(April 27, 2007 07:35 PM)
"However, to answer your refute I will add this; the time is 1917 this was a very simple Kodak box camera with a single photographic plate, there was no setting for extended exposure so your arguement for the "fuzzy" waterfall just doesn't hold."
- Wrong! The camera used was the Midge, which did have different exposures available. In fact, it was even equipped with a special ground glass viewing plate used for special effects.
- Wrong again! Airbrushing was quite common in those days; matter of fact Elsie was working in a photographer's studio nearby at the time, retouching photographs.
For extensive detail on the above, read James Randi's Flim Flam!, chapter 1.
-
twigs17 — 18 years ago(April 28, 2007 09:10 AM)
Heather,
I guess that's what I get for "assuming", sorry. My wife was born in Cottingley,and as a young girl spent many hours in the beck looking for fairies. She never saw any, but the legend was very popular then and many swore by it. -
L0GAN5 — 20 years ago(August 21, 2005 12:43 PM)
It was indeed the Bradford Cottingley. Earlier this year the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television based in Bradford put on an exhibition. It was fantastic stuff, and they even had one of the Conan-Doyle cameras on display along with the original photos blown up.
You could see the pin marks where the fairies had been pinned to trees. They had been cut out of a fairy book which the girl from Africa had brought home with her. -
ireland_18 — 20 years ago(November 03, 2005 06:47 PM)
If faeries don't really exist, than why are there so many different cultures that believe in them? Around the globe there are cultures that never knew about each other, but there are stories and tales in their culture that depicts faeries and their existance. What say you?
-
countessvongroovy — 20 years ago(February 12, 2006 04:12 PM)
"If faeries don't really exist, than why are there so many different cultures that believe in them? Around the globe there are cultures that never knew about each other, but there are stories and tales in their culture that depicts faeries and their existance. What say you?"
Cultures around the world also invented gods, doesn't mean they exist.
I've seen the actual pictures, they don't look very real. Doesn't mean fairies don't exist though. -
Totally_Busted_Chick — 21 years ago(October 22, 2004 11:24 AM)
It happened after the 1800. They didn't cut them out of story books, they were drawn by the eldest Elsie. They are cleverly done, and considering the time, and the lack of knowledge the girls were considered to not have its pretty good. You try making a family film about fairies, having two girls lying to everyone
~"Not men, no. We are watchers. Bene elim. In your language, angels"~ -
Magnetforjerks — 21 years ago(November 28, 2004 10:54 AM)
Hmm.. It is sad that people are so ready to believe in the bad things and not the good. Anyways, this movie didn't fully tell you that the photographs were real. Remember when the reporter found those cut out fairy figures and pinned them on the desk? The scriptwriters put that in because that was how the girls had taken the pictures. Pinning up pictures with hat pins. Then the Joseph scared him off in order to "keep the fairy secret." The secret wasn't that fairy existed, but rather that the photographs were fake. They wanted Joseph's mother to believe in them because they believed in them and knew that it would help her if she did. And then, it helped other people as well. Anyways, I just figured I'd point out the movie did show you how they did the photographs maybe you were just too distracted by houdini? or the chess game?