Not exactly a "true story"
-
pirate_john — 20 years ago(April 28, 2005 03:41 PM)
Well, simple reason there's plenty of evidence to support the existence of murderers, and no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of fairies.
Not that I didn't like the film. I do enjoy suspending my disbelief, and this movie was very good at letting me do so. But in the end, I still have to return to reality. -
dreamdemon-1 — 18 years ago(April 17, 2007 11:04 PM)
There's also no evidence to support the existence of most 'quantum' particles and black holes, their theoretical existence was brought up to explain various behavior of cosmic bodies and to fill-in gaps in physical science.
As for the evidence in this case well the analysis of the original plates deemed them genuine: no multiple exposure or darkroom processing.
Argument against: third photo (Frances with the dancing fairies) was supposedly taken at 1/50s exposure while the fairies were dancing. But the photo is quite still (no even a hit of motion blur) and sharp.
Argument for: first (or last) photo (Elsie with a fairy on a bush) shows no shadows for the fairy. You see how Elsie's face is under light coming slightly from a side and above, casting shadows on her hair which falls from the opposite side. But the fairy has no shadow all around (you can see light leafs all around) which couldn't happen if the fairy was a solid object (cut or drawing). If it was transparent or semi transparent then it would have been a lot more blurry but instead has the same consistency as the girl.
As for the admission to a hoax, Elsie admitted the photos she took as fakes (in a couple of interviews) but Frances admitted only that the photos Elsie took might be fakes while her own were genuine. -
maguis — 21 years ago(May 11, 2004 12:15 AM)
It was in the early 1900's, but that's not really the issue.
The girls admitted years later that the photos were fakes. However, they always stuck by their stories that they did indeed see fairies down at the beak. They faked the photographs in order to shut up all the adults who mocked them for seeing & playing with fairies. -
martinu-2 — 21 years ago(June 26, 2004 02:25 AM)
If you do a google search with the girls names you'll find a lot of sites with info on the hoax & the photos.
Look for the phrase "Cottingley fairies". Cottingley is a suburb of Leeds, West Yorkshire in the early 1900s it would probably have been a separate village.
(Sunday 27 June)
Having read Lisa's comment below, I realise I was wrong. Surprisingly there are two Cottingleys very close together and it's the other one - they one that's a suburb of Bradford. I've added this comment to forestall anyone who only reads this far and doesn't read Lisa's reply. -
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.