why we cannot trust scientists

What the hell happened in here? We can't trust scientists but you believe in fairies?

This is amazing.

Welcome to the Flat Earth Society. People here claim to believe the Earth is flat. Some of them, I'm convinced, actually do believe it. Why would you expect different?

Vaux?  The article you linked to claims that the girls in the old photo's that JRowe posted claimed that they faked the images back in 1983.

In that case, two girls, Elsie Wright, 16, and Frances Griffiths, 10, pasted drawings of fairies onto cardboard and took pictures of themselves with the mythical creatures. Although it sounds endearingly low-tech, the photos managed to convince luminaries like Sherlock Holmes' creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that the fairies were real, according to the Daily Mail.

The author wasn't alone. In fact, the Cottingly Fairies created enough doubt that some believers were genuinely shocked when Griffiths admitted they were a hoax in 1983.

Quote from: BiJane on March 25, 2015, 03:28:04 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 25, 2015, 03:27:09 PM

your inability to respond says it all. you reject, not based on evidence, but based on arrogance.

What would you have me respond to?
You believe in fairies.

there is much evidence for doing so. not only are they a universal concept, but you have photos like these:





they convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle, and existed long before photoshop or any manipulative tools, and were recorded in such old journals, confirming that fact. this is a genuine image, too old to be questionable. they are very clear in what they show.
you accept photographic evidence from people who have photoshop, of a fantasy round earth. you should accept this.

closed mindedness is not an argument.

Leave it to JRoweSkepticto post a picture so fake, the history or discovery channel covered it. The fairies are made out of paper and stuck there.  What a uneducated clown.
Added: Just because I like to destroy his stupid beliefs.

http://www.openculture.com/2013/01/arthur_conan_doyle_the_cottingley_fairies_how_two_young_girls_fooled_the_creator_of_sherlock_holmes.html

Vaux?  The article you linked to claims that the girls in the old photo's that JRowe posted claimed that they faked the images back in 1983.

Quote

In that case, two girls, Elsie Wright, 16, and Frances Griffiths, 10, pasted drawings of fairies onto cardboard and took pictures of themselves with the mythical creatures. Although it sounds endearingly low-tech, the photos managed to convince luminaries like Sherlock Holmes' creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that the fairies were real, according to the Daily Mail.

The author wasn't alone. In fact, the Cottingly Fairies created enough doubt that some believers were genuinely shocked when Griffiths admitted they were a hoax in 1983.

That's the widely held belief, sure. That doesn't mean it's the truth. People can't handle the fact that fairies might actually exist so they make up explainations to maintain their fantasy world.

of course they will deny the image, with people like you who refuse to accept the truth. you should also acknowledge, however, that they still maintain the fifth was genuine.
do you have any evidence, or just assertion?

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 25, 2015, 08:51:00 PM

Vaux?  The article you linked to claims that the girls in the old photo's that JRowe posted claimed that they faked the images back in 1983.

Quote

In that case, two girls, Elsie Wright, 16, and Frances Griffiths, 10, pasted drawings of fairies onto cardboard and took pictures of themselves with the mythical creatures. Although it sounds endearingly low-tech, the photos managed to convince luminaries like Sherlock Holmes' creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that the fairies were real, according to the Daily Mail.

The author wasn't alone. In fact, the Cottingly Fairies created enough doubt that some believers were genuinely shocked when Griffiths admitted they were a hoax in 1983.

That's the widely held belief, sure. That doesn't mean it's the truth. People can't handle the fact that fairies might actually exist so they make up explainations to maintain their fantasy world.

the people who faked it said its fake, yet we can't handle the truth?

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 11:02:53 PM

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 25, 2015, 08:51:00 PM

Vaux?  The article you linked to claims that the girls in the old photo's that JRowe posted claimed that they faked the images back in 1983.

Quote

In that case, two girls, Elsie Wright, 16, and Frances Griffiths, 10, pasted drawings of fairies onto cardboard and took pictures of themselves with the mythical creatures. Although it sounds endearingly low-tech, the photos managed to convince luminaries like Sherlock Holmes' creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that the fairies were real, according to the Daily Mail.

The author wasn't alone. In fact, the Cottingly Fairies created enough doubt that some believers were genuinely shocked when Griffiths admitted they were a hoax in 1983.

That's the widely held belief, sure. That doesn't mean it's the truth. People can't handle the fact that fairies might actually exist so they make up explainations to maintain their fantasy world.

the people who faked it said its fake, yet we can't handle the truth?

why wouldn't they say that? they had people like you called them frauds, it's the easy way out.
you should also not ignore the fact that both maintain they saw fairies still, and frances still says this photo was genuine:



there's simply no way for photos of this quality to be faked in those times. i am waiting for any of you to back up your assertions with anything. do you have a reason to disbelieve in fairies, do you just reject what is clearly true to try and make yourself feel big? do you have any reason to think these were faked? how could they possibly be faked before photoshop?

arthur conan doyle himself found these genuine, and found that everyone who rejected them as fake did so because they refused to acknowledge the existence of fairies. that is simply closed-mindedness. do you have anything more to add?

I nominate this as the most hilarious thread to exist on the internet.

There are numerous articles written about Mr. Hyatt (the man who took the recent photograph).

Here's one. It's a very interesting read.

I read a little and not only my opinion is:

"They are not doctored apart from I increased the size of a detailed section of a larger photograph along with the DPI to stop them being just large pixels -- normal size enhancement techniques."

This is impossible outside the real of science fiction. Resolution can not be added into a digital photo past the resolution it was taken at.

Quote from: sokarul on March 26, 2015, 07:05:07 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 11:02:53 PM

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 25, 2015, 08:51:00 PM

Vaux?  The article you linked to claims that the girls in the old photo's that JRowe posted claimed that they faked the images back in 1983.

Quote

In that case, two girls, Elsie Wright, 16, and Frances Griffiths, 10, pasted drawings of fairies onto cardboard and took pictures of themselves with the mythical creatures. Although it sounds endearingly low-tech, the photos managed to convince luminaries like Sherlock Holmes' creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that the fairies were real, according to the Daily Mail.

The author wasn't alone. In fact, the Cottingly Fairies created enough doubt that some believers were genuinely shocked when Griffiths admitted they were a hoax in 1983.

That's the widely held belief, sure. That doesn't mean it's the truth. People can't handle the fact that fairies might actually exist so they make up explainations to maintain their fantasy world.

the people who faked it said its fake, yet we can't handle the truth?

why wouldn't they say that? they had people like you called them frauds, it's the easy way out.
you should also not ignore the fact that both maintain they saw fairies still, and frances still says this photo was genuine:



there's simply no way for photos of this quality to be faked in those times. i am waiting for any of you to back up your assertions with anything. do you have a reason to disbelieve in fairies, do you just reject what is clearly true to try and make yourself feel big? do you have any reason to think these were faked? how could they possibly be faked before photoshop?

arthur conan doyle himself found these genuine, and found that everyone who rejected them as fake did so because they refused to acknowledge the existence of fairies. that is simply closed-mindedness. do you have anything more to add?

Why these images are fake:
1. They look fake.
2. The autors clearly said it was fake.
3. Photomontages were easy then. Just think. You take a normal photo, (in this case) you stick bunch of drawings of fairies and then you take a photo of a real photo and drawings, making that you think there is no 2nd layer (fairies drawings). For example - this is a photo of faked Zeppelin flying over Szczecin, Polish city. It's proved to be fake - .

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 04:10:35 PM

There are numerous articles written about Mr. Hyatt (the man who took the recent photograph).

Here's one. It's a very interesting read.

I read a little and not only my opinion is:

"They are not doctored apart from I increased the size of a detailed section of a larger photograph along with the DPI to stop them being just large pixels -- normal size enhancement techniques."

This is impossible outside the real of science fiction. Resolution can not be added into a digital photo past the resolution it was taken at.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 26, 2015, 08:04:13 AM

Quote from: sokarul on March 26, 2015, 07:05:07 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 11:02:53 PM

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 25, 2015, 08:51:00 PM

Vaux?  The article you linked to claims that the girls in the old photo's that JRowe posted claimed that they faked the images back in 1983.

Quote

In that case, two girls, Elsie Wright, 16, and Frances Griffiths, 10, pasted drawings of fairies onto cardboard and took pictures of themselves with the mythical creatures. Although it sounds endearingly low-tech, the photos managed to convince luminaries like Sherlock Holmes' creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that the fairies were real, according to the Daily Mail.

The author wasn't alone. In fact, the Cottingly Fairies created enough doubt that some believers were genuinely shocked when Griffiths admitted they were a hoax in 1983.

That's the widely held belief, sure. That doesn't mean it's the truth. People can't handle the fact that fairies might actually exist so they make up explainations to maintain their fantasy world.

the people who faked it said its fake, yet we can't handle the truth?

why wouldn't they say that? they had people like you called them frauds, it's the easy way out.
you should also not ignore the fact that both maintain they saw fairies still, and frances still says this photo was genuine:



there's simply no way for photos of this quality to be faked in those times. i am waiting for any of you to back up your assertions with anything. do you have a reason to disbelieve in fairies, do you just reject what is clearly true to try and make yourself feel big? do you have any reason to think these were faked? how could they possibly be faked before photoshop?

arthur conan doyle himself found these genuine, and found that everyone who rejected them as fake did so because they refused to acknowledge the existence of fairies. that is simply closed-mindedness. do you have anything more to add?

Why these images are fake:
1. They look fake.
2. The autors clearly said it was fake.
3. Photomontages were easy then. Just think. You take a normal photo, (in this case) you stick bunch of drawings of fairies and then you take a photo of a real photo and drawings, making that you think there is no 2nd layer (fairies drawings). For example - this is a photo of faked Zeppelin flying over Szczecin, Polish city. It's proved to be fake - .

they do not look fake. the authors only said that because of outside prejudice, and frances always said at least one was genuine, and both say they did see fairies.
i doubt two children could create a photomontage more convincing than the official ones. are you saying you're smarter than arthur conan doyle? you also don't take into account the fact zeppelins exist, and a real photo was used: so fairies must exist if a photo was to be inserted. completing faking an image was impossible. you've just proven my point.

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 26, 2015, 09:08:22 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 04:10:35 PM

There are numerous articles written about Mr. Hyatt (the man who took the recent photograph).

Here's one. It's a very interesting read.

I read a little and not only my opinion is:

"They are not doctored apart from I increased the size of a detailed section of a larger photograph along with the DPI to stop them being just large pixels -- normal size enhancement techniques."

This is impossible outside the real of science fiction. Resolution can not be added into a digital photo past the resolution it was taken at.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 26, 2015, 08:04:13 AM

Quote from: sokarul on March 26, 2015, 07:05:07 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 11:02:53 PM

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 25, 2015, 08:51:00 PM

Vaux?  The article you linked to claims that the girls in the old photo's that JRowe posted claimed that they faked the images back in 1983.

Quote

In that case, two girls, Elsie Wright, 16, and Frances Griffiths, 10, pasted drawings of fairies onto cardboard and took pictures of themselves with the mythical creatures. Although it sounds endearingly low-tech, the photos managed to convince luminaries like Sherlock Holmes' creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that the fairies were real, according to the Daily Mail.

The author wasn't alone. In fact, the Cottingly Fairies created enough doubt that some believers were genuinely shocked when Griffiths admitted they were a hoax in 1983.

That's the widely held belief, sure. That doesn't mean it's the truth. People can't handle the fact that fairies might actually exist so they make up explainations to maintain their fantasy world.

the people who faked it said its fake, yet we can't handle the truth?

why wouldn't they say that? they had people like you called them frauds, it's the easy way out.
you should also not ignore the fact that both maintain they saw fairies still, and frances still says this photo was genuine:



there's simply no way for photos of this quality to be faked in those times. i am waiting for any of you to back up your assertions with anything. do you have a reason to disbelieve in fairies, do you just reject what is clearly true to try and make yourself feel big? do you have any reason to think these were faked? how could they possibly be faked before photoshop?

arthur conan doyle himself found these genuine, and found that everyone who rejected them as fake did so because they refused to acknowledge the existence of fairies. that is simply closed-mindedness. do you have anything more to add?

Why these images are fake:
1. They look fake.
2. The autors clearly said it was fake.
3. Photomontages were easy then. Just think. You take a normal photo, (in this case) you stick bunch of drawings of fairies and then you take a photo of a real photo and drawings, making that you think there is no 2nd layer (fairies drawings). For example - this is a photo of faked Zeppelin flying over Szczecin, Polish city. It's proved to be fake - .

they do not look fake. the authors only said that because of outside prejudice, and frances always said at least one was genuine, and both say they did see fairies.
i doubt two children could create a photomontage more convincing than the official ones. are you saying you're smarter than arthur conan doyle? you also don't take into account the fact zeppelins exist, and a real photo was used: so fairies must exist if a photo was to be inserted. completing faking an image was impossible. you've just proven my point.

do you have something more than only assertion? can you prove that they said that because of outside prejudice or rather no? young girls love fairies, they would tell to their daddies that he could to the montages, they would be models. please, don't use argumentum ab auctoritate, it's proving more your stupidity rather than smartness (i'm not insulting). You could make montages with cutted photos sticked to other, but you could also stick drawings and photo them and real photo.


This looks just like torn pieces of some transparent material, maybe plastic.

Photo manipulation didn't exist at the time?

hehehehee



totally real

those photos are completely different, and would be far beyond the abilities of children, who you are saying would have that skill, in any case.

the fifth photo, you can clearly see a face and body, and the same fairies as the previous images. if you look at earlier photos, you also have fairies suspended in midair, so they clearly aren't just drawings, and they are children, and this was ages ago, they would not have photoshop like you are proposing.
plus even if the images are edited, that takes an existing model or photo, which only works if you say fairies exist. either way, you've made my point clear.

How are they completely different? Technique is the same as in those photos of phoney fairies.

Where did I propose they had photoshop a hundred years or whatever long time ago? Learn to read. My point was simply that there has been photo manipulation as long as there have been photos, which is demonstratably true.

How are they completely different? Technique is the same as in those photos of phoney fairies.

Where did I propose they had photoshop a hundred years or whatever long time ago? Learn to read. My point was simply that there has been photo manipulation as long as there have been photos, which is demonstratably true.

how are they at all the same? aside from the fact both required ability and technology far beyond that of children, i'm fairly sure the first is art not a photo and not contemporary, and the second is not only a clear fake due to jaggedness, but only copied that which already existed in the photo.

there might have been manipulation, but nothing of photoshop standards, which would be what was required to fool so many people, including arthur conan doyle, as well as being accessible to children: and girls no less, who would hardly have been well educated in those times.

That's the widely held belief, sure. That doesn't mean it's the truth. People can't handle the fact that fairies might actually exist so they make up explainations to maintain their fantasy world.

Dear god, this thread. My sides hurt.

Dear god, this thread. My sides hurt.

Air doesn't exist, but fairies do. This is a very serious thread. Why are you laughing?
 

The simple fact that the girls in question admitted that they were fake, and told how they did it so many years after would negate the pressure of people calling them frauds.   You want to say that they waited their entire lives and just before they died from old age they decided there was too much pressure from people calling them frauds that they finally just caved to the pressure.  Just about the entire world had already called these photos faked long ago and it was no longer an issue in 1983.  No one cared anymore.  That reasoning as to why they admitted the hoax and how they did it is completely invalid. 

Quote from: neimoka on March 26, 2015, 03:20:09 PM

How are they completely different? Technique is the same as in those photos of phoney fairies.

Where did I propose they had photoshop a hundred years or whatever long time ago? Learn to read. My point was simply that there has been photo manipulation as long as there have been photos, which is demonstratably true.

how are they at all the same? aside from the fact both required ability and technology far beyond that of children, i'm fairly sure the first is art not a photo and not contemporary, and the second is not only a clear fake due to jaggedness, but only copied that which already existed in the photo.

there might have been manipulation, but nothing of photoshop standards, which would be what was required to fool so many people, including arthur conan doyle, as well as being accessible to children: and girls no less, who would hardly have been well educated in those times.

They are the same, as I said, in that the technique is the same. No fancy technology required then or now, I don't know what you imagine is required to merge exposures. The first pic I posted is recent, but uses the same technique and is not digital and yes ofc it's art, while it's also a photo. The heads in the second one are obviously not all the same head as you implied. Here's another nice one


This is cool too

The simple fact that the girls in question admitted that they were fake, and told how they did it so many years after would negate the pressure of people calling them frauds.   You want to say that they waited their entire lives and just before they died from old age they decided there was too much pressure from people calling them frauds that they finally just caved to the pressure.  Just about the entire world had already called these photos faked long ago and it was no longer an issue in 1983.  No one cared anymore.  That reasoning as to why they admitted the hoax and how they did it is completely invalid.

everyone wants to be remembered well. it's no surprise.

you can't just say everyone thought they were faked, when geniuses such as conan doyle thought they were true. they also refused to admit the fifth was a hoax, which all of you have ignored multiple times.
the method is key. if it could not be faked, it doesn't matter what they say, as it has to be genuine.

as has been pointed out several times, at that era the photos could not be faked. the closest that could be done at that time (which would be far beyond what children could do) still required existing images, so if the photos are edited, existing photos of fairies are needed.
i notice no one has addressed that. i guess you realize you can't defend your point.

so the photos I posted are real too since they couldn't have been faked. There really was a huge human eyeball on a wall and the other guy existed in two places at one time. Probably due to some aetheric effect but anyway.

those photos are completely different, and would be far beyond the abilities of children, who you are saying would have that skill, in any case.

the fifth photo, you can clearly see a face and body, and the same fairies as the previous images. if you look at earlier photos, you also have fairies suspended in midair, so they clearly aren't just drawings, and they are children, and this was ages ago, they would not have photoshop like you are proposing.
plus even if the images are edited, that takes an existing model or photo, which only works if you say fairies exist. either way, you've made my point clear.

i stated my mind clearly, i think. reread my post and go back and next time please don't show your illiteracy.

no, i'm not acting like a jrowe, no.

The most convicing photograpic evidence for faries that I have found is the following:

This picture seems genuine to me. The blur effects are hard to replicate in photo editing software.

LOL... so the picture "seems" genuine to you Vauxhall?  Well, for once you're correct.  Well done!  10/10.

Except your interpretation of the subject is woefully erroneous.  They're not fairies (obviously!) but rather Chironomidae, (or non-biting midges) often seen in swarms in UK gardens.


This is another (independently captured) image of the same insects:



Professor John Hyatt insists his photos are genuine and haven’t been altered in any way. (And which I accept)  In fact, he’s not even calling them fairies, that is something other people have been saying after he posted his images to social media.

ausGeoff, if Hyatt simply took photos of Chironomidae, then why do the Chironomidae in his picture have legs and feet? Hell, in a few of the pictures you can even see the faces of the fairies.


This is what Chironomidae look like, in case you didn't know.

Are you saying that this insect doesn't have legs?

Also, Pareidolia, look it up.

Are you saying that this insect doesn't have legs?

Also, Pareidolia, look it up.

I'm saying that insects don't have legs, arms, and a face. Also, Chironomidae do not glow. Only faries glow due to their natural bioluminescence.

Why is it so ridiculous for you to believe that fairies exist? They are simply a product of natural evolution. They're just small-ish (their sizes vary) humans with wings. The fact that they can turn invisible at will is the only reason you haven't seen them yourself. And it's not invisibility, like magical cloak or anything, it's simply active camouflage that evolved naturally to protect them from predators.

Quote from: BJ1234 on March 27, 2015, 10:11:54 AM

Are you saying that this insect doesn't have legs?

Also, Pareidolia, look it up.

I'm saying that insects don't have legs, arms, and a face. Also, Chironomidae do not glow. Only faries glow due to their natural bioluminescence.

Why is it so ridiculous for you to believe that fairies exist? They are simply a product of natural evolution. They're just small-ish (their sizes vary) humans with wings. The fact that they can turn invisible at will is the only reason you haven't seen them yourself. And it's not invisibility, like magical cloak or anything, it's simply active camouflage that evolved naturally to protect them from predators.

So lack of evidence is evidence of existence now?
Also, you do realize that, depending on the camera settings, and the lighting in the area, it could seem that insects that don't glow do glow?

Also did you look up Pareidolia yet?

Also did you look up Pareidolia yet?

I already know what pareidolia is, and this is not that. Those are clearly faeries.  I believe you're seeing insects because of a pre-existing bias. You are experiencing pareidolia here, not me. You're the one who sees insects in everything.

so the photos I posted are real too since they couldn't have been faked. There really was a huge human eyeball on a wall and the other guy existed in two places at one time. Probably due to some aetheric effect but anyway.

they are children, and this was ages ago, they would not have photoshop like you are proposing.
plus even if the images are edited, that takes an existing model or photo, which only works if you say fairies exist

i notice none of you have given a method. how can you be sure those photos are faked if you can't even give a believable method? remember, your method must be a) available and simple enough for children to do, b) able to produce fairies in flight, c) not reliant on an existing image of fairies, if you even want to make a start at disproving what was shown.

Kids can cut pictures out of paper. Not hard at all.