More people need to be educated. There are no faires. There is no way to prove santa false, so whats your point.

so, Hippies are imaginary too??

It is true that new things are being discovered every day, and this is the thing that I love about science. It is imperfect but always advancing towards perfection. However, please do not confuse imperfection with worthlessness. Scientific models are based on observations of the universe. These observations have, over many centuries, gradually refined our grasp of the world around us. What we have learned so far tells us that fairies cannot exist. This is not a conclusion that has been attained lightly and neither should it be dismissed lightly.

If you are demanding that science disprove the existence of fairies then you are placing an unfair burden upon it. It is extremely hard to prove a negative (ie, "fairies don't exist"). To do so, scientists would have to comb every square inch of this planet. This is, to say the least, impractical.

If we accept that something exists until it is disproven, then we must fully accept the existance of Santa Claus, chimerae, basilisks, manticores, genies, and all other mythical beasts. If fact, there are far more sightings of Santa Claus each year than of fairies, so if anything, he is the more likely to exist.

-Pilgrim

Thankyou.

Well,you never know

I'd say fairies and Santa Clause are working together!

I have enjoyed reading all of the good arguments. A few of my thoughts:

In photographing, I was expecting orbs, or hopefully spirit figures. I could see nothing with my naked eye at the time. Much like xrays, I am not saying that we "see" these fairies and other entities in a solid form in the usual manner (some do of course, but not me). I also do not know how interdimensionality works for sure. What I feel I do know, is that the camera is capturing something that exists in some capacity that I could not otherwise see, in the same way a radio captures waves that I cannot hear with my ears alone and turns them into recognizable input.

In analyzing my photographs, I saw the first fairy, which I saw very suddenly and clearly. After my amazement I actually got reasonably emotional at the realization that something I had not expected, believed in, or hoped for had appeared.

If you do not like the idea of the existence of fairies and other beings, and you don't want them to be true, then continue in your belief that they do not exist except in imagination. Please don't let other's hopefulness and willingness to accept a larger range of possibilities antagonize you. And people that believe or want to believe, hold tight to your openmindedness because it is challenging in the midst of great skepticism and anger. It is hard for me at times, too.

I have no problem with fair criticism, and some of the critics on this forum are fair. Whatever your beliefs, you are justified. Hopefully we can treat with respect that there is a diverse range of convictions and thoughts amongst us, because (I feel that) this diversity is what makes humans so successful.

Well said. Nice start in here Welcome to UM.

If one isists on believing in fairies after this well structured proclomation, it is obvious one is fooling ones self. To what end I cannot imagine.
How many in this thread accept the theory of Pareidolia as a fair explaination for these photgraphs?

I am sorry if this is seen as smashing ones dream, that is not the view I take. I figure if we find and expose the real truth about as many phenomena as we can, we are all a bit smarter about our environment and a little better off. I would think the hit from 'smashing' a dream would be a lot harder after years of believeing in something that just does not and can not exist. Could save a great deal of ridicule and a fair chunk of self esteem. It is not a bad thing to accept reality.

i believe in faires,gnomes,etc...but its just that these fairies seem "cartoon-ish" they dont look realistic.....but alisa im with u on this....go find the freakin fairies!!! they are out there...but not the way u think they look...and also try to get a digital camara with the highest megapixel u can afford so u can have pics in high def so they can be seen clearly! then that would prove once and for all if they are real....hopefully!

Pareidolia (according to wordspy.com) is the erroneous or fanciful perception of a pattern or meaning in something that is actually ambiguous or random. Pareidolia is definitely a noted phenomenon yes.gif , but just because we have identified and labelled this tendency does not mean we know the cause no.gif . The reason people experience pareidolia remains a mystery, and therefore, is only subject to theory.

Carl Sagan suggested in his book The Demon Haunted World that the purpose for face recognition likely evolved for parent/child bonding purposes. And while pareidolia may indeed be useful in bonding, it is not proven that this is why we see faces from infancy. It is up to each of us to decide for ourselves whether we believe that people see faces in patterns and photos due to some instinctual bodily reaction to stimulus, or whether it is our innate ability to perceive the many layers of reality that exist and teem with life.

My theory is that we are surrounded by layers and layers of life forms that visibly border our reality through physical patterns. I believe that seeing spirits in photos is a form of interaction with the spirit world and a skill that can be gained and strengthened by searching photos--practice.

Psyche101, thanks for your comments. I can see why you believe as you do.

I have tried to see it from the skeptic's point of view and understand their motivation. I was a skeptic, too, so I have some insight. I think concern of "ridicule and self esteem" is the issue. We are all, for the most part, sensitive, caring people. We want others to like us, agree with us, and find us clever--to be loveable. I am no exception. We fear that if we believe something and it ends up not seeming true, others will think we are foolish, stupid, and gullible. This is in direct conflict with our need to be respected and accepted. It is as if we have unrealistic expectations for ourselves that we must be perfect, knowing and doing everything right the first time. Learning is about trying many things and knowing that there will be mistakes. There is no shame in trying and failing. This is learning.

As I age I find that ultimately true self esteem must be internally generated. If it is reliant upon other's opinions of you and your thoughts, you live your life being true to popular opinion, but not to your own self. Again, I speak from having experienced this myself

If you never believe in fairies, orbs, werewolves, other dimensions, string theory, quantam physics, Santa Claus, good will, or whatever, it is not important in comparison to learning self-nurturing and self-acceptance. Fear of ridicule, being unpopular, or unloveable is a very understandable fear, but one we must overcome (in my opinion) in order to progress and find our own truth. Popular opinion is no gauge of truth.

A little poem "came" to me one day that I think sums up the fear of believing...

Keep your mind open wide
For all good things to come inside
Shame belongs not to believers
It belongs to the deceivers

This is true to an extent. However, all theories are not equal. The accepted scientific theory is that people see shapes in nonsense because most of our vision is centered in the brain. The mind fills in much of the details, thus giving us quicker recognition of shapes. This has been borne out in lab studies, where it has been shown that people can accurately identify shapes with minimal points of refrence. This explanation works, is supported by observed data, and does not require parallel universes, alternate dimensions, or anything of the like, which under current scientific understanding are not neccessary to a smoothly functioning universe. Thus, this explanation is preferred. For another explanation to be considered equally good it would also have to bear out the observations without resorting to uneccessary variables. If it does not support the data, or requires additional assumptions beyond what is known to science, then it is not equally useful.



An interesting hypothesis. However, before this will be considered by science, some evidence must be provided. If no evidence can be provided, then you will of course forgive those of us who choose not to believe on faith alone.

This concept also violates Occam's Razor, which states that one should not multiply variables needlessly. Since this hypothesis introduces numerous uneccessary variables (starting with the existance of fairies), the burden of proof is much higher. Not only must one prove that pareidolia is a form of advanced perception, but also that fairies and other such spirits exist and that they exist upon some higher plane of reality. Such evidence would be very hard to come by.

-Pilgrim

The reason may be a mystery, but the casue and effect is not. It is a trick of the mind, like Deja-vu. Simple common sense tells us that it is a great deal more likely that Pareidolia is a human survival instinct than a portal to another dimension with fairies in it, wouldn't you agree?



Hrrmmzzz. That is a dead set wild and out there theory. Did you come to this theory simply from the photographs you take, or do you have something else, not to be rude, but more plausible to confirm this theory? It is very bad practise to attempt to claim a theory as reality with little or no proof. This leads to ridicule. Should such a dimension exist, claiming it does without proof will make it more likely that such a wonder would never be discoverd.



And I too wish to return the thanks for being able to discuss this at a civil level. Most 'believers' get irate or make outrageous claims when debating such claims. Your civil attitude has been very refreshing
Concern of ridicule and self esteem is a geat concern. Kids today have too many dubious rescources to turn to when they are confused and stuggling. Teen years are very tumultuous, unfortunately, the average teen knows it all already and it's all different from when you grew up.
That's right. It's worse.
Discussing such fanciful ideals at such a time in ones life gives hope that almost anything is possible and the world is a wonderous place. There are many shysters who not only know this, but prey on it. Any internally generated self esteem is destroyed when one finds there lifes beliefs are a crock and they fell for it. Leves one felling very stupid and worthless when such reality slams home. Makes it easy to be taken advantage of one at this point. This is where my concern creeps in.
I also feel that by duping ourselves into believing such unlikely phenomena, we are tearing apart the delicate fabric of our society by creating further debate, and turing our backs on our future for our own entertainment.
I agree. There is no shame at all in trying and failing. My apprentices all get the line
If you stuff up, better to come forward and look stupid, rather than try to cover your mistake and look a complete idiot later.
Every apprentice I have ever had has responded very well to this small piece of advice. Mistakes are a part of life and growing up. We need to learn from them. We do not if we do not heed the mistakes we make, and have the foritude to stand up and say we stuffed up, nothing has been gained or learned and the entire experince a waste of time effort and space.
My life experience has taught me that no such thing as Fairies, orbs, werewolves, other dimensions, string theory, quantam physics, Santa Claus actually exist, I do know these things cannot be proven true and it is very unlikely I will ever believe in them.
Quantum Physics heh. Wish I could get into that. Theory a day.......
I agree that popular opinion is no gauge of truth, most definitly. Hard cold facts is all I am ready to accept.
It is not ridicule I fear, it is leading people to believe in something that only exists in ones perception - that I fear and advocating such a thing. I think it is selfish to try to convince others of a very unlikely phenomena with no absolute proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Repeating mistakes. That I also fear.
Keeping an open mind is a great thing. Keeping ones feet on the ground and looking where you are going is also just as important.
Good will is something I believe in. Religious people who devote thier entire existance to helping others who are less fortunate is what gives me hope for the human race.

I have spent several years formally studying psychology and I am aware of the scientific theories for vision, though thank you for the eloquent summary of the Gestalt theory. I agree that there are physiological theories for explaining how we see. It is all theoretical, but a good basis for taking as a truth so we have a seemingly stable position for study. My point was that the "why" is completely subjective. And I choose to believe that the reason why we see things is because they are in someway "there". The fact that people can travel into space may have seemed unuseful at some point in the past to some people. Thank goodness not everyone thought this way.




I completely forgive anyone not wishing to see the world from my point of view. And I thank them for respecting our differences. Science is such a wide term that encompasses areas that do study the concept of multiple dimensions and other realities.



Who decides which variables are needless? My theory did not begin with fairies. Fairies showed up. I am not aiming to prove or to please Occam, I just want to reach out to others with my thoughts and theories in hopes that I might enlighten some that want it, and connect with those that encompass my viewpoint. But I respect your ideas, thoughts and beliefs. You have excellent grammar, logic, and knowledge of science.

Have to agree, Pilgrim_Shadow is certainly an eloquent poster. Looks to be quite an assett to UM

I am interested to know what your view is Alisa. You obviously believe wholeheartedly, I am very interested to know what has you so convinced, You sound quite intelligent and obviously would have considered Pareidolia yourself. How could you discount this theory so quickly to accept such a wild theory? What do you base such conviction on? Is there more to the story?

i dunno about anyone else, but doesnt the fairy in this picture look something similar to some japanimation type character? something like...

or along those lines at least? i mean, look at the 'eyes' and the head and hair and such....

When I say that your hypothesis is not equally useful, I mean that it is not equally useful as a means of explaining the natural world, not that it has fewer practical applications. The idea that pattern recognition evolved because patterns are spirited away everywhere we look is far more elaborate than the theory that it was a simple survival mechanism. Indeed, I am hard pressed to see how such a form of perception as you have suggested could have evolved, as there is no clear advantage in being able to see images that do not exist on the same physical plane of existance.



Indeed it does, however, in all fairness, I am unaware of any scientific research which supports your hypothesis, in any field. Current quantum theory suggests higher dimensions exist interwoven within our own at a quantum level, not existing parallel to ours.



A variable is uneccessary if another theory can explain the data without it. For instance, suppose I were to say that lightning strikes because Zeus throws lightning bolts from the heavens. This isn't contradicted by the observed data. However, lightning can be explained through wholly naturalistic means, without resorting to Greek gods. My theory violates Occam's Razor and should be discarded.

In your theory, the existance of extra-dimensional beings is an unneccessary variable because I can explain pattern recognition equally well without them. Unless you can prove that these entities are real, and that a theory of the development of pattern recognition must account for their presence, then the prevailing theory should be the naturalistic one, simply because it is the simplest one.

Perhaps one day it will be shown that fairies do exist and theories about pattern recognition will be required to account for their presence. It is a charming and interesting idea. However, the scientific method demands proof before we adopt a new explanitory model.

-Pilgrim

True All theories have been hypothesized and tested...Either undoubtedly proving them or not being able to prove them false. You have no way to test whether fairies are real...


I am also unaware of any...

how would a person test to see fairies exist, I believe that fairies exist only in Anime, and kids books, they aren't real

And the same goes for mermaids...

don't talk about that here OKAY, we need to stay on topic, proving fairies don't exist

Fine....

Hrrmzz, to test for existance, I imagine you would need something solid (No pun intended) to go on - habitats where such a supposed creature might exist. In such a case, someone would have to claim they know where they are and how to find them. (I would imagine the person making the claim that the phenomena exists would be the one).
If the creature indeed exists, it should be pretty easy to classify and document from there. Go to the habitat and record all you can That oughta do it

In this case, where it is supposed that the fairies come form another dimension, there is no way of proving the creatures untill the dimension is proven to exist.
To me, this is clearly Pareidolia. Not a hoax. People keep seing animie characters in the Fairies, strongly further (in my mind) confirming that conclusion.

Pilgrim, you certainly know your science! I am very impressed with all that you said and I felt it was quite fair and eloquent.

It is an age-old discussion science vs. spiritualism. I believe that spirit cannot be physically measured because it is not of the physical realm. I further believe that beings with greater knowledge and wisdom are behind the scenes "running the show" and they will decide what will be revealed and when. And no, I cannot prove any of this. And quite truly, I have no desire to intricately argue the existence of the spiritual, but if I did, you'd be my most formidable debator.

There are institutes that experiment with and investigate astral projection, other dimensions, realms, and entities. You might argue they are not a part of mainstream science, I don't know. I also don't know if they study or have found fairies. It is kind of funny to me because now that I see the fairies in my photos and have had a sliver of remembered contact with them, I just don't spend time looking for proof, I spend time looking for more contact or anyone else who knows about fairies (etc.) that I can learn from or just hear their experience and feel in good company. I used to be a science-girl, but as I began realizing that I had a strong internal truth finder, and that science only covered part of reality, I just wasn't interested in science any more. Not to say that it isn't valid and necessary. It is and I am grateful for those who maintain this study. But my little spot of responsibility in the big scheme of things seems to be nestled elsewhere. I love the spirit world. Finding it has increased my happiness, self-love, and peace exponentially.

And Psyche101, I truly appreciate all of your comments, too. I liked reading about your thoughts and how you deal with your apprentices. Also, I hope what I wrote above gives you some insight into why I think like I do. Here's a bit more...

While I was studying psychology here in Australia, my mom came for a visit and told me that her mother's spirit had once visited her. I was utterly stunned. If I believed anyone in the world, it was my mom. I became intrigued with what happens after we die so I decided to get every book I could get my hands on, began meditating and trying whatever I read about. There is nothing like personal experience, and I knew I needed it in order to believe it myself. So with that intention, I made it my goal to find out as much as I could. I opened my mind a bit at a time and I put my ego on the back burner. And I found out a lot, yet it is only the tip of the iceberg.

Now I am trying to poke around and share what I have found with others that are interested. Whilst I still explore, of course.

lol...i find it funny that this topic is already 9 pages long and it stemmed from a few pictures....

Thank you. Refreshing when two people that hold completly different views on the same subject can have an intelligent and interesting conversation without resorting to insulting debates

Mum's rock, what can I say. I am the same, I would always give Mum the benefit of the doubt. My Father is one who claim to have seen the spirit of Mother Teresa. He has some very interesting stories from WWII as well concerning unusual phenomena. (We Aussies say Mum not mom - what's going on here?)
Personally, I would have to witness the event myself to place any belief in it. I have seen quite some strange things in my life, however, this has made me more 'skeptical' than "Open Minded" though.
I remember first reading of the Cottingly Fairies with hope and amazement as a teenager 25 years ago. The pictures seemed even more convincing then (Before Photoshop). Still, they didn't seem 100% right. I followed the story till I read the deathbed confession. I thought what a B&tch. Lie to the whole world your whole life and then come clean cause your time on this world is short and you feel you need redemption. Bloody charlatan. One of the things that has made me more skeptical hrrmzz, perhaps even somewhat cynical?

Doesn't the brain have to be a certain size before it is capable of structured thought processes? Needs a certain mass to contain enough chemicals or elements to allow function? I am not 100% sure on this, perhaps Pilgrim_Shadow can help me out here

Psyche101, I still say "Mom" as I am original from the U.S. (married an Aussie 10 years ago). I do half and half with lingo all the time.

And are you referring to brain size because if a fairy is so small its brain is small and possible too small to think? As far as I know, there is a relationship between the size of the brain and the size of the body for relative intelligence. Parrots are very smart and their brains are not very large, but they are large in proportion to their body. As for fairies, they are small in my pictures, but they are also not purely from this physical realm so I still don't feel physical study or measurements would apply anyway.

As for the Cottingley fairies, I too felt very disappointed, but my disappointment came from the photos looking like cutouts. Here is an earlier post of mine:







And you know, just because an article or story said that one or more girl recanted her original story does not mean that she really did. And if any of them really did, it doesn't mean that after being told they are crazy for so long they just got sick of it. Or they began to doubt their own story.

Another post of mine:



If one negative article is written, or one girl chooses to retract her story, then this becomes a foundation for it to be disbelieved far into the future.

Here is a paragraph from a story I have seen on many sites:



There are soooo many different versions of who said what and when. A major point for me is the fact that they still maintained they had seen fairies for real. Perhaps they felt that if people could not accept the photos, that was fine. But it is interesting to me that most stories contain a thread that some or all of the girls maintained they did see and interact with fairies.

Personally, I believe the photos were way over-touched-up and it made them look fake. I believe the fairies were transparent-like and this influenced the desire to touch them up in the first place. I believe Arthur Conan-Doyle was a very intelligent man and would not have taken up the cause of fairies lightly. I also believe the girls were manipulated from many directions so it is difficult to know whether they recanted (if they did) because they were coerced, tired of persecution, or because it was all a hoax. But I don't think it was a hoax.

You flatter me. I only hope to present the most logical argument possible.

If you choose to hold to a belief which cannot be measured or tested within the bounds of human knowledge, then by all means, that is your decision and science cannot say whether it is a good one or not. However, if that is the case, then let us be clear about what we are dealing with: this is religion. It must be accepted as dogma, not because there is good evidence for it, but because someone believes it to be so. It is most emphatically not science, has no hopes of ever becoming science, and the truth or falsity of the claim can neither be supported nor eroded by science.



Whether or not something is part of "mainstream" science is irrelevant. If something is true and scientists refuse to believe then evidence will emerge that will support it. However, and this is the truly important part, many people claim to be doing science when they are, in fact, not doing science, or doing very poor science. Research into psychic phenomina has been dogged by poor methodoligy, sloppy research, poor experimental controls, and the like. It is this, not the fact that they are studying a phenomina that is outside the "mainstream" of science, which has most severely hurt their reputation.

Sadly, the psychic researchers probably represent the best of a bad lot. Many people claim to be studying science when there is no scientific merit to their findings. The "ionic" bracelets advertised on late-night TV to improve your golf swing and sex life (and everything in between) could justly fall into this category. These claims are pseudoscience, and most skeptics hold a certain degree of animosity towards them, as they misrepresent themselves as science to garner respect and authority, either intentionally or otherwise.





Both of you are correct, though I'm afraid I cannot be of much more help, as neuroscience has never been one of my specialties. There is a lower limit to the size of a functioning, intelligent mind. Sadly, I do not recall what that lower limit is, so I cannot say if the fairies would be too small to be able to think. However, just to play devil's advocate, if we suppose fairies are real, then Alisa is right in saying that an extra-dimensional entity need not have the same brain structure as us, so it might be able to function at a smaller size. Indeed, existing upon higher dimensions would allow the fairies' brains to be larger than they appear to us. That said, I still hold that the evidence for such parallel dimensions is lacking.

As for intelligence being relative to brain and body size, that is the theory. It is believed that creatures with larger brains (monkeys) relative to the size of their bodies are smarter than creatures which have smaller relative brain size (crocodiles). This is how scientists calculate the relative intelligence of dinosaurs, for instance. However, it is unproveable. For one thing, there are many different kinds of intelligence. Neanderthals were not as good at logic and reason as we are, but they had far, far better memory. In comparing the two we are comparing apples to oranges. In addition, we can communicate somewhat with apes, and to some extent with dolphins, but most other animals are incapable of language. This makes it extremely hard to judge their intelligence. Is a dog smarter than a cat because the dog can be trained, or is the cat's intelligence unrelated to its independence? All we can say is that the relative brain sizes of animals we consider "smart" is consistently larger than those animals we consider "dumb."

-Pilgrim

If faeries exist, like they're supposed to, in an alternate dimension, then wouldn't it be kinda hard to prove they exist? Wouldn't we have to find a way into the other dimension before we could start proving anything? In most of the mythological accounts, the faeries coexisted with humans for a while, but then they made a "veil" to separate our world from theirs. Doesn't this suggest that they live in a different plane of existence?

I think I've heard an "Alien" theory before, too. . .They were really aliens that gave us all kinds of technology and stuff and finally got sick of the human race and their wars, so they left. . .hahaha. ..

Why should brain size matter anyways, because, like I said before, faeries are supposed to be HUMAN SIZED. The little winged person image came mainly from the Victorian Era. And they aren't supposed to exist on this plane, they exist in another one and can manifest in this one, or we can develop the "sight" to see through the "veil" into their world.

My two personalities are REALLY struggling here. There's the religious side of me that says they exist on another plane and you can see into it if you know the proper methods, which aren't that difficult. . .in fact, it's so easy, most people can't do it because they try to hard. . .then there's the scientific logical part of me that can't even begin to explain the complexities of separate dimensions. . .*sigh* I need to go post on a topic that doesn't get my personalities arguing. . .haha

Deja vu is NOT a trick of the mind. I believe it has something to do with our spirit guides letting us know that we are not alone.

I have enjoyed the latest comments immensely! Everyone has such diverse, yet valid view points! I have learned to consider reality as a seemingly endless bundle of viewpoints. If you think of a sphere, with people positioned in every point around it, looking at it, you would have an amazing amount of differing viewpoints, and yet each view point of the sphere would be accurate.



This is just the type of information I like to get. I like to know the anecdotal evidence passed down. While scientists see this as non-evidence, I put a lot of credence into what people say, particularly that which becomes legend. For example the ancient city of Troy that was thought to be myth has been found to have truly existed. I have enormous faith that truth prevails and that people on the whole are very sincere and reliable.

Anyway, I am glad I'm not alone in believing that fairies are interdimensional.

Pilgrim, I really enjoyed reading your comments. You are very logical and fair. I realize that what I project as being true (fairies, spirits, etc.) is based on my belief and viewpoint (like in the example I made of the sphere). I feel that along with science, every individual viewpoint is a fact, it may not be the whole picture, maybe not by a long shot, but it is a valid piece.

Quite multicultural down under aren't we . Don't know how we get so unpopular for the same thing



Not quite, I thought that a certain size was necessary to contain enough chemicals/atoms to actually funtion with stuctured thought processes as we experience it. (I can't really remember quite the theory, damn, will have to dig up som old textbooks on the weekend )
I would assume that another dimension would contain matter, as such, some sort of atomic structure should apply, meaning that there would be a minimum size to sentient life. If it is supposed that a different dimension has a different atomic stucture, or is not carbon based, somthing like that, we are only theorising, with nothing to base these theories on. Theories without basis are just stories or guesses.



I think it was a hoax, I don't believe for a second that there ever was a Cottingly Fairy. Media was in it's infancy during this womans lifetime. The story just didn't reach that many people, I believe if it had, they would have been exposed earlier. It is my firm belief that when the reporter from the Unexplained magazine spoke to her, she realised how long this had gone on, and that she was nearing the end of her life. The girls were religious, it is a great deal more likley that she sought redemption before meeting her maker, than it is that she took actual pictures of fairies, or met any.

Here are a couple of interesting points taken from An Epoch-Making Event





These explainations are very plausible. The site is a good read. I would have to see a fairy/gnome or something with my own eyes, and touch it, and talk to it before I could place any belief in such a thing seriously. Perhaps alternate dimensions do exist, I do not know, and do not know enough to even speculate. I just find it hard to belive that an alternate dimnension that touches ours would also contain cute little replicas of ourselves that are all very beautiful with pretty little colourful wings. Romantic idea but I really think the only history of such creatures lies in story books alone. It is just too convenient and sweet for a start. What dreams are made of.

The pictures we are viewing her are showing anomolies that are definitly not human sized.

Just interested what your religion is, never heard of one that promotes the existence of fairies.

Neuroscience is my specialty...If fairies had the same brain to body mass ratio as humans, they would be considerably less intelligent compared to us. They would have much less gray tissue, a smaller motor and sensory strip, and decreased olfactory lobes.

Was Hoping you might show up, remembered your medical background.

Thanks buddy

Pagan. Not all forms of paganism promote the existence of them, just certain types. I follow a Celtic path mixed with a bit of Native American shamanism. I'm an eclectic pagan. There are other types of paganism, such as Wicca and Druidry. There is a specific type of Wicca called Faery Wicca, I believe. I've already posted what I think of the pictures posted, and part of the reason I said what I did was what I've learned about faeries. I also added that smaller beings have been reported, but they aren't faeries in the correct sense. They are faeries in the generic sense. Almost any creature living on the other plane could be classified as a faerie. Gnomes, imps, nymphs, elementals, pixies, etc. . .but they are, in fact, not "faeries". Of course, some have argued that when using the generic term it should be spelled fairy, and when using the term to describe the actual being it should be spelled faerie or faery. Small winged creatures are usually called "pixies" or "piskies" Pixies are usually called "faeries" but incorrectly so. Of course, the term "faery" has become so generic, it's almost no use arguing about it, because I've even heard well-read high ranking Pagans misuse the term, and many agree that it's better just to stop arguing over the term.

Anyways, pixies are the ones that supposively live in gardens and wooded areas, they are tiny and have pointed ears and unproportionally large heads and wings. There are called by different names depending on the country. They are also said to be somewhat translucent. . .whereas the "true" faeries were human sized and usually appeared as solid as a human.

Other fairies also fit in with the little winged people term, but I can't recall what all of them are called. . .Devas are supposed to be smallish fairies that appear as bright balls of light. . .The Callicantzaroi is small enough to ride a chicken (they ride them instead of horses, supposively) and are skinny and nude, but no wings as far as I know. Brownies are also supposed to be smallish. . .Fays also fit into the small winged category, and quite possibly may be the source of confusion between faeries and other interdimensional beings. Pillywiggens are flower fairies, probably a type of pixie. Most of the small winged ones are different variations of pixies. . .Anyways, this post is long enough. . .I you ever need info on any of these creatures, I guess you know where to go. hahaha

^ Thanks for that

This really is a great place isn't it. So many things to learn. Paganism sounds intriguing. I will have to read up on it. Could you recommend any sources?

The whole internet. Haha, of course, you'll probably run into many sites saying it's devil worshipping. Pagans in general do not accept a single source of good or evil. There is no satan in our beliefs. Anyways, I recommend starting with Wicca. . .look up wicca on any search engine and you should come up with a few decent sites. After you get the basics of that, you can research different forms of paganism. It usually gets alot more intense and complex the deeper you go. Wicca is a generally "new" form of paganism, so it's a little easier to understand and relate to than the older pagan religions.

Sweetsalem, thanks for all of that information on the little beings! It was amazing to me because when I first recognized what I have called "fairies", I named the photos "pixies". I didn't know what they were and I didn't notice any wings. I did a bit of internet searching, but I didn't find the kind of information you just gave, or I probably would have called these pixies. Here is another pixie (shall I call them pixies instead of fairies?) with pointed ears. He is sitting with a spirit skink/lizard for some reason.



I realize this photo is quite subjective, believe it if you wish. I have enhanced the second photo adding the pixie/fairy's ear on the right side, sharpening him up a bit, too. I also added a faint outline to the baby lizard so he would show up better. The skink is original.

It's really amazing how hard it is to find info on fairies on the internet. That's why I rely mainly on books when it comes to that topic. . .I have alot on fairies in particular.

Hm. I see a goblinish looking figure, there in the second picture Alisa. Just above the supposed pixie/fairy, to the left a few pixels. The mouth is actually apart of the fairy's left ear. xD!

I see what you are talking about. Thanks for pointing it out.

This is really going to fuel Psyche101's current theory that everyone will see something different in my photos...

I agree with Psyche101's theory, actually.
I saw the snake-looking thing, and the fairy, but the lizard I couldn't find.
But, I suppose, that ghoulish little goblin made up for it. x)

Edit: Whoopsforgottoaddthis.

But, that pretty much goes for any photo you show someone. Personality defects (mm, it's a fun word, use it sometime) do that to people. Usually what you see in photos, depends on what you're like in the head. ;D

This is very right actually. The Rorschach inkblot test uses pareidolia attempting to gain insight into a person's mental state.

Anybody want to volunteer count the votes? We will have to determine bias first though

These look like photoshop edits..

it is a boxing glove glued to fern if you ask me, then again what do I know?

These pictures are pretty cool. I guess you see what you want to see but that pic of the fairy giving us the finger is hilarious.

All of them look like photoshops to me. I do a lot of work with digital photos etc and it looks like you put a filter on the leaves/tree one which makes things look different.

Sorry to be mean but THEY ARE FAKE

Well I believe in Faeries, whether or not Alisa's photos are fake or not. Ever see the documentary the "Fairy Faith". There are Faery legends all over the world, in many different cultures.
I had one follow me home from camping a couple of months ago. I think he/she returned my glasses that I had lost. When I found them there were in place so obvious I don't see how I could have missed them if they had been there all along. He did some other nice things for me too. That is when I starting thinking I had a Fay in the house. I put an offering of milk out for him and it was gone the next day, but then I own a cat. I think he has gone home now as nothing has been happen lately. He was a nice Fay, but they are not all nice. We have done much so damage to the Earth they resent us. I don't blame them.
I know your all thinking Darkwind has gone off the deep end, but it is no stranger than believing in angels.

Well, that is probably a bit mean and uncalled for.
I have seen originals, Alisa des not do fakes. These are what they are, I guarantee that, it is just my view that we see what we wish to see, or have been brought up to believe exists.

in a word (as Alisa will testify, one of my favs just kidding) my conclusion is Pareidolia . But not fakes. I counld not see Alisa deliberratly attempting to dupe anyone.

My wife believes in Fairies, she calls dragonflies faries though, so I say to her fair enough, and dead set, from even a short distance they look just the same as the do in the movies (Labyrinth type fairy). Surely something to do with the begining of the legend.