The Pixies of Erwin Saunders

[papageorge1]

What Are Pixies?

Pixies are wee, magical creatures who throw merry parties and shower blessings across the English countryside, especially in Devon and Cornwall. They are beloved for their childlike appearance and bubbly spirits, even though they do play the occasional prank on travelers.

 

Well today I found this guy Erwin Saunders on YouTube that sees pixies and has on occasion captured them on video. I have heard multiple reports of real normal people describing encounters but not much in the way of photo/video evidence of course.

My opinion before running into this chap is that many types of 'etheric' beings exist in old nature places but are not full time residents of our normal physical plane (and hence can't caught and put into a cage). 

Now when I see these things I think they are so humorous and childlike that they can not be real and must be computer images. However, another side of me is not so sure this guy is a hoax the more and more I watched and listened to this Erwin Saunders guy. 

Papameter 2.0 Reading

50% Real   50% Hoax

Confidence Level: Very Low

Here's the first one I watched. There's a Pixie at the very beginning so you don't have to waste time.

 

Edited July 4, 2020 by papageorge1

[onlookerofmayhem]

CGI

[papageorge1]

Just now, onlookerofmayhem said:

CGI

How was that determined?

[jethrofloyd]

The only real Pixies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixies_(band)

[XenoFish]

I AM GROOT!

[XenoFish]

40 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

CGI

Yep. I guess discount Dumbledore needs a few hits.

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

How was that determined?

A quick look through his other videos and still frames of the supposed fairies.

They are obviously computer generated. 

 

[papageorge1]

5 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

They are obviously computer generated. 

As I said in the OP:

Now when I see these things I think they are so humorous and childlike that they can not be real and must be computer images. However, another side of me is not so sure this guy is a hoax the more and more I watched and listened to this Erwin Saunders guy. 

 

Between reality and imagination???

 

 

Edited July 4, 2020 by papageorge1

[XenoFish]

7 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Now when I see these things I think they are so humorous and childlike that they can not be real and must be computer images.

So you've wasted forum space on an obviously fake video. Good job champ.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

So you've wasted forum space on an obviously fake video. Good job champ.

So prove them fake champ

[onlookerofmayhem]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Now when I see these things I think they are so humorous and childlike that they can not be real and must be computer images. However, another side of me is not so sure this guy is a hoax the more and more I watched and listened to this Erwin Saunders guy. 

So instead of looking at the obviously computer generated images, you are basing your likelihood of these being real creatures on how well the human acts?

The sincerity and realism of Mr. Saunders is the fulcrum of your observation that he must not be lying? That these could be real creatures because he seems honest?

That's a terribly gullible way to assess the truth of something.

As far as CGI has come, it is nowhere near perfect.

The "pixies" are CGI and not even really that good.

[papageorge1]

Just now, onlookerofmayhem said:

So instead of looking at the obviously computer generated images, you are basing your likelihood of these being real creatures on how well the human acts?

The sincerity and realism of Mr. Saunders is the fulcrum of your observation that he must not be lying? That these could be real creatures because he seems honest?

That's a terribly gullible way to assess the truth of something.

As far as CGI has come, it is nowhere near perfect.

The "pixies" are CGI and not even really that good.

So you have nothing to settle the issue in the Saunders' case. I gave your theory a good 50% chance.

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

So you have nothing to settle the issue in the Saunders' case. I gave your theory a good 50% chance.

Wtf does that mean? You gave hoax a 50% chance. So what? I couldn't care less about your useless meter.

The only way to wholly settle the issue in my favor would be to get whoever made the video to admit fraud.

The only way for it to be settled in your favor would be for one of these creatures to be captured and studied. Your caveat that you already believe in creatures that transcend the natural world and cannot be captured and/or studied is a moot point here. These creatures are shown to physically interact with the guy and live in the real world. They have loin clothes and bow and arrows. They are not spectres or mist. 

So nothing can ever be settled with you. You can just claim they live in another realm of a different frequency and vibration than we do.

I don't care what percentage you pulled out of your ass.

The visual evidence clearly shows CGI pixies.

That's my opinion. That is all there is to it.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Wtf does that mean? You gave hoax a 50% chance. So what? I couldn't care less about your useless meter.

The only way to wholly settle the issue in my favor would be to get whoever made the video to admit fraud.

The only way for it to be settled in your favor would be for one of these creatures to be captured and studied. Your caveat that you already believe in creatures that transcend the natural world and cannot be captured and/or studied is a moot point here. These creatures are shown to physically interact with the guy and live in the real world. They have loin clothes and bow and arrows. They are not spectres or mist. 

So nothing can ever be settled with you. You can just claim they live in another realm of a different frequency and vibration than we do.

I don't care what percentage you pulled out of your ass.

The visual evidence clearly shows CGI pixies.

That's my opinion. That is all there is to it.

I'm positive reality is more than we think we know. Some people gesticulate in anger when they need just black and white thinking. The etheric realm may be a real betweener.

I hear your opinion. Mine is in the Papameter Reading given.

You can have your opinon

[XenoFish]

42 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

So prove them fake champ

Let me make this simple. You are the one presenting this, prove it's real first and yes it is obviously CGI.  You'd have to be low IQ to not realize it.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Let me make this simple. You are the one presenting this, prove it's real first and yes it is obviously CGI.  You'd have to be low IQ to not realize it.

I have no proof either way at this time nor does anyone else here. That's about the definition of a good 'Unexplained Mysteries' topic.

I am not arguing this is real but lower IQ types don't get it and interpret it that way.

[XenoFish]

22 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I have no proof either way at this time nor does anyone else here. That's about the definition of a good 'Unexplained Mysteries' topic.

I am not arguing this is real but lower IQ types don't get it and interpret it that way.

Guess you willfully ignored post #7 in this thread. Not surprised really. 

[quiXilver]

ya'll be talkin' bout it... it's at least that real.

[Vorg]

If Pixies or Fairies are real, then they are as elusive as Bigfoot, Werewolves, Vampires, etc.. The videos he has produced are well done, and entertaining, but inconclusive. A real Pixie in a jar is proof. Not a picture or video.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, South Alabam said:

If Pixies or Fairies are real, then they are as elusive as Bigfoot, Werewolves, Vampires, etc.. The videos he has produced are well done, and entertaining, but inconclusive. A real Pixie in a jar is proof. Not a picture or video.

I hold these things are likely inter-dimensional meaning they leave and enter our physical plane of reality. You can’t keep one in a box.

Challenging concepts with those ghosts, pixies and the like. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by papageorge1

[papageorge1]

I've been going through more of his YouTube videos trying to determine real or hoax. And it has caused me slightly to go higher towards 'real'. He goes entire videos with no captures but finds little footprints to small to see on camera even with his cruder apparatus. 

If he is using CGI (which is still a possibility of course) he uses it very sparingly and spends a lot of effort for little gain. In one he tells of getting shot in the neck by a little arrow and he does show the arrow. You are led to believe there must have been some poison on the arrow as he starts getting distorted perception soon after.

For your entertainment here is one more video with a couple second clear capture (start at the 6:00 point). Now these captures all in all account for a tiny fraction of one percent of all his videoing time.

What to make of all this. In post #1 the Papameter went 50/50 between real and hoax. Now I'll go 52/48 in favor of real. It's just a strange universe as I have read other unrelated little people stories too from serious folks that affects my overall judgment.

Edited July 5, 2020 by papageorge1

[jethrofloyd]

They are just the green men of Hollow Earth!

 

[papageorge1]

More ruminations. New Papameter 2.0 reading.

67% Real.  33% Hoax

Confidence Level: Low

 New factors causing increase.

if this is a CGI fraud Saunders obviously must know that. He would be investing way more of his life on this stuff than a sane person (opportunity for skeptic humor) would for such an obscure hoax.
 

Another thought on incredulity towards such corny hilarious looking things existing. That concern reduces when I watch my nature shows and see what some strange ocean creatures or insects really look especially after small ones are magnified. And they are physically real for sure.

Also I’ll repeat the serious collection of claims by regular people of ‘little’ people and other names.
 
Etheric creatures are a mind poof!

Edited July 5, 2020 by papageorge1

[Timothy]

@papageorge1, it is obvious CGI, how do you watch the videos?

It’s reasonably well done, lighting levels/direction look good matching the shot. The easy to spot giveaway is the janky movement and the physics just look a bit off. 

Also he’s only posted 17 videos over a 22 month period, and his last was posted 10 July 2019. That’s not much of someone’s life Papa, there are literally thousands of content creators on YouTube who spend much more time and effort on whatever they choose to do. 

His methods have obviously worked because he’s sucked you in. 

[papageorge1]

10 minutes ago, Timothy said:

@papageorge1, it is obvious CGI, how do you watch the videos?

It’s reasonably well done, lighting levels/direction look good matching the shot. The easy to spot giveaway is the janky movement and the physics just look a bit off. 

Also he’s only posted 17 videos over a 22 month period, and his last was posted 10 July 2019. That’s not much of someone’s life Papa, there are literally thousands of content creators on YouTube who spend much more time and effort on whatever they choose to do. 

His methods have obviously worked because he’s sucked you in. 

I’ve considered all those points. Perhaps I give more weight to other etheric little folk claims as an influencing factor. And other etheric observers. Also I saw Saunders described as an etherealogist in my searching but not much else. Every tidbit is considered. 
 

For now, I’m holding with the most recent Papameter 2.0 reading.  Remember Confidence Level was ‘Low’ meaning not much data available.