Apologies for consecutive postings here, but I'm on the underside of the planet and so am awake whilst many of you are sleeping, followed by the reverse. Have to post when opportunities present themselves in this part of the world.
OldTimeRadio wrote:
By the way, there's more to the Argentinian Little Man story. About six months later he/it showed up again. This time adults were still scared of it, but infants also. From the reports I've studied, you could tell when it was in the neighborhood, because aduts became nervous and agitated and all babies began shrieking their heads off.
But school-age children were NOT afraid of the little demon and they threw sticks and stones at it, forcing the creature back into a hole in the ground from which witnesses said it originated.
You just keep coming up with these tantalizing clues, OldTimeRadio
Ok -- it seems logical to suggest that the school-children saw the entity as being similar to themselves as far as size goes, which may explain their relative lack of fear.
Adults became nervous and agitated, as did babies. Presumably the babies could not/had not seen the creature. So they 'sensed' its presence and deemed it 'bad', or the creature had the ability to disturb the atmosphere and/or frighten the babies via some sort of telepathy ?
The adults? Possibly reacted in the same way as the babies, for the same reasons as suggested above? Although some of them would know about the creature's earlier appearances (and effects on other adults) and thus may have become sensitised to the creature's presence in the vicinity ?
Only one creature was witnessed, but was it actually only the physical (and seemingly lone) manifestation of what was actually a mass (several) such creatures, in the way of the jellyfish or piece of coral ?
The policemen (adults) attempted to apprehend the creature and it was more than a match both physically and mentally.
Children forced it to retreat !
Policemen recognised (visually and/or on psychic level) that this thing didn't jell with commonly agreed-upon reality -- thus providing the creature the advantage, as in: ' Ok, earth men, you have departed your reality base. Now you're in my territory; the ether ' (or whatever). . ?
Children were impervious to the creature's psychic armoury because they were not afraid of something their own size when they had numbers in their favour, and so their psychic (reality) shields retained their integrity ?
We might suppose the creature/s do not have physical reality; are supernatural; are able to impose upon our minds an image of themselves as seemingly physically real.
Yet the policeman interacted with it on some level of physical reality, because it threw him into a tree -- or 'beamed him' up into a tree.
And 3D rocks and sticks hurled at the creature by the children forced it to retreat or appear to retreat; same thing.
I cannot work this out.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, a blogger speculated recently that the Van Allen belts are breaking up (claimed magnetic pole reversal) and failing to protect us from hostile visitations by 'things'. He also stated as fact that the Van Allen belts have always offered reduced protection to areas of South America, due to the fact they (belts) dip extremely low there. Coincidentally, alien visitations in South America are (and have been) reported as being quite often hostile and/or fatal in comparison with those in other parts of the world. Speculation was: will the rest of the world now become subject to similarly hostile attacks .... and ... have the 'things'
always had hostile intentions which have previously been thwarted by the previously adequately protective but now deteriorating Van Allen belts ?
But .... people
IN the rest-of-the-world have since the dawn of time warned against
little people anyway. Is it possible the little people come 'up' (from earth's interior) rather than needing to come 'down' through weakened Van Allen belts ?
For some reason however, in relatively recent times (since the Cottingly Fairies mystery/debacle/fraud/no-genuine)
little people -- portrayed as Disney-type Tinkerbells -- have become regarded as sweet, winsome, postive, benevolent creatures and now flutter on millions of nursery walls, stickers, magazines, tatoos, ornaments, paintings etc. Hundreds, possibly thousands of websites are devoted to fairies. Their devotees describe them as guardian-angels, nature spirits, etc. They claim to see them and have conversations with them; claim to have been warned and saved by them from disaster, claim to see them flitting in water-fall mist and over ponds. They are supposed to speak in voices that sound like heavenly choirs. (Those I heard sounded like proverbial fish-wives).
Even the gnome-type little people are often described as simply mischievous, hard working, earthy 'good' things and legend has it they will milk your cows and clean your hearth, as long as you don't make the mistake of offering or providing them any form of reward for their labours, apart from leaving a little milk for them, etc.. Now that's always struck me as odd. Offering a gift or reward is a 'nice' thing to do, a fair thing, a generous do-unto-others thing; it's one of the better human traits. Yet the little people apparently do not wish evidence of better human traits; they train humans to 'take but not give'.
When I was searching for anything that might throw some light on my own
little people experience, I bought a book by Jenny Randles because whilst skimming its pages, I'd noted that Randles claimed that 7% of all UFO-aliens were described (by witnesses or claimed abductees) as 'gnome-like'. Seven out of every hundred claimed-witnesses believed they'd seen gnomes ! No way of knowing if they were reporting alien-encounters at all, of course. They could have had nowhere else to slot their experience and so attributed their experience to UFO-aliens.
But then the Scottish minister who's name escapes me at the moment wrote lengthy accounts of his own experiences with creatures he believed to be gnome/faery and they are credited with killing him, followed by his claimed spectral appearance afterwards in which he instructed in a method which would ensure his release. Unfortunately, according to reports, his release was botched.
The area in which I was born contains (I've recently learned) within its relatively recent folk-lore, accounts of 'boggarts' which periodically appeared and which are blamed for the death (and skinning) of incautious victims. And some people feel: ' Oh well, folk-lore -- it's just the nonsense indulged in by the ignorant.'. Just as people fifty or two hundred years from now may look back at our beliefs and smile and roll their eyes.
The area in which I was born is not for the faint hearted though; the practical survived, the tough ones, the lucky, the cunning or smart. The land is poor, the weather is dreadful, most never had two pence to rub together, infant mortality was high, there were wars all over the place. These would be the sort of people who would probably have good reason to bite a coin to test its measure, before they'd accept it. Ignorant about much, no doubt, but stupid, no -- and with no time or energy to invest in 'quaint folk lore'. If the legend of a boggart lasted more than five minutes, it must have had some substance or it would have vanished in a trace, overtaken by more pressing concerns such as getting sufficient fuel to cook a meal, after they'd found something vaguely edible.
I've never heard Scotland or Ireland described as drowning in milk, honey and perpetual sunshine and ease either, yet they claimed awareness of and experience with malevolent little people. I have a book somewhere, written by a titled woman and containing numerous, allegedly genuine accounts pertaining to the little people, mostly in Ireland, where people took great care not to draw the
little people's ire. It seems to me the Scots and Irish had enough to contend with, without
inventing improbable tiny creatures to add to their woes. These days we have film and photographs to prove the conflict in Ireland as real, otherwise people in a few hundred year might claim it as 'folk-lore'.
But are the little people 'real' as we consider ourselves to be real, or are they other-dimensional and able to project their image onto the screens of our minds? Are they distinct from extraterrestrial aliens or are they -- in common with aliens and other supposedly paranormal phenomena -- simply flotsam eddying in the universal unconscious? Why do some see them and not others? Why would policemen, members of the military, ordinary adult citizens and children -- all within the same locality -- believe they saw a hostile little person? Had people within the same locality reported seeing a little person before, say fifty or a hundred years previously? Could this mean that certain locations are susceptible to invasion by other worldly creatures? Or should we accept they have always been here and possibly have sound reason for disliking us?
Anyway, have almost made it into Northern Hemisphere time zone, it's so late here :-(