• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Do fairies exist?

  • Yes definitely

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 6 54.5%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Definitely not

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    11
Since I started reading FT I seem to have become prone to 'believing' in just about any strange phenomena.

Or at least I thought I had.

The Doorly woman is clearly as mad as a badger.
 
Originally posted by joester
The Doorly woman is clearly as mad as a badger.
Well said! That article was rubbish. FT must have been really stuck for good articles that issue. I like the normal 'detached yet open-minded' air of the magazine. Credulous nonsense belongs in the 'It happened to me!' section.
 
Non Fortean Fairies

I think that some of the articles that have appeared recently are missing something important. Like that one about a woman who glibly reports seeing little fairies on the isle of Aran in Scotland.

I mean ... what!?! If this is true it would be a sensation, but the article just doesn't seem to exude the kind of sensationalist excitement that one would expect from a report about such a staggering discovery.

Far more interesting would be a report that went into the claim in some detail. For example I would like to know how the article was vetted before it was found to be worthy of publication? Was the woman interviewed by FT staff? Did anybody speak to her partner? Was she even in Aran at the time? She was obviously a seasoned writer - what other articles has she written in the past?

What I mean is, if I for example, sent you an article in which I made similar claims, how would you distinguish between it and other articles of the type you sometimes print?

It would be interesting to hear comments on this article from at least two kinds of experts. What kind of psychological problem could lead a person to have this type of experience of let's say 'non consensual reality'? And on the other hand, what are the biological possibilities for the existence of a little race of miniture people? I mean, some people are titchy, so is it possible that an isolated population found it to their advantage in the past to become ever smaller and to breed their animals ever smaller? How small can a human be and still be able to function properly?

Then another kind of expert could speak about the type of evidence we would be likely to encounter in the world and in the fossil record if a race of mini folk had ever existed? Maybe you'd find particularly small examples of domesticated animals in regions in which they formerly lived. Shetland ponies and Shetland sheepdogs might be examples of such scaled down beasts, which have now been abandoned back to the likes of us for safe keeping.

Maybe you would find written and verbal reports of rare sightings etc. But can anything be guestimated about the likely frequency of such reports based on the known populations of real humans in the British Isles over the millennia and on the guestimated populations of the wee folks over the same period of time.

I think it would be possible to make some sort of a science of this type of thought process as there are known cases of populations who have had rare and fleeting contact with other shady populations in the past. Like Bantu contact with pygmies in Africa or even with mountain gorillas for that matter. It would be possible to study the folklore of the Bantu tribes to see what they made of their rare glimpses of the pygmies before these ultimately emerged as a 'real' people. One could collect examples of this type of folklorisation of hidden populations that later turned out to be real and compare any observable patterns in these reports with the historical reports of fairies in the British Isles. That way it may be possible to say whether our legends and stories are similar or dissimilar to legends from other regions that turned out to be true.

Anyway, all I mean to say is that an article that simply says "Hey, guess what? Me and my partner discovered some fairies on an island in Scotland. Weird, ay?" Is worthless on its own and whether or not it is factually true, is indistinguishable from any fabricated account.
 
Too 'New Age' For The Zombie Processors?

I promise, this weekend, to do my take on elementals, nature spirits, the realms of faerie, folklore, metaphysics and related.

However, the article in question was almost certainly not about physical, biological creatures. Supernatural entities seem to be implied, if not explicitly stated.

Certainly, the question, "Is this article sincere and truthful in its reporting of events?" would be fair enough.

Given that, then one could quite happily accept it as reportage of events which were experienced as real. Although, whether actual, hallucinatory, or delusional, that would be quite another matter.
 
Similar concerns were expressed about the Eris Andys article in a recent FT:

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13249

I know FT publishes thought/debate provoking pieces but in some of these (esp. in the fairies piece which was like an extended IHTM) there is nowhere to go from here other than "well I don't believe in fairies". Its frustrating that there is no 'meat' to get one's teeth into but I suppose unless people have pictures (and we all know the problems with them) then the majority of this kind of evidence will be anecdotal and lets be honest the anthropological approach you mention as an alternative is just as anecdotal it just has an extra gloss from taking place in distant lands rather than more locally - "backyard anthropology"?

I'd imagine they aren't short of articles and people would start complaining if they were all 'samey' but..........

Emps
 
Emperor said:
Similar concerns were expressed about the Eris Andys article in a recent FT:

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13249
True. But, what's more disturbing about the articles by Erys Andys is that there have been two of them, in short succession. And they stuck out like sore thumbs by being a bit too 'New Agey', not to say, cosmically uncritical.

A one off visit to the realm of faerie I can accept, a search for lost Atlantis with telepathic dolphins, shortly to be followed by some very unconvincing aliens, waving photos of the disciples and sporting David 'Man Who Fell To Earth' Bowie's orange sunglasses, really was a bit much and seemed to belong to some other, less critical, New Agey, Rudolph Steiner influenced mag. altogether.

Having said that, 'Fortean Times' is not 'New Scientist,' never mind 'Nature.' There are different criteria, that value narrative strengths, which take priority over skeptical evaluation.

It is important to give a good account the benefit of the doubt, provided one believes that the tale, or report is true to the best of the contributor's knowledge.

Forteanism has to be more holistic than scientific empiricism in its approach to a narrative. All the available evidence has to be accepted as only the tip of the iceberg of what might actually be the truth. Merely one fractal node, or nodal group, in the infinite complexity of the mathematics of chaos at the heart of reality.
 
I think the "faerie" article failed for me simply because the narrative structure was poor.

Most writers with stories like this try to start off with some token scepticism about their experience, such as "I've never believed in fairies, so I could barely believe my own eyes when a jolly little gnome, about 6 inches tall, started dancing a jig on the bonnet of my car." They predict the disbelief of their audience, and try to establish themselves as someone who at least knows what consensus reality is. When writing about supposedly real paranormal events, initial doubt is a neccessary part of the narrative structure.

The problem with the article under discussion is that the author expressed no doubt about her experiences. She seemed to take it for granted that everyone saw faeries if they wanted to. This ruined the article for me, as I simply couldn't take it seriously. I just got the feeling of embarrassment you get when some looney at the bus stop tells you a bizarre story about them really being the Merovingian king of France or somesuch. If she had given a bit of history and rationalisation to her beliefs the article might have worked better as a "shiver down the spine" read, even if it still wasn't convincing.
 
Ereshkigal said:
Most writers with stories like this try to start off with some token scepticism about their experience, such as "I've never believed in fairies, so I could barely believe my own eyes when a jolly little gnome, about 6 inches tall, started dancing a jig on the bonnet of my car." They predict the disbelief of their audience, and try to establish themselves as someone who at least knows what consensus reality is. When writing about supposedly real paranormal events, initial doubt is a neccessary part of the narrative structure.
I'm afraid that you'll just have to accept that there are some people in this World that really do look forward to going to 'Findhorn' for their holidays and doing 'Spiritual Awakening Workshops.'

(Not talking about myself here, by the way!). :eek:
 
Interesting feedback folks; thanks for your thoughts on this.

I think the main problem for me in a nutshell is that the magazine sometimes misses a trick by publishing things like this without comment. As I said in my original post, it would have been possible and extremely interesting to fill half the magazine with supporting articles based around this one article alone. Like a psychological profile of the type of person, who may simply have fabricated this kind of story; a scientific piece on parallel universes and the possibility of occasional overlaps; some input from a biologist about the biological possibilities etc. And most importantly it would be useful to see a short introductory paragraph or two by the magazine editors stating why they thought this particular article worthy of publication.

And another improvement would be some sort of follow up agenda. Like ... fairies on the isle of Aran!!!!? Surely an expedition should be mounted to seek some sort of evidence? (I'm not ignoring what people have said above about non-physical explanations, but it isn't at all clear from the article what the author means to imply about the reality of these little personages).

Anyway, I won't harp on about it. I've just finished reading this month's FT and was surprised to see a lengthy article about that German cannibal. Nothing Fortean about that! You kill someone; chop 'em up and eat 'em. Not mysterious and only mildly interesting and very well covered in the mainstream press and TV. So a bit of a waste of precious Fortean page space if you ask me. But again, the editors are missing a trick. The only intriguing part of the whole story is this guy’s purported ability to speak better English after munching his mate. This is reminiscent of reports from recipients of new organs such as kidneys etc., who sometimes report having memories from the donor's life or experiencing inexplicable affinities with or feelings of affection towards people and places from the donor's life.

See what I mean - that's Fortean and opens up many interesting questions about similar claims made by other cannibals from different parts of the world etc.

Sad about the white gorilla but again, I wouldn't regard an unusual colour variant to be of Fortean significance. I would however be interested to learn more about the structure and frequency of early reports of sightings of white gorillas, which could be compared with present day reports on other more or less likely cryptids such as the orang pendek. Careful study of such reports may reveal recognisable patterns that would allow us to judge whether a modern report bears the hallmarks of truth or myth.

For example, how many sightings of a rare animal would one expect in a given geographic habitat for an assumed population of X and a known human population of Y? How do the predicted number of sightings measure up to the reported number etc?
 
I really liked Erys Andys articles, believable'ish and a ripping yarn -(at times).Yet it can't be disputed they were : new age and slightly treading on the toes of NEXUS ....However would like more stuff like this, bearing in mind, all we have now is FT. What with UFO mag saying Aidios. Maybe keep the cannibel stuff to Bizarre Mag..;)
 
fairies in my garden

a couple of days ago i saw a fairy in my garden. it had a body length of only about 15mm and very fast moving golden translucent wings. I know it wasn't an insect because of the way the body was formed - it had a human form. and the way it held itself.

i think it was female and it looked at me for about five seconds, i felt a preasance around her which also lead me to realise it wasn't an insect.

I have no doubt it was a fairy and would like to know if any one can tell me of any websites or organisations where i can report my sighting.
 
YOU JUST DID REPORT IT.

YOU WILL HAVE A GREAT SUPPRISE HAPPEN TO YOU ON THE :::BLUE MOON::: 31JULY.
Nice one.
 
You could try here, Bagpuss.

There are other sites to be found if you do a google, but the above seems the least suspect of the ones I found.

Are you sure it wasn't an insect, a trick of the light or even wishful thinking??

Carole
 
Originally posted by carole
[
Are you sure it wasn't an insect, a trick of the light or even wishful thinking??

Carole

not a chance, i have so many insects in my garden and as i say it had a preasance a wonderful aura. thankyou very much for the link
 
What time of day was it, ie, was it light or dark, sunny, etc?

Is your garden particularly secluded?

Have you seen anything like this before?

Carole
 
Could you please describe the fairy in more detail (colour, clothing etc).
 
it was middle of the day. my garden is bright and sunny and small, and ther is no access except through the house. and is totally enclosed. it is a very safe garden and has certain qualities as do all the houses down my street in that soil and plant are of a better quality than the rest of the town. the main body of my house is about 100 years old but the rear of the house is much older. A very fertile garden.
 
Re: fairies in my garden

bagpuss said:
a couple of days ago i saw a fairy in my garden. it had a body length of only about 15mm and very fast moving golden translucent wings. I know it wasn't an insect because of the way the body was formed - it had a human form. and the way it held itself.
I saw something like that in my room once. I felt I had created it or at least had willingly made myself receptive to it.
 
I am so jealous. I try to keep my garden natural, free of pesticides, fertile, and let nature pretty much take its course, I have butterflies, birds, hedgehogs , but considering the location, I can't say I blame any ' fairies ' , ' nature spirits ' whatever we want to call them, for not visiting me. :( I would give a lot to see something like that, even if it was only my imagination, or a trick of the light.
 
One of my daughters reckons she saw fairies in our 1950s council estate garden. She used to talk about them as a kid as if they were really there and still swears she saw and played with them. :confused:
 
Me too :(

Still trying too find a book with a photo in of two 'gnome' like beings standing next too a gate, I once saw.

Now i 'know' it was really a model but it looked so real too my young brain at the time. Wish I could find it.

Oh and thank you for that link you posted Carole, another excuse for lurking on a website for hours soaking up the info :)
 
I just showed this to my mother ( who used to leave tiny notes for faries in flowers when she was a little girl) and she said she saw something similar whilst visiting her brother and family in North Wales. My uncle was there and said it was an insect, but not sure what kind, and that he sees them there quite frequently, but never close enough to establish what they are. Not that my uncle would ever wander into the house saying he'd seen faries....
 
From THESTRAL.

Magic Plants
Nooo...not that kind of magic plant, get back to reading the "horticultural" ads in the FT.

What I'm getting at is - there are a couple of good Fairy threads around at the moment, and I've read many reports of fairies being seen in gardens, even suburban ones. Now, please don't think I'm all woo-woo and fey, but I wonder if certain plants - "magic" plants if you like - could provide the right sort of ambience? If not for fairies, then at least to create a place where you could feel in touch with spiritual things. So does anyone know much about plant and tree lore, which are considered sacred or magic, and why?
 
Well.

Druid Tree Lore and the Ogham
Approaching a tree we approach a sacred being who can
teach us about love and about endless giving.
S/he is one of millions of beings who provide our air,
our homes, our fuel, our books. Working with
the spirit of the tree can bring us renewed energy,
powerful inspiration, deep communion.
- From the teaching material of the Ovate Grade
As we have seen from the etymology given in The Elements of the Druid Tradition, Druids were wise men of the trees. One of the world's largest tree-planting movements is called The Men of the Trees and was started by a Druid, the late Richard St Barbe-Baker. Few, if any, of its members would realise that he had partly encoded the word 'Druids' in its title. One of the reasons why the subject of Druids fascinates us, is because there is such a strong association between them and trees. If we close our eyes and imagine a Druid, we will often see him beside a tree, or within a sacred grove of trees. We sense that Druids were at one with nature in a way that we no longer are, and those of us who aspire to become Druids do so because we want to attain that at-one-ment, that union, for ourselves. In a conscious way we recognise the beauty of trees and their value to us, but just below the surface of our consciousness lies the knowledge that they also possess keys and powers that, if we were to share in them, would enrich our lives immeasurably.

The Druids used a particular method for communicating and remembering their wealth of tree-knowledge. This is known as the Ogham [pronounced o'um]. It consists of twenty-five simple strokes centred on or branching off a central line. It is similar in purpose, but separate in origin from the Nordic runes. The Ogham characters were inscribed on stones or written on staves of wood. As a method of writing it is laborious, but as a language of symbolism it is powerful. It is probably pre-Celtic in origin, although most of the existing inscriptions have been dated to the fifth and sixth centuries. Whether Celtic or pre-Celtic we can sense that it carries with it some of the very earliest of Druid wisdom. Amongst our sources of information about its use, we have The Scholar's Primer from Scotland (transcribed from the oral tradition in the seventeenth century) and O'Flaherty's Ogygia from Ireland [published in 1793]. But it was the poet Robert Graves who, in modem times, brought the Ogham into public awareness once again, with his publication of The White Goddess in 1948.

Each stroke of the Ogham corresponds to a letter of the alphabet. This letter represents the first letter of the tree allocated to it, so that the sign ** represents the letter B, and the tree Beith, the Birch. The sign ** represents the letter L, and the tree Luis, the Rowan, and so on.

Although we know the letters that each stroke represents, and can translate the ancient Ogham inscriptions accordingly, we cannot be so confident when we come to associate the trees with particular months. There has been much controversy as to whether the Ogham really was used as a calendar by the Druids, linking each tree and letter of the alphabet to a moon month, as suggested by Robert Graves. Whilst it is important to be aware that there is controversy, it is also important to understand that Druidry is evolving, and that if they didn't correlate them in 500 BC they do now - if it was Robert Graves' invention, then he was acting as a Druid when he did so - he was inspired, in other words. Someone has to invent things, or 'receive' them from the invisible world, and just because he or she does so in AD 1948 rather than BC 1948 is in the final analysis unimportant to those of us who want to use Druidry as a living system, as opposed to those who want to study its origins for a purely academic purpose.

The essential point about the Druid use of Ogham is this - it provided and provides a glyph or system which is every bit as rich as the Tree of Life of the Qabalists. The Qabalists use one tree - the Druids use a grove, a wood - filled with many trees and woodland plants. By clearly building up this wood with the inner mind and by then associating each tree or plant with a different number, god or goddess, animal, bird, colour, mineral, star, divine or human principle, the Druid is able to retain in her mind far more information than she would normally be able to, if she simply learnt lists of such facts. This use of an image as a mnemonic (memory) device has been well known as an esoteric discipline through the ages. The ancient Greeks visualised a theatre, each part of which was associated in the memoriser's mind with an item that needed remembering.

But to see the Druid use of Ogham simply as a mnemonic for storing data is to fail to recognise its true purpose and value, for, having 'peopled the forest', having learnt the associations, the Druid is then able to use this network of data in just the same way that a computer can, with appropriate software, work on stored data to produce numerous combinations and recombinations. The associations start to interrelate and cross-fertilise of their own accord, even during sleep. The hard work of months and years of training starts to pay off as the Druid sleeps on (or perhaps in) her forest, and the various associations and connections between the storage points in her system start to communicate.

The method of free association used in psychoanalysis can provide a glimpse into the secret world of connections and associations that are made in the unconscious, and the particular contribution of esoteric disciplines is in providing a framework that exists partly in the conscious mind, but which also is immersed in the unconscious - allowing both aspects of the self to feed from it and to nourish it. In other words, by building a grove of trees in the imagination, or a 'Tree of Life' if one is a Qabalist, one creates a structure which operates not only in the conscious waking self, but also in the unconscious (some might say the superconscious) pulling to it, as it were, associations, ideas, images and experiences. In this way it acts as a bridge between these two parts of the self. At a deeper level the creation of such a structure allows the influx of transpersonal energies into the personal or individual psychic system in a way that is safe and structured because the channels for its reception and integration have already been built.

One of the most extraordinary things to contemplate is that as we think and make associations, our brains actually make connections and grow physically! The more we use our brain, the more dendrites (the 'arms' between brain cells) are grown, and the more synaptic connections are made (connections from the end of one dendrite to another). These neural pathways are called dendrites because they look like the branches of a tree, and dendrite is Greek for 'tree-like'. Photographs of sections of the cerebral cortex look like photos of a thicket of trees in winter. So as we imagine a sacred grove of trees in our minds and work with it over many months to create a network of associations, we are literally building a thicker, richer complex of connections at a physical level in our brains, as well as a structure on a subtler level in the psyche which can connect our conscious self with our unconscious self.
 
I've just asked my younger daughter on MSN about seeing fairies and this is what she said.

Me: hey, did you ever see fairies?
Daughter: in the room at the front of the house yeah, the old house
I was talkin to Big Sis about it ages ago
That room's strange, had some weird stuff in it, thats why we used to move in an out of it all the time cause it was cool but after a while it got scary or we couldnt sleep so we kept movin back

Me: you didn't tell me

Daughter: well would you believe me if I said I heard people talking and voices saying my name and saw fairies?
Well, you probably would.

Me: yup course

Daughter: but I didnt know that at the time and Sis and me didnt tell each other till last year and it was all the same stuff we saw.
And stuff like voices sayin my name and Sis heard them saying her name too.
And we saw fairies on the window sill

Me: what did they look like?

Daughter: A bit like a barbie doll, bit more delicate and a little smaller (and with obviously less accentuated figure) and dead frizzy big hair.
We both drew them cause we were both convinced the other one was windin us up, hehehe, it was like, you go in the kitchen an I'll stay in here an draw what you saw.

Me:Were pics the same? And did you see them outside too?

Daughter: no, only inside, and the pictures were the same
It's just that room, the big room at the back had nothing in.

:eek:
 
Back
Top