|
|
|
|
|
by standardUser
1001 days ago
|
|
That Wikipedia page is worth the read. It's amazing how many people they duped! The photos are unedited but they include cardboard cutouts. It's immediately obvious to my 21st Century eyes that the fairies are drawings, but apparently they fooled a lot of people. The 5th photo is the only one that doesn't look immediately like a cutout. It's believed to have been the result of a double exposure, but one of the women maintained until her death that the 5th photo was genuine. The photos:
https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2020/english-literat... |
|
The dumb thing is believing fairies exist at all. If I see "convincing" evidence of fairies, with today's technology, I would still remain skeptical. It would take a lot more for me to even begin to wonder. Because fairies don't exist, we know where they come from in folklore and literature, and there's so much evidence they don't exist (along with unicorns, the Yeti, gremlins, etc) that a couple of convincing photographs or videos is simply not enough.
Conan Doyle wouldn't have been fooled had he been a skeptical, inquiring mind. Alas! He was just gullible.
Famously, Conan Doyle had Sherlock claim:
> When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Unfortunately Doyle, because he so wanted to believe, didn't really eliminate the impossible. He carelessly dismissed the most obvious option: that the two girls were playing him for a fool.