It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Amazing Dorothy Izatt

page: 10
38
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I 100% believe in Dorothy Izatt and her experiences. I have had some experiences myself and was feeling alone but always knew that it really happened. I have seen orbs and have heard voices. I am happy to hear that the world will be enlightened soon.




posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
Well, I couldn't wait till morning so I watched it on the computer with my headphones.


The part were the daughter was interviewed and the light outside the window was caught on film has to be seen to be believed.I wish there was some way to capture stills from the video so I could post them here so the folks that haven't purchased the dvd yet can see what I mean(not sure if that would be a copyright violation or not).Its absolutely mind blowing,and thats putting it mildly I highly(and I mean highly)recommend this dvd to anyone who hasn't purchased it yet.If you are a believer,it will only make you beliefs that much stronger.And if you are not a believer,you just very well may be one by the time you finish watching this.

Two thumbs WAY up!


its true that since dorothy has remained private for the last 30 years that her story hasnt risen to the top yet! anyone trying to debunk these films will be sorely dissappointed!! (and im directing that at digital arts studios!)

ive done my part in trying to get her films transfered to digital via my purchase of the movie itself. and im a proud owner!


im in agreement that these beings are from a different dimension instead of a different planet. i dont even want to guess their age.

if dorothy was open to it, i would easily say that visiting her home would be way more interesting than visiting james gilliands ranch, and yes i know im comparing apples with oranges.

god bless you dorothy



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LordThumbs
 



thanks for posting your thoughts about the video


i still have not seen it. if you have read this thread you will notice that i posted information about the ufo hunters doing a show about dorothy but it never aired for some reason.

not long ago i wrote a letter to Bill Birnes about a couple things and one of the questions i had was, why did that show about her never air ?

he never answered my question and i found that a little odd...

just thought i would let you know about that.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordThumbs
if dorothy was open to it, i would easily say that visiting her home would be way more interesting than visiting james gilliands ranch


I'm 100% positive she's not into it. I've been waiting months just to communicate with her thru email, after being formally introduced through Frank Longo (who made the film about her). So, the likelihood of a visit, I would assume is completely out of the question.

I'm greatly disappointed to say that I doubt I'll ever get to communicate with a woman I think might give many people a different way to look at this phenomena.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


i read the thread, and yeah im dissappointed the case hasnt hit the main stream UFOLOGy field yet. sooooo many people are in the dark about this one it seems, PLUS im affraid our skeptics wont play cause its just too damn real. if you dont own the movie, try and avoid fast food for about 5 days and pay for the movie stead (no disrespect) cause you have to own this one. youll understand once you have it in your dvd player and its playing.. its "again" the most amazing documentary ive seen.

LET US HOPE that bill will air info on dorothy in this coming season of ufo hunters which airs on sept 17th 10pm central on nat geo.. thanks to UFO REALITY he kept me posted thanks again, and also be sure to check the sequal or follow up segment to UFOS seeing is believing.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


in fact i did intend to direct that last comment to you, i just didnt have your name in mind only that crazy avatar
, yeah, she seems like she wants to pawn the film off to others anyway, she is only the conduit it seems, she likes to remain on quiet side.

not sure if you've seen the doc, but one of her sons, the more muscular one seems like he would be a good contact though, or even her granddaughter..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFO REALITY if your listening/reading i would recommend you get on this case before she passes (god forbid). seems to me you always "know" people in the ufo world this would be a true find. plus shes a grandmother type, which means when you visit your probably get fresh baked cookies.mmmmmmmmmmmmm


[edit on 9/4/2008 by LordThumbs]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Johnny anonymous brought this ats mix to my attention here



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
I've seen the DVD and would like to make a few observations.

1) The fact she has '30,000 feet' of film of these objects is emphasised in the video but no one ever says how many minutes this equates to (I'm hoping someone here can tell me)

2) I was a bit disappointed in that there are very few examples given from the '30,000' feet of film but I'm guessing this is because the bulk of it has yet to be digitised.

3) When the 'flashes' occurred and there were multiple objects I noticed that the streaks produced by each object followed identical paths. There are three explanations for this: either the objects all moved in exactly the same manner at the same time; the objects (lights) were in fact all part of one larger object; or streaks were caused by the movement of the camera.

4) The good character of Dorothy as Housewife and Grandmother is emphasised, the argument being that such a nice old lady would be unlikely to perpetrate a hoax. It's a convincing argument but I don't think too much weight can be given to it (remember the Cottingley Fairies?). It could even be seen as a bit patronising - 'a Housewife couldn't possibly fool all these experts!'. It's actually mentioned in the film that Dorothy has a very high IQ.

5) The main highlight of the film is not the evidence she has obtained but the apparent capture on film of a UFO(s) by the documentary crew while they are interviewing Dorothy's daughter, and the subsequent reactions of the family upon viewing the footage.

There appear to be two different objects that are captured. On first viewing I thought that the first object was moving whenever the camera moved which suggested to me that I was seeing a reflection of a light on the camera itself. However, on subsequent viewing it's clear that the object also moves independently of the camera. It's also stated that the window was open and in fact you can clearly see that the window is open which means it was impossible for it to be a reflection.

The second object is fairly mind-blowing, it does appear to be a spielberg-esque genuine space craft. To her credit Dorothy herself says that this was behind the glass and so could have been a reflection of something although the object is similar to objects she had filmed previously.

6) The documentary also shows classic 'orb' photos/video taken in the house which are usually associated with ghosts. IMO these are adequately explained by out of focus dust so I'm not sure they add anything.

At the moment I'm unsure what to make of this case. It's either one of the most expertly perpetrated hoaxes ever or it is something genuinely unknown.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
I was reminded of this through the thread in which a poster is asking questions to the top debunkers on what they cannot debunk.

It's interesting and but largely forgotten by the community.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Hello All!

I am just touching base on this old thread. A lot of stuff on it has remained unresolved as far as I know. For instance, Jeff Ritzman left just after I created this thread and I know that he was a top notch image/photo analyst for this site and he expressed interest on this thread toward analyzing some of Dorothy's captures with maybe David Biedny of The Paracast. I know nothing of what has happened since. Has Dr. Bruce Macabee taken a shine to this case? He would lend a lot of cred to it for sure. But beyond questioning Dorothy's character, which all vastly familiar with this case can attest is virtually flawless, has anyone gone into the research of the actual phenomenon itself? What is the general consensus of the serious research surrounding this case? Is Dorothy's age now a factor to contend with? Is she/her family now fed up with any kind of attention? They seemed to be a family that appreciates their privacy and do not seek for any kind of unwarranted or unnecessary attention.

Just curious as to what the latest is on this case as I still feel it is an extremely important one unless it has been proven otherwise and I just missed the information "boat" altogether. Wouldn't be the first time!

Thanks to any who have anything more on this that is new since the advent of this thread.

=)Namaste

Erik



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by redwoodjedi


Just curious as to what the latest is on this case as I still feel it is an extremely important one

=)Namaste

Erik


hi...i personally think if it were important we would get to see the evidence that these alleged aliens REALLY want us to see for nothing...its like the catholic church...god loves you..and needs your cash.

dorothy..put the film on youtube...or do the aliens need a new spaceship and cant afford one?

im a believer..but this story stinks


[edit on 13-8-2009 by alienesque]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienesque

Originally posted by redwoodjedi


Just curious as to what the latest is on this case as I still feel it is an extremely important one

=)Namaste

Erik


hi...i personally think if it were important we would get to see the evidence that these alleged aliens REALLY want us to see for nothing...its like the catholic church...god loves you..and needs your cash.

dorothy..put the film on youtube...or do the aliens need a new spaceship and cant afford one?

im a believer..but this story stinks


[edit on 13-8-2009 by alienesque]


Thank You for your insight, Alienesque!

=)Namaste

Erik



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by redwoodjedi

Originally posted by alienesque

Originally posted by redwoodjedi


Just curious as to what the latest is on this case as I still feel it is an extremely important one

=)Namaste

Erik


hi...i personally think if it were important we would get to see the evidence that these alleged aliens REALLY want us to see for nothing...its like the catholic church...god loves you..and needs your cash.

dorothy..put the film on youtube...or do the aliens need a new spaceship and cant afford one?

im a believer..but this story stinks


[edit on 13-8-2009 by alienesque]


Thank You for your insight, Alienesque!

=)Namaste

Erik


your more than welcome


thats just the feeling i get with this film....the ship appearing over her daughters shoulder JUST as she makes room for it is too much



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienesque

Originally posted by redwoodjedi

Originally posted by alienesque

Originally posted by redwoodjedi


Just curious as to what the latest is on this case as I still feel it is an extremely important one

=)Namaste

Erik


hi...i personally think if it were important we would get to see the evidence that these alleged aliens REALLY want us to see for nothing...its like the catholic church...god loves you..and needs your cash.

dorothy..put the film on youtube...or do the aliens need a new spaceship and cant afford one?

im a believer..but this story stinks


[edit on 13-8-2009 by alienesque]


Thank You for your insight, Alienesque!

=)Namaste

Erik


your more than welcome


thats just the feeling i get with this film....the ship appearing over her daughters shoulder JUST as she makes room for it is too much


Kewl Avatar! One of my favorite movies!

You think the Mother Ship like lights over the daughter's shoulder is manufactured by the Doc Creator? If so, what is the tip off to you? Would it have been more convincing if it was edited to appear someplace else in the film? Just curious. Thanks for chattin'!

=)Namaste

Erik



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Whats annoying is I have been trying to watch the Dorothy Izett video for a while now... and it is virtually impossible to find online anywhere. As soon as its on youtube its removed.... and there are remnants of the video all of the place such as on AOL video and metacafe.... so obviously people are trying to upload it to watch.... yet as soon as it goes up it gets removed within days.

She's either got some people deleting every source of the video off the internet that they can find so she can sell more DVDs..... or someone else doesn't want us to see her videos. Annoying!



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienesque
dorothy..put the film on youtube...or do the aliens need a new spaceship and cant afford one?

Do you have any idea how much transfering footage from this type of film, to digital, in a way that's good enough quality to be worth doing, would cost?

This really isn't about anyone making money, you know.


Originally posted by alienesque
the ship appearing over her daughters shoulder JUST as she makes room for it is too much


...but that isn't what happens
If you watch when they are showing the footage to the family, there is a lot more footage. The thing is there the whole time. What actually happens is she steps *in the way* for a while. Quite the opposite of what you are suggesting.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
1) The fact she has '30,000 feet' of film of these objects is emphasised in the video but no one ever says how many minutes this equates to (I'm hoping someone here can tell me)


30,000 feet is 9,144,000mm: at 18fps thats somewhere between 17.5 and 23.5 hours of footage, depending on the exact type of film used.


2) I was a bit disappointed in that there are very few examples given from the '30,000' feet of film but I'm guessing this is because the bulk of it has yet to be digitised.

Yeah, it takes a lot of time and money to get this done right. I know, I've tried



3) When the 'flashes' occurred and there were multiple objects I noticed that the streaks produced by each object followed identical paths. There are three explanations for this: either the objects all moved in exactly the same manner at the same time; the objects (lights) were in fact all part of one larger object; or streaks were caused by the movement of the camera.

It's odd, isn't it? A lot of the time, though, there are no such light sources before the image, then there are multiple instances of the above, then they're gone again. It's as if, in one 18th of a second, a few lights appear, move around, then disappear, then a few more appear, move around, and dissappear. The movement itself would seem to indicate camera movement, but I can't see how it's possible to perform these movements so well in only 1/18th of a second. That also doesn't explain the rest of it. I don't think Dorothy is conciously doing anything at all.


4) The good character of Dorothy as Housewife and Grandmother is emphasised, the argument being that such a nice old lady would be unlikely to perpetrate a hoax. *SNIP* It's actually mentioned in the film that Dorothy has a very high IQ.

Indeed, but what isn't emphasized enough is just how difficult it would be to fake stuff like this. Remember, this is 8mm film, not video. The cameras, film, etc. were checked, and indeed, she was given others to use - the effect was identical, and there could be no tampering - not that I personally believe she'd have been able to achieve any fakery if she tried.


5) The main highlight of the film is not the evidence she has obtained but the apparent capture on film of a UFO(s) by the documentary crew while they are interviewing Dorothy's daughter, and the subsequent reactions of the family upon viewing the footage.

I believe this is done because her own family doesn't quite believe what she is saying. Sure gave them something to think about



6) The documentary also shows classic 'orb' photos/video taken in the house which are usually associated with ghosts. IMO these are adequately explained by out of focus dust so I'm not sure they add anything.


...but watch the footage of her daughter, with moving orb that enters around her neck, and watch the calmness wash over her right as it happens. Pretty freaky...


At the moment I'm unsure what to make of this case. It's either one of the most expertly perpetrated hoaxes ever or it is something genuinely unknown.

Agreed. I tend to give it credit, just because I have a lot of experience with this old equipment - and as the movie states, Dorothy seems very genuine.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clickfoot

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
1) The fact she has '30,000 feet' of film of these objects is emphasised in the video but no one ever says how many minutes this equates to (I'm hoping someone here can tell me)


30,000 feet is 9,144,000mm: at 18fps thats somewhere between 17.5 and 23.5 hours of footage, depending on the exact type of film used.


2) I was a bit disappointed in that there are very few examples given from the '30,000' feet of film but I'm guessing this is because the bulk of it has yet to be digitised.

Yeah, it takes a lot of time and money to get this done right. I know, I've tried



3) When the 'flashes' occurred and there were multiple objects I noticed that the streaks produced by each object followed identical paths. There are three explanations for this: either the objects all moved in exactly the same manner at the same time; the objects (lights) were in fact all part of one larger object; or streaks were caused by the movement of the camera.

It's odd, isn't it? A lot of the time, though, there are no such light sources before the image, then there are multiple instances of the above, then they're gone again. It's as if, in one 18th of a second, a few lights appear, move around, then disappear, then a few more appear, move around, and dissappear. The movement itself would seem to indicate camera movement, but I can't see how it's possible to perform these movements so well in only 1/18th of a second. That also doesn't explain the rest of it. I don't think Dorothy is conciously doing anything at all.


4) The good character of Dorothy as Housewife and Grandmother is emphasised, the argument being that such a nice old lady would be unlikely to perpetrate a hoax. *SNIP* It's actually mentioned in the film that Dorothy has a very high IQ.

Indeed, but what isn't emphasized enough is just how difficult it would be to fake stuff like this. Remember, this is 8mm film, not video. The cameras, film, etc. were checked, and indeed, she was given others to use - the effect was identical, and there could be no tampering - not that I personally believe she'd have been able to achieve any fakery if she tried.


5) The main highlight of the film is not the evidence she has obtained but the apparent capture on film of a UFO(s) by the documentary crew while they are interviewing Dorothy's daughter, and the subsequent reactions of the family upon viewing the footage.

I believe this is done because her own family doesn't quite believe what she is saying. Sure gave them something to think about



6) The documentary also shows classic 'orb' photos/video taken in the house which are usually associated with ghosts. IMO these are adequately explained by out of focus dust so I'm not sure they add anything.


...but watch the footage of her daughter, with moving orb that enters around her neck, and watch the calmness wash over her right as it happens. Pretty freaky...


At the moment I'm unsure what to make of this case. It's either one of the most expertly perpetrated hoaxes ever or it is something genuinely unknown.

Agreed. I tend to give it credit, just because I have a lot of experience with this old equipment - and as the movie states, Dorothy seems very genuine.


Hey thanks for the commentary, Click!! Nice fielding there. Do You know of anyone currently working this case from the standpoint of going beyond Dorothy's obviously impeccable character to the study and analysis of the actual phenomenon itself? I've heard about zip here on my end. I thought Ritz was going to be involved in some team or other or perhaps it was Biedny. No funding? Dorothy's sick of it? What?

Any progressive info beyond the Doc is highly appreciated. Again, thanks for jumpin' in!

=)Namaste

Erik



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
To Mr. Jeff Ritzmann,

Sometime ago on an episode of The Paracast featuring Director Frank Longo and investigator Peter Guttilla, David Biedny spoke quite literally on your behalf when he said that himself, Frank and you would go to Dorothy's house in pursuit of material evidence for possibly another documentary. Has this happened? Will it happen? I'm guessing not. Am I wrong?

Cheers,

Erik



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
To Mr. Jeff Ritzmann,

Sometime ago on an episode of The Paracast featuring Director Frank Longo and investigator Peter Guttilla, David Biedny spoke quite literally on your behalf when he said that himself, Frank and you would go to Dorothy's house in pursuit of material evidence for possibly another documentary. Has this happened? Will it happen? I'm guessing not. Am I wrong?


Erik-
I don't know. I would certainly like something like that to happen. Biedny and I no longer associate, nor do any analysis work together. He's made it clear that he has no interest in the case.

I have been following up and touching base with Frank Longo ever since that particular show. I know that Dorothy's tape is being transferred before it's lost to time, and that has absolutely taken more than the Lion's share of the money generated from the film.

One of the reasons you don't see it online being pirated is that I (for one) notify Frank every time I see it being shown in such a way. And I look. A lot. This woman is 90 years old and all she wants is her footage transferred to a media that will preserve it for future study. She's not asked for another damned thing from anyone.

That's personally enough for me to do my minuscule part in seeing that her film is paid for so that can happen. I think the case is important for several reasons, and will change the way people see the "UFO" question in years to come.

So, will I ever get to examine the film firsthand? Or go there? I don't know. I hope so. At this point I'm willing to wait and see...and I'm damned patient. Because I truly think there's something there.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join