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: 6
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Breadfan
 


Don't lose your grip
You might find some truth.

From first page of this thread:

Michael Strainic - Canadian National Director MUFON Canada / Mutual UFO Network, Inc.

Dorothy Izatt can be most annoying

Now, in case you're wondering how such a gentle, kind and soft-spoken person could possibly be annoying in any possible way, just consider what Dorothy does and how she does it. If you happen to be a professional debunker, a rabid skeptic or simply a complete disbeliever in All Things Strange, then Dorothy can present a real problem to your chosen belief system. Dorothy produces evidence. Hard evidence. Over and over again. Evidence that has been so far unassailable, and that is something that the nay-sayers do not like at all. And that is probably why no-one has really attempted to discredit her work. They can't.




posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
Just as a pain-in-the-*SNIP* reminder, if this thread is to be of any benefit to Dorothy and her unique case, please "flag" and "fave" this sucker all to heck. If we can get this posted on the "Hot" or better still the "Top" page, it will kick and breathe a little longer. As it is, I intend to update this thread with the latest info as it arrives. I just hope the research effort doesn't dilly-dally too long. 86 years old.......


Erik
[edit on 24-3-2008 by NGC2736]



OMG! I can't believe this happened!
My most sincere apologies redwoodjedi for that truly ridiculous post of mine last night. I only read the first sentence of your post above and thinking you were complaining about me asking you to post a link to one of your EVP, I thought you were complaining about that by calling me a "pain in the *SNIP*" -- which seemed so out of character for you. When I saw that I was going.. "What?? Huh?? -- but it freaked me out so I decided not to read the rest of your post because of that. Anyway, I thought it was directed at me!!! and that's when I posted my off the wall comment. My BAD. I'm so embarrassed!! Please accept my apologies. We just get so many people coming into this forum saying some really off the wall things, I never know what to expect, but now I guess it was my turn by doing the same... sorry about that...

Lol, no wonder you were scratching your head wondering what THAT was all about! Oh, my!

I was VERY tired last night and working late but should have been in bed sound asleep instead of in front of my computer....

Anyway, on top of this, I clicked on the podcast link instead of the correct link to your EVP last night too... so the wrong page popped up and so on... great EVP, btw, and good to see a fellow recorder here! That's great!


LOl... of course I like you and I just love your enthusiasm for Dorothy Izatt's material which is something that we share and I look forward to continuing in my participation in this thread!




[edit on 25-3-2008 by Palasheea]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Moegli
 


Moe, I may be a sceptic but hardly a debunker. I'm just beyond those photos and blurry pictures. Those are no longer enough for me to say "Ok. that's it. They exist!".

So she has tons and tons and TONS of those 'evidences'. Well great, I'm more likely to encounter a rare species of african tiger in my lifetime then to see one of her foggy 'aliens'.

Think about it.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moegli
reply to post by Breadfan
 


Don't lose your grip
You might find some truth.

From first page of this thread:

Michael Strainic - Canadian National Director MUFON Canada / Mutual UFO Network, Inc.

Dorothy Izatt can be most annoying

Now, in case you're wondering how such a gentle, kind and soft-spoken person could possibly be annoying in any possible way, just consider what Dorothy does and how she does it. If you happen to be a professional debunker, a rabid skeptic or simply a complete disbeliever in All Things Strange, then Dorothy can present a real problem to your chosen belief system. Dorothy produces evidence. Hard evidence. Over and over again. Evidence that has been so far unassailable, and that is something that the nay-sayers do not like at all. And that is probably why no-one has really attempted to discredit her work. They can't.


You've got a point there and I agree with you that it's rather amusing when you think about it -- bully rabid skeptics debunking a massive film library of anomalous material recorded by a sweet, kind "little old lady".... Just picturing that in my mind brings up a chuckle... Lol, they don't stand a chance by accusing her of photoshopping those anomalous images into her movies, which is totally absurd... or saying that she somehow "fixed" the cam so strange effects would show up in her vids on playback... the whole scenario of them accusing someone like her of hoaxing her material like she's Ma Bell is very comical!



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Breadfan
 


What's undeniable is that it IS out of the ordinary, period. It simply cannot be explained to the full extent of our capabilities.

Don't 'believe' in something. Just know that it is strange and happening.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Breadfan
 


Why would you ever think that any photography of this enigma would ever fit what *you* want it to be? This isn't about what you want, it could very well be about what it is. You have to be open to the possibility that it may not be able to be photographed any better by our equipment then it already is.

Again, this doesn't seem to be a nuts and bolts presence, so don't expect it to photograph like one. This is the issue I have with those screaming for disclosure...again, what if it isn't what *you* want it to be, or only offers so much. It isn't about what we want, it's about what it is. And what if, it's not what you want?

Something is going on with Ms. Izatt, the question is always going to be what.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


If it's not the camera is it possibly the film - does she have a really old stock of film, is it possible the sprocket drives on the film are slipping / breaking or some chemical effect can produce the same results ?

If a stupid question please forgive as I know nothing about photography or film myself.

However, I do find the almost exact similarity of some frames to the Stephenville photos interesting, in that those did seem to have been "created" by a particular delay mode of the camera and would appear for one frame only also.

The STS tether type circular doughnut "ship" pics do seem to look very similar to some supposed orb pictures that do look very similar to pics that have been proven to be dust particles reflected in a flash.

If the other pictures shown and linked to on this thread are the best from 30,000 feet of film then the evidence that something unusual is being captured is a bit thin.

However, I would never knock anyone that claims an experience, could be very real for that person and clear pictures of a new type of phenomenom may just not be possible so warrants serious professional investigation.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Below is one of Dorothy Izatt's frameshots from one of her movies.



That they are not National Geographic Quality does not mean that we should discard such images because of that because by doing so, we would be losing out on an opportunity to at least evaluate what we ARE seeing whereby entertaining the notion that these "intelligences" may in fact be trying to communicate to us by letting us know that they do in fact exist.

At any rate, this is where we're at now when getting such images recorded through our video's or camera's. Yes, they are fuzzy and blurry and indistinct yet... we can still see very clearly that there's a defined shape of a being holding something in that frameshot from one of her video's. And has anyone here ever looked through a microscope at bacteria and virus' and noticed how blurry those images look through the lens of the scope? Yet, lab techs and doctors base their diagnoses on those blurry images they see in their microscopes... they don't discard such observations of those specimens just because what's showing through their lens is not National Geographic quality!! And the list goes on an on. The fact is, most scientific observations, hypothesis and theories are, for the most part, based on blurry images that are yet, still clear enough to render some tentative and conclusive observations on what they are.

But let's take a look at another blurry image that never would have survived to this date had it not been for those out there, throughout the ages, for almost 2,000 years!!, who knew they were seeing something significant on a strip of linen even though the image imprinted on it was rather vague and blurry. Here's that image below:


Did people say that this image is not worth the time of day because the image of the body imprinted on the cloth was not clear enough or detailed enough? ... or that it was too blurry therefore it's nothing worth analyzing or saving even though anyone can see that it looks like the figure of a human being?
No, they kept this cloth with this image imprinted on it in a safe box and treated it like the Holy Grail!
This is not to say that I believe it to be Jesus's burial cloth... we don't know that yet. But it goes without saying that there's definitely an imprint of man on that cloth and in late 1890's a photographer, just out of curiosity took a photograph of that cloth and found that the negative image of it actually was showing that man in 3-D!! Here's the negative version of that imprint on that cloth:


As you can see, lot more detail showed up in that negative image than in it's non-negative version!
Yet, there are still those out there who scoff at such images saying that because the image is "blurry"... there's nothing there!!

All I can say is that if it weren't for "blurry" images, we never would have developed a vaccine for polio, the chicken pox or the measles -- a cures for different kinds of cancer!!

If it weren't for "blurry" images, there wouldn't even be anything like X-ray and MRI technology as such images are inherently "blurry"!

If it weren't for "blurry" images, we never would have come to the conclusion that we are not the only planet in our galaxy!

If it weren't for "blurry" images, we would never even have Television now as everything that first showed up on its screen when it was first invented was... you got it.. BLURRY!

And, if it weren't for "blurry" images, we never would have saved a piece of linen for almost 2,000 years that scientists have been analyzing for over 3 decades now... yes, all because of that blurry image that's on The Shroud of Turin!

Thank-you for your time and I rest my case.



[edit on 25-3-2008 by Palasheea]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


With all due respect Ritz, you're going down the philosophy road. Too many "if's" will get you tangled in an endless web of theorizing.

I decided to ditch that approach some time ago. It really offers nothing it just gives you food for thoughts, which is ok if you're not ready or willing to open your eyes and look around, untill you get simply dissapointed with all the 'obvious revelations', 'undeniable evidences' etc. being thrown at you.

So, instead of dubious analysis of all the, again, blurry photos which will remain blurry and crappy as such, no matter how hard you try to rationalize them and explain them as "best we can get", I decided to cut to the chase, right thru it, with the straight forward 'knife thru the butter' approach.

Call me backward and unenlightened, but from now on, I want a solid proof. I want the evidence. We're not talking H2o, or atoms or ..God, or something abstract, we're talking about species of flesh and possibly bones, a humanoid race of aliens that is allegedly visiting our planet and being photographed for 30 years by some lady.

(Mod edit -- language).

That's the way it goes. Butter thru knife. Cut to the chase. Or is it cheese?
Mmmm...


[edit on 25-3-2008 by Breadfan]

[edit on 25-3-2008 by Byrd]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Palasheea
 


Someone took a chalk and draw the body of Jesus on the rag. So, what's the big deal about it? You also believe the man made vine out of water?

I don't. It's *SNIP*. Not because I'm a bad bad debunker raining on your parade, but because my sense of logic and common sense tells me othervise.

There you go.

Mod Edit-Please Read: Circumnavigation of Censors

[edit on 25-3-2008 by Breadfan]

[edit on 3/25/2008 by Cuhail]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Breadfan
 


How exactly is "it may not be able to be photographed like you want" philosophical? It may not be physical enough to be photographed.

The same goes for proof. It may not exist like we expect, or desire.

Nothing philosophical about it.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Breadfan
 


Breadfan

Call me backward and unenlightened, from now on I want proof?

How about this for dubious.... YOU HAVEN'T EVEN WATCHED THE VIDEO!

Could you please show a little respect by at least watching the video before you analyze, and trash it?

You have been extremely harsh in your criticism, and I for one am offended by your posts.

I have watched the video.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Breadfan
reply to post by Palasheea
 


Someone took a chalk and draw the body of Jesus on the rag. So, what's the big deal about it? You also believe the man made vine out of water?

I don't. It's bulls**t. Not because I'm a bad bad debunker raining on your parade, but because my sense of logic and common sense tells me othervise.

There you go.



[edit on 25-3-2008 by Breadfan]



And not only do you have the gall to criticize and dismiss the material that's in the video that we are discussing in this thread that you've never even bothered to view, you also are not reading what's being written in our posts! I never said that that image in the Shroud of Turin is Jesus and I only posted that image as just another example of how those, like yourself, who for some odd reason, cannot discern what being seen in images that are less than National Geographic quality. I suspect it's got much to do with a cognitive deficit of some sort that's connected to vision and comprehension. My brother-in-law is a radiologist and he said that many prospective residents of those radiology programs are ruled out due to this cognitive impairment which is in the dyslexia category.
So, I guess I should be more sympathetic to this cognitive deficit of yours but I would think that you already know that you suffer from this impairment and that you shouldn't be commenting on photographic material where viewers need at least avg. abilities to see the objects shown photo's that are not of National Geographic quality.
But in any case, there's therapy for this to improve in this area and I hope that you check that out!


PS -- oh, wait a second... I see that you actually do see what looks like Jesus in that negative image! Well, then I guess you don't suffer from that problem I mentioned above. My guess though, in the case of Dorothy Izatt's images, you are dismissing them as garbage because you don't think it's possible for anyone to get photographic images like this... anomalous ones... therefore you are saying that you are not seeing anything in those photo's but I don't think you are being honest about that. If you can see the imprint of a male on the Shroud of Turin, regardless if you think it's a hoax or not, you should also be seeing what we are in Dorothy's images too... but that this is not the case is very perplexing to me. I'm sorry, but I don't think you are being honest about that.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by Palasheea]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Breadfan

Originally posted by easynow
pg146
here is the enhanced version wich clarifies the " light beings "




Why, why, why, why, why in the Great Emperor of Zeta Reticuli's name, those "definitive proof" photos always have to be crappy quality ie. blurry?

Why couldn't she just threaten those aliens with a broomstick or something, just to STAND STILL for 3 seconds so she could take a shot?


Haha. I share and participate in your frustration. After all this time on planet Earth, countless visitations, photos, and videos; not one single really good image of an ET. (sigh). Oh well...we'll have to wait I guess.

On a side note, I still believe Izatt's story. Just a gut feeling.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by VisionQuest
Haha. I share and participate in your frustration. After all this time on planet Earth, countless visitations, photos, and videos; not one single really good image of an ET. (sigh). Oh well...we'll have to wait I guess.


Again, as little as we know about this phenomena there's no real way to know how good legitimate photos can be. This is often the M.O. of the enigma itself: highly elusive.

The issue will be to learn more about it in whatever way possible, and try and devise ways to capture it better.

Breadfan is going from a nuts and bolts physical approach, which in the UFO realm hasn't panned out. I abandoned it years ago, just like the ETH. They don't work, and they don't seem to fit anymore.

This enigma whatever it is, isnt about what WE want it to be, but about what it is...the trick is inching our way closer to some sort of understanding.

Crying about photos not being clear when you don't know the mechanics of whatever youre shooting...is rather silly, and gets you nowhere.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
All I can say is that it's better than nothing!

At least we have something here and like anything else, maybe as our technology improves, so will those images of these "intelligences' improve also. It's just a matter of creating the right technology that will allow us to get better images of them! All based on advanced physics that needs to be translated into the right kind of photographic technology that will render better results in this area.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Whats most amazing about these lights is how similar they are to the Stephensville ones. I mean here you have an old camera versus todays digital tech. so if there are differences they may be attributed to the advanced technology used to film the lights over Stephensville. Why hasn't this similarity been discussed more?

AS



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by A SINCLAIR
Whats most amazing about these lights is how similar they are to the Stephensville ones. I mean here you have an old camera versus todays digital tech. so if there are differences they may be attributed to the advanced technology used to film the lights over Stephensville. Why hasn't this similarity been discussed more?

AS


There's a lot of material out there of similar lights like what was recorded in Stephenville and some of those recorded by Izatt.
Here's a whole page of them:
www.tldm.org...
And I do think that it's wrong to discount those photo's taken at the site shown in this link simply because one is prejudicial towards any images taken at a religious site... I think all similar evidence is worth looking over regardless what the circumstances were at the time when they were recorded.

Are all of these photo's authentic? I don't know but I'm sure some of them probably are. Whatever the case may be, I think the Stephenville light images and those images recorded in Bayside NY, for example, at least provide us with some material that we can compare to what Dorothy recorded too.
By making those comparisons, even on an informal basis, at least we can see that possibly others too have gotten the same kind of results that Dorothy did in some of her movies. Does this really matter? I think so because it may be a phenomenon that's worthy of its own category. Is there a name for it yet? I don't know. But I'm especially intrigued by the "sky writing" -- Dorothy has a few of those too and at Bayside, there's one that spells out the name Jacinta, who was one of the seers of the Fatima Marian event.
I think that there's validity in numbers. The more people out there who are getting the same things showing up in their photo's or movies, lends credence to those same anomalous images that are being seen in them. From there we categorize such anomalies for future reference.


[edit on 25-3-2008 by Palasheea]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
may not be physical enough to be photographed.

The same goes for proof. It may not exist like we expect, or desire.

Nothing philosophical about it.


How can something not be physical enough? You're either there or not there.
You're either physical or not. I'm not really convinced by that explanation, but then again, everything's possible. Maybe they're just bunch of ghosts flying around in ghostly spaceships so we can't take a clear picture of them..



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by seawolf197
reply to post by Breadfan
 


Breadfan

Call me backward and unenlightened, from now on I want proof?

How about this for dubious.... YOU HAVEN'T EVEN WATCHED THE VIDEO!

Could you please show a little respect by at least watching the video before you analyze, and trash it?

You have been extremely harsh in your criticism, and I for one am offended by your posts.

I have watched the video.



I'll watch the video if you pay it for me. You're offended by my posts? Are you related to this woman in some way so I offended you? And what's offending in my posts? My harsh criticism? Well, with all due respect, deal with it.




top topics



 
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join