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.

 

Capturing the Light, The Story Of Dorothy Izatt (2007)

page: 14
108
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
has anyone actually bought the DVD?

Does it have more footage of the unexplained lights or is it just the same video that is floating around online?




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb
has anyone actually bought the DVD?

Does it have more footage of the unexplained lights or is it just the same video that is floating around online?



i watched a version online..the official version i think..and im very pleased i didnt buy it..i would have been terribly disappointed..and would have felt ripped off to be honest.

i dont believe a word of it..



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by alienesque
 


thats what I figured.

On the fence whether it's all real or not but I do look forward to seeing this 30,000 feet of footage, if it exists an if they ever digitize it.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb
...I do look forward to seeing this 30,000 feet of footage, if it exists an if they ever digitize it.


I look forward to hearing why she never used a digital camera instead insisting on using caveman technology (i.e. super8) even though she was filming these things as recently as 2005.

Too many alarm bells and not enough substance in this case...



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz

Originally posted by warrenb
...I do look forward to seeing this 30,000 feet of footage, if it exists an if they ever digitize it.


I look forward to hearing why she never used a digital camera instead insisting on using caveman technology (i.e. super8) even though she was filming these things as recently as 2005.

Too many alarm bells and not enough substance in this case...


Come on people she is an 82 year old lady.... my grandma is 83 and she doesn't even know how to use a cell phone.. just because she doesn't use digital does not disprove anything. Regardless of what you say the film is still authentic and her credibility has been tested countless times. I think the fact that Dr. Jay Allen Hynek was involved with her says enough. If you don't know who he is, go google him. It may sway your opinions



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sam60
 



Originally posted by Sam60
I choose a) when it comes to the orbs/dust......delusional


I see, I find that odd because if I were to determine that someone is delusional, it would seriously undermine the potential veracity of their other claims, to the point that I would not be interested in hearing them.

So she's delusional about seeing orbs in her house, I imagine you find her claims of telepathic contact with these beings to be delusions as well, and yet you find the video interview with her daughter where a light shows up behind the kitchen window "interesting".

reply to post by Majic
 


Certainly there are still many aspects of this story that need further investigation to arrive at a definitive conclusion, I have, however, always been a trusting, even naive, person; I am willing to accept her story as she tells it, and accept her interpretation of what these lights represent. I realize that this does not mean she or I are correct in our interpretations, only that we have drawn conclusions based on available knowledge, and that these conclusions are right for us.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   



Come on people she is an 82 year old lady.... my grandma is 83 and she doesn't even know how to use a cell phone.. just because she doesn't use digital does not disprove anything. Regardless of what you say the film is still authentic and her credibility has been tested countless times. I think the fact that Dr. Jay Allen Hynek was involved with her says enough. If you don't know who he is, go google him. It may sway your opinions


Didn't Allen Hynek said "that figuring out the truth behind UFOs is likely to tell us more about the human brain than about the existence of extraterrestrial beings."

?

ponder that



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


yes i own the best UFO documentary of 2008 capturing the light with dorothy izatt.

the STORY of this woman is completely credible. the family interviews are remnisant of a typical american family.beautiful people..especially her granddaughter


there are TONS of points that are missed by not watching the actual film. the emotion that comes from dorothy is awesome.. she has pictures of herself during a time when her family thought she was crazy. she looks terribly depressed. although of course this proves nothing. but body language and testemony are an overlooked facet to the phenomenon if you ask me.

ok back to your inquiry.

there is a pannel sitting before a crowd which presents the amount of money it would take to fake an 8mm hoax such as this, the fact that there is 35,000 feet AND that fact that she films all of this on her own would simply put to rest the fact that she cannot chop this up in her basement by herself. those who insist that this is a digital hoax of some sort are FOOLISHLY missing the facts. later as the ufo was filmed by accident the film was sent off to INDUSTRIAL LIGHT AND MAGIC (the CGI experts behind TRANSFORMERS 2!) and they too concluded that it was not a digital render.. now that doesnt mean someone was out side with a life size model of a UFO. but hey, you do the math.

Dorothy izatt was proven to have an above average IQ on more than one test. this to is inconclusive but as you will see in the DVD they bring these facts in to play at just the right time.

anyone who is not on board with the dorothy izatt phenomenon has simply missed the critical importance of the type of film she has used and the amount of different cameras used as well. yes mulitple witnesses have experienced with her daughter and grand daughter alike. the reaffirming statements by the family are ENOUGH to get you to let go of any reluctance and to simply embrace dorothy as the hidden GEM of this entire phenomenon. she purposely stayed silent for over 35 years under the advise of J alan Hyneck (possible spelling error).

if you have $19.99 to spare.. and your not some babbling idiot who thinks truth should be free
so why should i pay...i would highly and i repeat HIGHLY concider owning this one film.

also warren, from reading numerous posts of yours in the past i was not insinuating that you are a babbling idiot.


[edit on 7/21/2009 by LordThumbs]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   





hi...thanks for that


didnt you find the UFO behind the kitchen window somewhat..erm..too perfect...staged?

oh...the orbs are pieces of dust..

by the way..someone mentioned that just because she wants to make some money from this doesnt mean its false...in my opinion it most definately does...beings who want to help us would not go to a woman who sells this information.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by alienesque]

[edit on 21-7-2009 by alienesque]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb
has anyone actually bought the DVD?

Does it have more footage of the unexplained lights or is it just the same video that is floating around online?



I bought the dvd online from amazon's video on demand, same as the one at megaupload or whatever.... does anybody else have access to any of her other footage?



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmayhew01
.. just because she doesn't use digital does not disprove anything.


I do not need to disprove anything as that would require something to have been proven true in the first place.

This case has no solid proof either way.

And if she ever states the fact that she is too old and does not know how to use one as the reason for not using a digital camera then she will lose all credibility IMO. That is just laughable.

And you are basing that decision on the fact your gran can't use a mobile phone. Seriously?!



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmayhew01
I bought the dvd online from amazon's video on demand, same as the one at megaupload or whatever.... does anybody else have access to any of her other footage?


You paid around $19 for her story and she didn't even provide you with the evidence?

More fool you.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz

Originally posted by warrenb
...I do look forward to seeing this 30,000 feet of footage, if it exists an if they ever digitize it.


I look forward to hearing why she never used a digital camera instead insisting on using caveman technology (i.e. super8) even though she was filming these things as recently as 2005.

Too many alarm bells and not enough substance in this case...


That's a very superficial judgment which shows that you really haven't read much about this. The fact that she's using "caveman" technology is what makes it so hard to debunk.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by longfade]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 


your just being stubborn.

yes, it doesnt make ANY sense at all that an older woman would want to stick to using something she knows.
I say to you that it is the closed minding thinking of today that demands we use the latest and greatest technology, keeping us always buying and in "want" of new things.
Look through the eyes of this lady, why buy a digital camera when a) she doesnt know how to use one, and b) her super8 is working just fine!

want want want



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
If she would use a digital video camera wouldn`t everybody scream that`s no evidence because it`s too easy to fake?
And as I understand it the money from this DVD is used to digitize the decaying Super8 films of her.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz

You paid around $19 for her story and she didn't even provide you with the evidence?

More fool you.


I'm sure we've all spent $20 on worse.
Again, you are looking from only your viewpoint.
are you really as open minded as you may claim to be?

perhaps simply the footage of Dorothy talking is all some of need as evidence, that and the words of other famed skeptics introduced in the video.
The nice colorful lights are just a bonus to go along with her story.

Besides, if you listen to the ATS mix interview with Dorothy and the Director, the Director clearly states that it was his intention to come into this project from the viewpoint of the family, not just her claims, but how this has affected the family. So it should tell you something that the focus seemed to change to, hey, something might actually be going on here.

your welcome to your opinions obviously, but so far they have had no backing by either logic or reasoning.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Odessy]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienesque

hi...thanks for that


didnt you find the UFO behind the kitchen window somewhat..erm..too perfect...staged?

oh...the orbs are pieces of dust..

by the way..someone mentioned that just because she wants to make some money from this doesnt mean its false...in my opinion it most definately does...beings who want to help us would not go to a woman who sells this information.



1) Too perfect? No, very fortunate.
2) Dust? I would LOVE to see glowing balls of dust hanging outside in the night sky. I can't believe the pros that tried to debunk the case didnt think of that...
3) Yes, I'm sure SHE's the one trying to make money... It couldn't have anything to do with the person who approached her requesting to make the documentary... No, of course not, why would he want to make money to pay for all his equipment and employees involved with the project. She must be a fraud...

Are these little squabbling the best you guys can come up with?
Cause from my computer chair, you all sound like a bunch of little kids.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by longfade
That's a very superficial judgment which shows that you really haven't read much about this. The fact that she's using "caveman" technology is what makes it so hard to debunk.


That is your opinion and that is cool


I am entitled to mine though without being branded as someone making 'superficial judgments' without listening to the the lady's story as she tells it.

Bearing that in mind, I don't see how performing a hoax on a very simple 'caveman' camera could be considered difficult.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
your just being stubborn.


I have an open mind - especially on this case - how is that stubborn?


yes, it doesnt make ANY sense at all that an older woman would want to stick to using something she knows.


You make it sound like I am asking the lady to change the ingredients in a family recipe handed down through several generations.

We want to be able to verify Dorothy's claims so that if her case is proven true, mankind can get a foothold on reality and be safe in the knowledge that we are not alone.

And if her case is proven as a hoax then we can move resources to the next case that may be true.

I would suggest that a lady that has not used a digital camera to prove her story, despite digital cameras being very cheap, accessible for several years and easy to use, could be considered stubborn.

And yes, I will be very stubborn in my quest for the truth.


I say to you that it is the closed minding thinking of today that demands we use the latest and greatest technology, keeping us always buying and in "want" of new things.


You have got to be kidding me?!

If you jump on ATS with a post relaying your story of alien visitation and frequent UFO sightings on video/photo and you refuse to upload evidence because of some notion that buying stuff is putting cash in the coffers of TPTB then expect to get banned my friend.


Look through the eyes of this lady, why buy a digital camera when a) she doesnt know how to use one, and b) her super8 is working just fine!


When did she say that she doesn't know how to use one?

Whether her super8 is 'working just fine' is certainly up for debate.


want want want


Evidence. Evidence. Evidence.

[edit on 21/7/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by derpif
 


With a digital camera she could hook it up to a PC and upload the contact live.

No doubt in anyone's mind then.

Is that unreasonable?



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join