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: 15
108
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

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


So putting forward the idea of using a digital camera to prove the UFO visitation aspect of the case is illogical and unreasonable?

Please explain.

IMO to have an open mind is to consider every outcome as plausible and to test each of these outcomes with sincere and equal ferocity while keeping in mind that unknown outcomes could also be possible.

You believe in one outcome and brush aside any testing of this outcome as the actions of 'kids'.

I am happy believing that anything is possible...

[edit on 21/7/2009 by skibtz]




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by alienesque
 


odysse has somewhat taken the words out of my mouth in response to the ufo outside the window.

so i will also add that, it wasnt in my mind, something that was so convenient as to be staged. the premis of this dvd is about a documenting team doing a documentary which happen to catch the ufo out the window...
( which dorothy so politely put it as. "it is a gift..do with it what you like")

dorothy is done playing into the fact that it LOOKS staged, she understands many people will ride that train. which is why she has a nonchalant look about her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOBODY is saying this is proof. to all the proof party poopers, i think by now anybody WHOSE ANYBODY already knows that PROOF will come from the skeptics not the believers or the 'ufo community'... ill say it again. PROOF will be accepted by skeptics when a skeptic provides the solid proof. those who are convinced now, are those who simply can add the reasoning together.. evidence A plus evidence B equals conclusion C.
or maybe someone has been lucky enough to experience directly and no longer wastes time with the convincing aspect of it.

Its seems characteristic of skeptics to assume that the proof will come from those who are repeatedly saying that UFO exist. 'ok so prove it' its been beating so much that now everyone thinks the proof will come from the believers.



as ive said before. so often skeptics lack the attention span to simply spend the alone time with a majority of the UFO cases available to them.. and by this i mean the testemony of credible individuals.spending about 6 months of solid alone time will just about do the trick.but the sources of information should be pure.

if there is a skeptic reading this who has a pure heart know this, im responding mostly to the skeptics who obviously post with malicious intent.


[edit on 7/21/2009 by LordThumbs]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz
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?


Dream on,

Me the first would do it if i knew there was something real out there to film live and broadcast it so everyone could look at it.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 


I'm not brushing anything aside. You've been pretty one sided with some of your other posts in this thread and only on the rebuttal are you posing logic. Thats fine.
Its not as if this woman came onto ATS to post her findings and say "look at me!"
People tracked her down. Therefore, she's not trying to prove anything to anyone, shes just an old lady who has been using her movie cameras to record objects for the past 30 years and her story is only now (in the past few years) getting out.
At the time she started seeing the objects there was no such thing as digital cameras and so she bought 2 additional cameras to back up her findings.
So yes, I think your request for wanting her to use a digital camera is absurd. Perhaps now that she has more attention and other people can start making those requests, but up until now shes just been some old lady in Canada.
On the part of you wanting evidence evidence evidence, shes given a ton of it in the form of super8, MUCH MUCH MUCH harder to tamper with than DIGITAL, and has had the expertise of people that work in the field, people who are known skeptics, to say these tapes are genuine.
Yes, truly you would ask an alien to bring back HD pictures of his home world instead of just saying, take me there.
The biggest part of Dorothy's story is just that, her story, and of those who have seen the sightings with her.
You can keep asking for more variables, and yes, it would be AWESOME to see the rest of the footage, but many of us don't need that. It was the feeling I had in my heart while watching the documentary and listening to her that just made this story sound right.
Sure, I may be foolhardy in my understandings, but at least I've made a conclusion based on the evidence given and not of the evidence that does not exist.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
I'm not brushing anything aside.


Oh, but you did say:


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.


Brushing aside IMO.


You've been pretty one sided with some of your other posts in this thread and only on the rebuttal are you posing logic.


Gimme a chance - I have been firefighting since making my initial post in this thread



Its not as if this woman came onto ATS to post her findings and say "look at me!"


No. But she has had her case appear in books, released videos and done radio and TV shows.

ATS is small fry for her...could that be because she wouldn't get paid for posting her story here?


At the time she started seeing the objects there was no such thing as digital cameras and so she bought 2 additional cameras to back up her findings.


I thought that an outside element provided Dorothy with 2 extra cameras?

And please do not use the digital cameras were not available line. When Dorothy was still witnessing these lights in 2005 digital cameras were available.


So yes, I think your request for wanting her to use a digital camera is absurd.


I never asked if it was absurd. I asked if it was unreasonable or illogical.

So you still think it is unreasonable and illogical to ask for a digital camera to replicate the lights so that we can fortify her claims?


On the part of you wanting evidence evidence evidence, shes given a ton of it in the form of super8, MUCH MUCH MUCH harder to tamper with than DIGITAL


This is where we differ. The super8 is a very simple device indeed. A digital camera on the otherhand is not.

Unless you know something about super8 technology that the rest of the world does not?


You can keep asking for more variables, and yes, it would be AWESOME to see the rest of the footage, but many of us don't need that.


But for me and many others, we need evidence (not 'variables'!?).

And some other believers here were asking for more visual evidence.

You may not need scientific evidence but the real world does I'm afraid. Especially when people are taking money for videos and TV/Radio shows and conferences et al.


It was the feeling I had in my heart while watching the documentary and listening to her that just made this story sound right.


That is beautiful. For you that is.


Sure, I may be foolhardy in my understandings, but at least I've made a conclusion based on the evidence given and not of the evidence that does not exist.


That doesn't make sense. Unless you have been drinking.

As I have explained I have come to no conclusion despite seeing all of the evidence presented by Dorothy Izatt in the video.

I am asking for further evidence to reinforce previous claims and evidence provided.

Surely that's a good thing right?

I'm not asking for an alien's foot or anything weird - just some film taken by Dorothy using a digital camera.

[edit on 21/7/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
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...


Watch the full video, the dust orbs are near the end and show up in family photos around the house and look exactly like any dust normally photographed. No one is calling the lights in the sky dust



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz

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.


All due respect, you're just plain wrong and uninformed. It's not a matter of opinion that these reels have been examined frame by frame and have been determined authentic and inexplicable. If you really have any interest then you should read about it. Otherwise, yes, you're very entitled to decide whatever you want, but you're reaching that conclusion prematurely and with no factual basis. I just get irritated with people here jumping in with both feet, with no background information, no apparent INTEREST, even, in the subject; just this cynical, superficial (yes, I said it again) simple minded approach to subjects that maybe they're just not equipped to deal with in a mature fashion.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   


Its a camera LED for sure



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
funny,

There are people seeing a ufo on that footage, how absurd can people get.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
reply to post by StaringBack
 


Most of the following images and descriptions can be found here: Source
The rest were from different google searches. This site (Here) has a nice slide show.

I will start with the image you asked about.
(note, these descriptions are not mine but the ones posted on the first linked site I provided)



"An angelic being seems to be guiding children into a corridor of light. This image appeared in a bright burst of blue-white light. It was shown to the author in its "moving" form during his June 2000 visit with Dorothy Izatt."



"By using a computer to carefully analyze the shadings and contrasts of the "Tending to the Children" photograph, researcher/graphic artist Lucy West produces this rendering."


This one may be my favorite:


"Dorothy was filming a bright light in the sky when it suddenly vanished in a dazzling burst. The developed film showed this apparent "landscape" with lights in the background. Dr. J. Allen. Hynek suggested that it might be a glimpse of the object's home world as it passed through a "window" or portal in time and space."




"Three framed of Super-8 film greatly enlarged. An object appears in the upper frame as a small ball of light. The second frame or "Flash Frame" shows the same object, but larger, more brilliant as it produces a sudden burst of movement in one frame. The third frame is entirely empty."




"Beginning as a tiny speck, this object grew into a bright blossom of soft white light. Dorothy was swept by a feeling of warmth and love."




"Dorothy asked, "Do you have a name?" There was a sudden flash of light and the object was gone. The developed film showed an explosion of movement with what appears to be a "signature in light" bottom right."




"A ball of light hovered and when Dorothy asked, "What do you look like?" there was a bright flash and a "Face" appeared to the right of the bright ball."




"A window appeared on the side of the disc-shaped craft. In the window several entities appeared. One was neared and held what seemed to be a clipboard-like object."




"What seems to be an image of an extra terrestrial outside of his craft"




"This huge ball of light emitted a bright and beautiful blue and lavender light. A smaller object, emitting a red and white light, emerged from the lower right portion of the larger object. Having seen this before, Dorothy identified the smaller light was a "scout" or probe of some kind."


Now I don't remember any mentioning of this in the movie. I think it's something we should investigate more about. According to this next image and quote, Dorothy actually got the chance to somehow get into the craft? I think it may be a misuse of wording and the beings are just projected the inside of their craft on the outside like they have been doing with the images of themselves, but who knows. Something I want to investigate into a little:


"From an example of Dorothy's remarkable "interior footage (filmed while inside an otherworldly craft), this still shows the arms and hands of an extraterrestrial. The right hand indicated only four digits with what may be webbing between the fingers. The alien's left hand is what seems to be n a control instrument."



A sketch of the "alien hands" photograph based on a computer analysis of the image.


And here are some more pics from random articles about Dorothy:







That is one of the bests posts I've ever seen on this site. Thank you!
That post should be a thread alone. absolutely amazing!



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
~We have astonishing visuals.


Yes, but of what? Camera defects? Aliens? Time travelers? Supernatural creatures? If you don't know, then you don't know.


~We have multiple witnesses.
~Witnesses seem to be viable, and credible.


Except most if not all seem to have a "dog in the fight." It would be nice to have some completely objective, disinterested witnesses.


~photographer herself in no way appears incapacitated.
~She does not seem to invite publicity.


We'll give her the benefit of the doubt.


~Material is not debunked by professionals.
~Photographer's reputation is vouched for by those who know her well.


What's to debunk? A lot of squiggles and blurs?


Folks, it looks like we have a winner.


Only if you want it to be. Objectively, all we have is a curiosity with no real answers to anything. And after 30 years, the answers aren't getting any closer. The whole business is stagnant, with the "evidence" not improving, and the conjecture getting more complicated and bizarre. After 30 years, one would hope for something a little more definitive, not just more of the same. But that's not happening.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Nohup]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Only if you want it to be. Objectively, all we have is a curiosity with no real answers to anything. And after 30 years, the answers aren't getting any closer. The whole business is stagnant, with the "evidence" not improving, and the conjecture getting more complicated and bizarre. After 30 years, one would hope for something a little more definitive, not just more of the same. But that's not happening.


I couldn't agree more with you on that. In fact, every 3-4 year i come back to ATS and read if anything serious has been "discovered" about ETs or UFOs. Always the same crap unfortunately. No evidence found whatsoever. Not even a good quality footage. Just hear say from eye witnesses and blurry videos of who knows what on it.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Obviously I can't refute a word you have said and consequently won't try; because you could be 100% correct.

But nonetheless, I find the footage and the family testimonials very compelling. This is one of the more interesting threads I have read, and I appreciate the OP for presenting it. I've enjoyed it enormously.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by modern
 


Not sure what I'm looking at here, but it's Dorothy's footage thats amazing, not the crews.
But thanks for bringing this to our attention.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy

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.


morning


1 is obviously a personal matter..i found it very staged
2. you can do the test quite easily yourself...i did and my images were full of exactly the same sort of orbs... its dust.
3. why would she need a pro?..why not just film the beings and be done with it?..these beings want to help us and the best they can do is find some old lady who needs a pro to market her proof and thus incure extra costs that she passes on to the people who need the help...

makes no sense at all...sorry


[edit on 22-7-2009 by alienesque]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


If you throw ink on wall you will see better pictures of aliens and mothership.
Don't forget to post blurry pics of that taken by a faulty camera in darkness in presence of no one, to provide us a smoking gun please.

Then may be some artist will be kind enough to draw faces on it and someone will earn their bread by selling a video. Its a win-win situation.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I remember an earlier thread about this video.Own very own J.Ritzman had an interesting post concerning Dorothy's footage.It can be found here.(About 5th post down)

I bought the video when it first went on sale and still watch it from time to time.

I found it odd that these light beings started scaring Dorothy after she talked to her priest,and he said they were evil.

Very strange case.One worth looking into further,IMO.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by crowpruitt]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by longfade
All due respect, you're just plain wrong and uninformed. It's not a matter of opinion that these reels have been examined frame by frame and have been determined authentic and inexplicable. If you really have any interest then you should read about it. Otherwise, yes, you're very entitled to decide whatever you want, but you're reaching that conclusion prematurely and with no factual basis. I just get irritated with people here jumping in with both feet, with no background information, no apparent INTEREST, even, in the subject; just this cynical, superficial (yes, I said it again) simple minded approach to subjects that maybe they're just not equipped to deal with in a mature fashion.


It is intersting to note that you prefer to attack the poster and not the post.

Still, let's see if we can resolve this eh?

In order to replicate the results of the footage taken by Dorothy you would need to pause the film in the camera and apply a tiny bit of shake. The result would be one frame of camera shake.

Do you think that is impossible using a super8 camera?

I believe that process could be resolved with very little effort/imagination at all.

That being the case, the film could be inspected by any prefessional and there would be no signs tampering because no tampering of the film would be required.

It is a purely mechanical process using the camera to produce the effect - not the film.

Now please stop with attacking the poster and reply to the post. After all, that is why we are here right?

[edit on 22/7/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
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".


I see the "orbs" & the "crafts" as being seperate issues.

I do not think there is any possibility that "orbs" are anything other than out-of-focus dust.

I do think there is a possibility (albiet remote) the "crafts" being seen are just that - crafts.

The telepathy thing is way out there. I don't think telepathy is impossible per se, but noone can claim there is presently proof that it exists.

Modern may have torn a big hole in the kitchen window sighting. That really does look as if it could be an LED on the camera:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's hard being a skeptic. I keep reading & reviewing cases trying to find the ones that might be "real". There are so very few of them.




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sam60

The telepathy thing is way out there. I don't think telepathy is impossible per se, but noone can claim there is presently proof that it exists.



Telepathy, telekinesis and clairvoyance all do occur, the only problem is we don't do it on purpose and we don't know how to trigger it either...



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join