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

Originally posted by Conan The Usurper

Originally posted by Sam60

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...

I really hope those things do exist.

However, I really want proof of that.

reply to post by Sam60


You cannot get proof because we don't know how to trigger them, therefore, we don't know how to conduct an experiment that would prove that 2 human beings can use one of them willingly.

It's just like trying to prove love between 2 persons.

But some cases have been scientifically documented, like poltergeists. In which they conclude, there is no ghosts moving things in the house but a person moving them via telekinesis without realizing it. When i say move i don't mean like flying or anything like the Jedis do in star wars, but some furniture moved a little like few inches, door would close etc.

reply to post by Conan The Usurper

Those are all interesting topics.

But I might refrain from replying so as to stay on topic & not derail the thread.

its simple...go into a darkish room...shake a rug or a small carpet around for a few seconds..then take random photos of room with a flash.

youll get millions of tiny orbs exactly like these..

whenever anyone brings these dust orbs into the mix it really discredits everything else they are saying.

Hey guys, after 6-8 years of being an anonymous reader, I felt the need to sign up and have a debate about this documentary. I enjoy reading ATS every night before I go to sleep, kind of like reading a nightly book. I've been doing this for YEARS and have enjoyed many many topics. Ok enough rambling...

Since this is my first post, I feel the need to quickly describe where I stand on things.

1) I am a believer of UFO's and paranormal activities.
2) As much of a believer that I am, I do everything I can to stay grounded, observe the facts presented and try to make a fair judgment. I do not believe everything that is out there.
3) Skeptics really frustrate me, however I do understand where they are coming from and have no problem with them needing "more" proof about EBE's, UFO's, ghosts etc...
4) I hope that both skeptics and believers can come way from reading my post and say, "Ok...he has a point.....I can see where he's coming from..."


Now onto the documentary.

The documentary was very very fascinating. It prompted me to listen to the interview by Dave with Frank/Dorothy. From a judgemental standpoint, they seem sincere.

The reason why I am here posting is that I have sent an email to Frank with some obvious questions and to my disappointment, he has not responded. This is what prompted me to sign up here and discuss with you guys.


The documentary likes to talk about this "30,000 feet" of film footage. Yet, as I watched the documentary, barely any of the 30,000 feet was shown. It makes me wonder if the experts that they contacted, like the guy from ILM were even shown any of the 30,000 feet footage, or they were just told there's 30,000 feet worth of footage, but "here's just a sample", just like they did with the viewers of the DVD.

I understand there are budget constraints but you would think that the director and his crew, (if he even had any) would take SOME TIME to look at her old footage and present more to the audience.

Dorothy looks and sounds just like my own mother, so it's very hard for me to question her integrity. So it is not so much Dorothy that I am questioning, it is Frank and his approach to the documentary.

Why was so much time spent on her skeptical family?
Why so many interviews with them and their thoughts?
Why was the documentary only 45 minutes? If what Dorothy says is true, it would be absolutely imperative to have a much longer documentary, more well laid out and observed. But 45 minutes with very few footage from the "30,000 feet" of film?

I also would like to know, why did Frank never sit down with Dorothy for a good one-to-one interview? I was expecting 15-20 minutes worth of just back and forth chattering. Tell us more Dorothy? What else do they tell you? What's the meaning of life? Do they eat? Do they play? Do they have entertainment? How long do they live?

All sorts of questions that any average Joe would love to ask. Yet the DIRECTOR didn't feel it necessary to do this sit down?

Also, at first I was very fascinated with the UFO's behind the kitchen window during Dorothy's daughters interview, but I find it hard to believe that whoever was the cameraman at the time did not see this?

I can ramble on and on about this documentary, I hope those that have read this post, do not see me as bashing the documentary, I am not. I am just a believer with questions, and IMO they seem to be natural logical questions to ask.

I came away from the film with MORE questions now.

No one can explain her 1/18th of a second images showing very fascinating shots of possibly other lifeforms and land mass. Those were incredible images.

It is a love/hate relationship with this documentary.

I feel the director was non-chalant in making this film, not really asking the right questions. Everything seemed "on the surface".

Can anyone understand where I'm coming from? I hope this post gave an insight onto my thoughts and hope you guys don't believe that I am just bashing the film.

I am not.

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

LOL, actually it's Modern who got torn a big hole. Have you seen the reply to his Youtube posting that debunks his dubunking? If you don't want to track down Modern's clip here were the replies to his post:

"The big problem with your theory (and that you forgot to mention) is that the window pane behind her on the right is open. In other words, how would a camera's led be reflecting off an open window with no pane to reflect off of?

You also failed to mention about the entire portion where the light goes in different directions than the camera, or how the light splits and joins itself during the interview, and how it travels from the left window pane to the open window pane and the lights illuminance is not affected. Shall I go on about the other stuff you forgot to mention that occurs during this interview?

Lastly, your title of the clip is Capturing the Light Dorothy Izatt debunked, but your clip contains no footage from Dorothy Izatt's footage."

Modern you may want to consider taking the clip down unless you plan on replying to those comments-- your attempt to debunk this entire case with a 2 sec shot that you slowed down to mislead everyone is looking rather embarrassing... for you.

reply to post by nightly_reader


Hi! Welcome to ATS!. I, too, have a love/hate relationship with the story. But.....mostly love. I base many of my thoughts on the credibility of Dorothy herself. She sat on this information for decades. She is older, and as she has grown older she may be sensing a "now or never" motivation concerning sharing her find.

As for the producer of the documentary not devoting enough time to the ufo footage itself, is a problem for me too, although he could have been time-limited in the presentation, and had to pick and choose what he felt was the most significant/convincing. Although they indicate there is 30,000 feet of footage, they make no claim that all of it, contains ufo
images. It could be that 30,000 feet of footage only yielded what we saw, or we saw the best of it.

I don't think we have yet heard the last from Dorothy and her story. I hope not. It's truly fascinating.

Originally posted by nightly_reader
I can ramble on and on about this documentary, I hope those that have read this post, do not see me as bashing the documentary, I am not. I am just a believer with questions, and IMO they seem to be natural logical questions to ask.

Can anyone understand where I'm coming from? I hope this post gave an insight onto my thoughts and hope you guys don't believe that I am just bashing the film.

You are being very wise by treading cautiously in this post.

I have asked some perfectly valid questions IMO and in return I am receiving hate mail via U2U. (dont worry though - it's only one user so it's not pandemic!)

And this despite the fact that I have reached no conclusion and am therefore totally open to what is being witnessed in this case

[edit on 22/7/2009 by skibtz]

Originally posted by spooker
"The big problem with your theory (and that you forgot to mention) is that the window pane behind her on the right is open. In other words, how would a camera's led be reflecting off an open window with no pane to reflect off of?

True.

Whatever the red light is - it definitely looks like it exists on the otherside of the window - i.e. outside.

I think if someone was waving that light around to recreate the illusion then the lady would have at least glanced at the source once even if she knew it was there and was doing her best to ignore it.

It doesn't rule out tom-foolery (i.e. someone outside waving a light around) but it does IMO rule out a source in the house creating the lights seen outside of the window.

I did think that the saucer shape seen in the window looked like it was seen in front of the blinds but it could just be the light saturating and giving that impression.

I remember watching the DVD waiting for the director to show us the view outside of the window as there are clearly mountains in the area and it would be interesting to note where they are in relation to the interview video.

That said, the mountains are quite a distance away and any object on the mountain that could create that light source and movement would need to be moving at an almost impossible speed IMO.

Sam60, et al...

I think you are very much on subject concerning 'psychic' phenomena with UFOs, ETs, etc.

What I experienced was similar to Dorothy in many aspects. Seeing this documentary (among other recent events) has shed some light on my experiences of long ago. I don't think the shadows that darted away are those 'light beings' at all. I think the shadow people may be other intelligences sometimes (ghosts?), but are mostly psychic manifestations of our subconscious... not imagination.

The more 'in tune' you become through meditation and other things the more you can affect/project your influence onto reality. These beings just showed her the dark projected manifestations of her mind which danced to the songs playing over and over in her head at the time: doubt and fear.
Perhaps, these light beings are the positive manifestation of her soul, and by establishing a dialogue with them has connected with Akasha and the knowledge and wisdom of the uni/multiverse.

I keep thinking about what it looks like to perceive the shadow of a 4 dimensional object: it would be a 3 dimensional shadow... Or in Dorothy's case, shadows projected from intense thoughts/experiences. Just a thought.

Hi! Welcome to ATS!. I, too, have a love/hate relationship with the story. But.....mostly love. I base many of my thoughts on the credibility of Dorothy herself. She sat on this information for decades. She is older, and as she has grown older she may be sensing a "now or never" motivation concerning sharing her find.

As for the producer of the documentary not devoting enough time to the ufo footage itself, is a problem for me too, although he could have been time-limited in the presentation, and had to pick and choose what he felt was the most significant/convincing. Although they indicate there is 30,000 feet of footage, they make no claim that all of it, contains ufo
images. It could be that 30,000 feet of footage only yielded what we saw, or we saw the best of it.

I don't think we have yet heard the last from Dorothy and her story. I hope not. It's truly fascinating.

Thank you!

It is quite possible as she ages, she feels the need to get the info out more. It's very very hard to guage her. From one point of view, you can say she was selfish for 30 years, not really telling anyone about it. From another point of view, who are we to tell her she has to share anything! This could be a personal experience/voyage for her and only her. It's just so tough without really knowing her and her family.

We are all just speculating from afar...

Also, in her interview with Dave Rabbit, she mentioned she has footage during the day AND footage of when they visited her in her room. Now to me that would be stunning evidence.

No offense to Frank, but I've never heard of him, if he ever wanted to make it big, really make a splash, this was his one shot to really make a fantastic well thought out documentary, instead it just seemed too much on the surface, not enough "deep" questions...

You are being very wise by treading cautiously in this post.

I have asked some perfectly valid questions IMO and in return I am receiving hate mail via U2U.

(dont worry though - it's only one user so it's not pandemic!)

And this despite the fact that I have reached no conclusion and am therefore totally open to what is being witnessed in this case

[edit on 22/7/2009 by skibtz]

haha, well as I've said before, I have been an avid read of ATS for many years. I have never really felt the need to sign up and become a member. But for whatever reason, this documentary did it.

There's nothing wrong with stating your questions fairly from an objective standpoint. What else more can we ask for? I am not going to blindly believe anyone.

At the same time, I won't make juvenile posts and bash the available evidence either. It's only fair to stand back, look at it, and ask curious questions.

BTW, what is U2U?

I remember watching the DVD waiting for the director to show us the view outside of the window

They did. Believe it was the husband of the lady interviewed that gave us a tour in the back yard during the day which showed the kitchen window where the interview was at, where all the weirdness busted out, was about 15-20 feet from ground level. So no way tom-foolery going on unless someone was standing on a 15 foot ladder, but even then they couldn't cover the distance from window to window and at that speed and making those moves that are seen during the interview. And standing on a ladder doesn't make any sense considering the family didn't believe Dorothy and the crew being right there (meaning it would have had to be one of them, no way Dorothy is climbing a ladder), surely someone would have spotted the oddity. Unless you really believe EVERYBODY is in on this as i've actually read on this thread.

Originally posted by nightly_reader
...I won't make juvenile posts and bash the available evidence either. It's only fair to stand back, look at it, and ask curious questions.

totally agree

I think testing the available evidence is essential but dismissing it out of hand without testing would be naive.

Asking why she hasn't used a digital camera yet is of interest IMO

It raises many points such as are digital cameras unable to film these UFOs? Is a CCD device redundant when compared to using super. Maybe we should all be using super8 instead of CCD when trying to film UFOs.

BTW, what is U2U?

U2U is the device used on ATS for sending private messages to others members. You have your own Inbox and Outbox et al

Originally posted by spooker
They did.

I saw some footage showing the general area but there wasn't a shot that was a reconstruction of the exact same view of the original camera location in the kitchen. That would have out a few disputes to bed.

Unless you really believe EVERYBODY is in on this as i've actually read on this thread.

My main qualm with thinking that this could be a hoax is that I do not believe that someone would put their family in a postion where they could be ridiculed with the kids suffering from bullying at school et al. Dont forget, people have paid money for this and may seek to take the law in to their own hands to get it back.

Not worth the hoax in that respect IMO.

[edit on 22/7/2009 by skibtz]

Originally posted by skibtz

Originally posted by nightly_reader
...I won't make juvenile posts and bash the available evidence either. It's only fair to stand back, look at it, and ask curious questions.

totally agree

I think testing the available evidence is essential but dismissing it out of hand without testing would be naive.

Asking why she hasn't used a digital camera yet is of interest IMO

It raises many points such as are digital cameras unable to film these UFOs? Is a CCD device redundant when compared to using super. Maybe we should all be using super8 instead of CCD when trying to film UFOs.

BTW, what is U2U?

U2U is the device used on ATS for sending private messages to others members. You have your own Inbox and Outbox et al

Ahh I get it...U2U like you to you....ok....


I'm not a videophile so hopefully someone can chime in on the difference between today's digital camera's and her 8MM camera.

Their site also wants donations to transfer the film to digital film. I don't feel comfortable with this. Who's doing the transferring? How much does it cost? Would they invite members of ATS to do the transfer at no charge? (I highly doubt it)
Why would they feel anymore comfortable having someone else do the transfer? Is it a local family member that's going to do it? How much does he need?

I'd say I am 60/40 with this documentary. 60 believe, 40 skeptic.

I have never directed a film ever. But I almost feel, given the chance, I would have created a much more presentable film. Deeper questions. I'd still keep the family involved, but wouldn't concern myself too much with their thoughts. Remember, the audience is watching your DVD because they want to know more about Dorothy, her experience and 30K feet of evidence. I don't want you spending 80% of your time chatting with the family members! I don't really care too much what they think!!

Also, has anyone else contacted Frank? Has he ever responded to anyone?

Originally posted by nightly_reader
Their site also wants donations to transfer the film to digital film. I don't feel comfortable with this. Who's doing the transferring? How much does it cost?

I know what you mean.

I am surprised that they haven't offered some UFO research team/media outlet exclusive access to the film with the condition being that they transfer it to digital for free.

I thought that you could convert super8 easily enough. This site in the UK gives the impression that it would cost less than £2700 to get 30kft of super8 converted to digital.

Originally posted by skibtz

I know what you mean.

I am surprised that they haven't offered some UFO research team/media outlet exclusive access to the film with the condition being that they transfer it to digital for free.

I thought that you could convert super8 easily enough. This site in the UK gives the impression that it would cost less than £2700 to get 30kft of super8 converted to digital.

That looks very cheap!

Someone needs to contact this family and do a professional run down. Meaning, let's do some real tests. Let's provide her some HD camera's of the highest quality to record her experiences. Let's set some steady camera's on the deck so the filming is clean and precise.
Let's provide her a hand held HD camera for her personal experiences like when they show up in her room....

Heck, let's put some camera's in the room as well. When they show up, she just clicks one button and they all start recording. I know this may sound like violation of privacy, but you are trying to get the word out aren't you? You did make a DVD documentary right?

Let's not waste her time, let's revisit this again, and do it right the "second" time around....put some questions to rest.

The purpose is not to convince skeptics who will never believe anything, the purpose is to convince people like you and I who are sitting on the fence.

Aw man, they took out the video

Originally posted by spooker
"The big problem with your theory (and that you forgot to mention) is that the window pane behind her on the right is open. In other words, how would a camera's led be reflecting off an open window with no pane to reflect off of?

I can't tell if its open or not the compression is really terrible on this video, if someone can provide it higher resolution then fair enough I'm wrong.

Originally posted by spooker
You also failed to mention about the entire portion where the light goes in different directions than the camera,

It never does its always opposite to the camera if the cameras focal point is her

Originally posted by spooker
or how the light splits and joins itself during the interview, and how it travels from the left window pane to the open window pane and the lights illuminance is not affected.

It doesn't split and join, thats just compression or the camera not picking it up right. If the illumination isn't affected would it not suggest that the window on the right is closed like on the left? Also notice when it moves from left to right the camera pans round.

as for the other stuff that goes on during this interview? what you mean the insects that fly into shot that the film makers pass off as "spirits" going though her neck… oh please this documentary has snake oil written all over it

reply to post by modern


Modern,

its a nice try that you would post a video simply stating its an LED light.. obviously demonstrating the fact that you didnt watch the actual video..

if you DID you would know that the kitchen window is actually open

with all of the family in the house that night they opened the windows to keep the house as cool as possible.

Digital light and Magic (cgi experts for Transformers 2) concluded that there was an actual light source outside the window.

are there ANY skeptics that have watched the actual documentary that are willing to bring honest questions to the table.!!