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

Originally posted by skibtz

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.

Again, there was... right before that exterior shot with the lady's husband pointing to the window 15 feet from ground level. They show the same camera view taken at night during the day... you could see tree's and mountains out the window an all. Miss that? Or did I miss what you mean?

I can't tell if its open or not (the window) the compression is really terrible on this video

Great, so now your an expert on deciphering through crappy video to come to your conclusions. If I were a skeptic, I'd kick you off my team. Try getting the video and then come back with your analysis. and if you feel it's a waste of time and money then quit your yappin already and move on.

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

Wrong again, proving you have not see the entire scene or you have seen what you've wanted to. When I watch the scene I see a time when that light actually goes the exact opposite direction of the camera and I've seen the light zip to a side when the camera wasn't moving at all.

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.

The camera not picking it up right? I am applauding loudly and slowly marvelling at your technical breakdown. Now we know it's the faulty camera from the film crew! Well at least it wasn't Dorothy's faulty camera that you could blame it on this time.

as for the other stuff that goes on during this interview? what you mean

Oh i don't know, an object that looks like a friggin mothership! (not the red/white light that you're focused on) How did you miss that too?! look, if you're watching crappy uploads you're not getting the full image. That ship freaked me out seeing it on my TV, serious goosebumps!

Originally posted by spooker
They show the same camera view taken at night during the day... you could see tree's and mountains out the window an all. Miss that? Or did I miss what you mean?

You certainly missed what I meant - by some degrees. No prob

The view in the day from the kitchen is 30 degrees to the left of the camera angle taken in the evening.

There are definitely mountains there but I still don't think the light is something on the mountain.

Either the light is in the garden or it is a UFO in the sky

[edit on 22/7/2009 by skibtz]

The view in the day from the kitchen is 30 degrees to the left of the camera angle taken in the evening.

Not sure where you're getting 30 degrees, but I'll take your word
for it. At any rate you couldn't see the garden where someone
could be doing something unless they were on a 15 foot ladder.

There are definitely mountains there but I still don't think the light is something on the mountain.

I totally agree. I think that little light is relatively close.

Either the light is in the garden or it is a UFO in the sky

I think it's one of those probes that Dorothy refers to as "a little guy" always
nearby a mothership.

reply to post by spooker


Whatevs spooker, enjoy your dust and flies OH SORRY I MEAN ORBS.

Seriously the second so called documentary makers wheel out the orbs and insects flying past camera its time to stop watching. The whole thing feels like they struggled to fill 45 minutes talking about a bunch of light smears so had to pan it out with this utter nonsense. I mean literally 20 minutes of the "documentary" is dedicated to some flimsy "phenomena" picked up during that kitchen scene… you have to ask yourself what they would have filled that 20 minutes with if they didn't get lucky and catch something to talk about… I mean would it have been 20 minutes talking about this other piece of "evidence"

Whatevs Modern, you didn't ask me what I thought of the orbs, but I accept your admittance to the crushing defeat you were dealt. I hand you your ass, you jump ship from your own arguement and try another. Classic submission behavior. I accept. And I don't blame you.

Dorothy Izatt's case reminds me a similer case in Canada

Alma Kate Rumball (1902–1980) was born in Huntsville, Ontario, Canada in 1902. Alma's career began as a school teacher, but that career lasted only four years. Although she had no formal art education, artistic talent ran through both sides of Alma's family; in fact her maternal grandfather, William Morgan, was one of five runners-up in the design of what became the Eiffel Tower.

When she became ill as a young woman, she was sent to a tuberculosis sanatorium for four months. She was deeply affected by the experience. She became reclusive and unsociable and withdrew from life. Alma's automatic painting began in 1955, after she experienced a "vision" of Jesus, accompanied by a panther. She lived in Toronto for a while but after her vision during the 1950's she returned to Huntville. During this event she felt commanded by Jesus to draw and write in order to help "heal humanity". From that time, her hand began to move spontaneously across pages, in swirls and detailed formations, totally unlike anything she had consciously created before. She filled up every available space on paper provided for her by her family, claiming no ownership for the work. She took no credit for the process, saying, "I'm as excited to see what 'the hand' will do as anyone else is".

There was no trance state involved, she simply allowed the creations to come through her. She never claimed to understand the process, she simply marveled at the wonder of her gift. She devoted her lifetime to these drawings and writings. Her work is reminiscent of the theme of Carl Jung's Collective Unconscious as it is viewed. The famous Surrealist, Andre Breton, described the type of experience which Alma had as "pure psychic automatism". Michael Greenwood, curator of the York University Art Gallery , in Toronto where much of Alma's collection is housed said he had never seen such a case of automatism since William Blake. Many of Alma 's visionary revelations frightened Alma and she burned many of the drawings and writings. In 1963, Alma's nephew, Colin Oke, took some drawings to various Toronto galleries, but they were determined to be "too busy".

By 1973, when Colin's wife, Wendy took them to the then thriving creative community on Markham Street in Toronto, the artistic climate was much more receptive to the modality of automatic drawing. Carmen Cereceda, assistant to the famous Mexican muralist, Diego Rivera, was enthralled by the works and quickly became Wendy's mentor. Carmen was able to facilitate showings of the work through the Ontario College of Art & Design where she was a professor and connected Wendy to her active spiritual community. The drawings were shown to Kalu Rinpoche, the spiritual advisor to the Dalai Lama. He identified seven out of 20 pieces as Tibetan gods and deities, rendered in the appropriate positions and with distinguishing mantels and head dresses.

There was a flurry of activity during the 1970's and 80's around interpreting the icons, symbols and foreign characters. Late in her life Alma had a stroke. She continued to create drawings, but they were less complex. In 1975, she ceased creating new pieces and worked only on touching up old ones. Alma died in 1980, at 78 years of age, never really understanding the source or intent of her incredible, spontaneous gift.

reply to post by ThInGS Ar3 NoT WHaT Th3y


Thank you so much for the video link. This is the very reason I joined ATS. To see things like Dorothys story that I would have otherwise never known about. Respectfully, Magantice

Originally posted by spooker

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?

I've looked at that again & they do say the half of the window on the right is open. Having watched it again, I recall I noted that previously. I shall need to be a little less absent minded in future!

I wonder if it's absolutely clear on the hi-res video that it's open. It's hard to make it out on the low-res videos being posted in this thread.

The "larger" object on the left is still interesting. I shall have another look at that.

seriously if her video was real why would she be trying to make money off of it? if i captured video of ufo/aliens that is worth more than youtube i would contact a big ufo company or news channell to show the world my truths. it amazes me how people want the truth but always want to make money off of it. that is why i will not watch this video unless it is free. i mean everyone on here who says they have seen a ufo isnt chargeing for posts on here. i see ufo pictures people have they arent charging to post them on the internet. these people are trying to make money plain and simple. as big of a topic this is why would someone that has no reason to hide things like the government not leak something this important to the public? i mean everyone heard of aliens or ufos but no one ever heard of her and why is this? because you have to pay for story. sorry lady i do not believe you.

Originally posted by --1
reply to post by Odessy

 

According to my sources Izzats case cannot be real, aliens simply do not make contact with people in that manner.

Wow... You sound like a very ignorant individual based on what your post says.

This is one of the best cases of UFO's being captured on video. No one (professionals) can explain it away as any known phenomenea but you cant buy several experts opinions for some reason?

However, your "Sources" tell you that this simply cannot be true because aliens dont communicate in that way??? How the hell would anyone know how an alien species communicates with each other? We dont even know thats what they are doing, it's just an assumption but saying that this is just simply not what it appears the be when you've GOT PHYSICAL PROOF is really just insane... I think you need to re-evaluate your "Sources" and yourself.....

Originally posted by ls1cameric

Originally posted by --1
reply to post by Odessy

 

According to my sources Izzats case cannot be real, aliens simply do not make contact with people in that manner.

Wow... You sound like a very ignorant individual based on what your post says.

This is one of the best cases of UFO's being captured on video. No one (professionals) can explain it away as any known phenomenea but you cant buy several experts opinions for some reason?

However, your "Sources" tell you that this simply cannot be true because aliens dont communicate in that way??? How the hell would anyone know how an alien species communicates with each other? We dont even know thats what they are doing, it's just an assumption but saying that this is just simply not what it appears the be when you've GOT PHYSICAL PROOF is really just insane... I think you need to re-evaluate your "Sources" and yourself.....

I agree. No one here can claim to be an expert or have expert sources. All we can best do around here is speculate to the best of our abilities.

But to come out and flatly deny her evidence and say UFO/aliens don't commute this way is quite juvenile...

Originally posted by I-want-2-c-a-UFO

Smoked.... lol

Originally posted by I-want-2-c-a-UFO
if her video was real why would she be trying to make money off of it?

Yes, the biggest story in human history - contact with an alien intelligence. For some reason the world of science, the media, pretty much the entire world isn't much interested.

Myabe it's being held as an exclusive to purchasers of the video? Maybe it's the product of a jamming old camera and a swwt but flaky little old lady with an active inagination?

Buy the video and be in on the biggest discover of all time.


Mike

Ohh, what's really going to bake your noodle later on is, would the documentary still have slowed down the footage of the Lights during the interview in the kitchen window it if there were no squiggles in them?

Oh wait that is right they never did slow down that footage of the Kitchen Window lights did they?

I can only wonder why they did not slow down the footage to point out the squiggles in the light....oh wait? Maybe there WERE no squiggles in the light from the kitchen interview footage?

What a mystery!

I vacillate from seeing this as a comedy or tragedy.

We laugh at people in the Middle Ages who were conned into buying slivers from the True Cross, various bones of Saints and other Holy Relics.

A lot of people lack any ability to discern when they are getting conned.


Mike

One thing I have seen come up repeatedly in this thread is the sentiment "if this is real, then why is she trying to make money off it?"

Has a tree fallen your head? lol.

Suppose you were taping your dog playing in the woods, and suddenly there appeared a ufo, complete with aliens walking about, and you got the whole thing on tape, and it was the best tape EVER.

Then news people arrive having heard about it, and they want to publish it . They present a check with your name on it for $500,000. You want to share the information, because you find it remarkable and know others will to.

Will you:
1. turn over the vid, refusing the money because you are so altruistic.
Tell the man to keep his check which has your name on it. You don't
want it.

2. Turn over the vid, and accept the check simply because you want it?
Why not? That's money that will pay off a mortgage, and put kids
through college.

Whether or not she has accepted money has no bearing on the validity of the videos.

I am not a greedy person in the least, but I'm not stupid either, you know?
Of course I would take the money. Absolutely I would.

Potencially off-topic, but actually to the point in a weird way.

Im so glad I learned about what Ingo Swann calls "phase-locking", before I read this thread. This is a completely perfect case study for that concept.

Had I not learned it, I would be fuming with anger at some of the drivel posted here. But now I understand, they are only trying to defend their world view, without which they would probably cease to be able to continue operating normally (at least until they would be able to absord the new information). Thats what most humans do, when faced with paradigm changing input: they will try to destroy/ignore it, because that is actually easier than having to change their phase-locking.

This case is absolutely beyond reproach. It has 30 years of scrutiny. Not a single flaw has been found. It is awe-inspiring stuff.

Thank you, Ingo Swann.

can this video be seen anywhere for free?

reply to post by ThInGS Ar3 NoT WHaT Th3y


Great thread, i noticed the video has been removed for good reason, but i have here 3 videos which are all very good and give you a good idea of the phenomenon involved. I know this is legal to post these as they are on youtube courtesy of secretnasaman, here they are in no particular order,

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Sorry if these have already been posted on this thread, if they havnt then enjoy!