Capturing the Light, The Story Of Dorothy Izatt (2007), page 18

I've always wondered if it were possible to replicate her pictures through using fireworks. Well, here's my first try. The resemblance isn't exactly uncanny, but I think theres something there to be honest. With a bit of time, patience and a lot of fooling around I think I'll get a much better result.

Anyway, what do you guys think ?

Originally posted by mmiichael
Maybe it's the product of a jamming old camera and a swwt but flaky little old lady with an active inagination?

Those special effects producers in the video may know something about special effects in Hollywood, but the fact that they didn't seem to consider or mention the possibility you just did about the jamming old camera implies that they are either brain dead or didn't think of it, or that if they did say anything about that, it was edited out.

Someone who believes the Izzat videos are fantastic UFO footage inadvertently provided evidence to debunk or show the true nature of the Izzat movies (the camera jamming theory) in this post:

Anomalous light exhibiting strange "Izatt-type" behavior

That video shows the same Izzat effect, and it's due to shutter speed, which is similar to the camera-jamming effect. And we know it's not filming anything extraordinary because we can see the treeline is moving, showing that it's the camera moving and not the lights. It isn't a leap to suggest the same thing may be happening in the Izzat films.

As MOTT the HOOPLE says:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
Yer the color lights are pretty but I wanna see honest to god Aliens dude!

Mott, I agree!

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It isn't a leap to suggest the same thing may be happening in the Izzat films.

It's a large leap when someone of the films spell out letters with the light (keep in mind how big the physical frame in-camera is) and does it all in one frame, *and*, returns to perfect registration after the 1-frame light anomaly (that has no bleed on adjacent frames).

Are you talking about this image spelling out letters?

Until someone told me that was supposed to spell out her name I never would have guessed it. I can pick out shapes in clouds too but that doesn't mean aliens put the images there. It takes an active imagination to see letters in that image. It's just a time exposure and anyone who has done handheld time exposures should recognize that.

To suggest camera stop/frame open/bump is really not any sort of answer that makes sense with this camera, and, she's been given multiple make cameras to use as controls. They all exhibit the same thing.

According to a guy who buys broken cameras like this on e-bay and repairs them, the answer does in fact make sense:

www.democraticunderground.com...

I kept noticing similar patterns over and over as I watched the lady's film. You see how the streaks of light all have the same shape? That's an indication that the camera was moving during the taking of the photo. Over and over as I watched the video, I kept noticing these repeated shapes. There's be fairly static pictures of 3 or 4 lights, then a frame with 3 or 4 streaks that had similar shapes. I'd keep trying to look at these pictures non-judgmentally, and my brain would just keep saying 'but that's camera shake. You've seen it a million times.'

OK - but there were a production designer, a visual effects guy, and a cinematographer who all swore there was no way she could have created this effect with computers or developing equipment. Quite true. What I found strange was that nobody considered the possibility that it arises out of a fault in the camera.

Now, I know something about film (aka movie) cameras (video too, but I am nostalgic about film cameras). I've shot with 8mm cameras, 16mm cameras, and 35mm cameras. I'm not a cinematographer, but I do work in the film world and I've owned 8mm and 16mm cameras, and am able to perform basic maintenance and repairs on them. So I sometimes buy a broken camera on eBay if I am pretty sue what's wrong with it, fix it, and maybe make a few bucks. Or not. I just like fixing things, and I like the feel of shooting film although it's too expensive for me to do regularly.

Well, what I see here is called a 'registration problem'. The lady is shooting with an 8mm camera. Hard to say which model, but most such cameras shoot film that is called 'super 8'. It has holes just down one side of the film stock, and you get a bigger (=better) picture by exposing the other side of the film (where there are no holes) than just a square in the center.

Anyway, the way a film camera works is there's a motor (electric or sometimes wind-up) turning gears which open the shutter and move the film along, sometimes using pins or sometimes a clamp mechanism. And what I think is happening in these single-frame 'flash' pictures is that the mechanism is momentarily jamming, leaving the shutter open and letting the film be over-exposed. It could be for a very short time, like 1/9th, 1/6th or 1/3 of a second (I choose these numbers because Super 8 is normally shot at 18 frames per second, as is mentioned in the film).

The film has all the qualities of being over exposed (when the video stops on a frame long enough to let you look), and the repeating patterns described above would also be consistent with the momentary shake while the shutter is open for too long. The streaks in some other examples which look like lines of dashes would be consistent with a light source flashing while moving - for example, some lights on planes or the indicator lamp on a moving car.

Please note, I'm saying that that's the sort of image you'd get if you over-exposed a picture of such a light source at night. I don't know enough about this lady's house or even where it is to make any guesses about what the particular lights are, although I did see some blinking red lights on one segment that I'm pretty sure are hazard lights on an industrial or communications tower designed to warn pilots about the structure.

My guess is that the specific thing with the camera is that it has a broken gear tooth which causes the shutter mechanism to jam open briefly, and not too often. Bear in mind that gears are designed by engineers to use numbers of teeth which will spread wear evenly over the gear, so a damaged tooth on a gear does not mean that such a shutter error would occur every second or even regularly. Camera film is not tensioned tightly inside a movie camera (as it would break easily) so the problem could be quite intermittent. It might only occur when the film tension is above or below a certain threshold, or under a variety of other conditions. Without knowing which exact film camera she is using I can't make more specific guesses, but you've ever looked at a clockwork mechanism or even an old film-winding camera you can get an idea of what I'm referring to.

Check the link as he has some photos and other illustrations there.

If all the cameras are doing it my first guess would be she's popping the battery compartment open to stop the film and make a time exposure. Then pop the batteries back in until the next time exposure when she disconnects them again.

But they are obviously time exposures whether due to batteries being disconnected, or camera jamming or some other cause, I have made enough time exposures myself to recognize the effect, as has the guy who made that post. I don't know why everyone who has ever made a handheld time exposure wouldn't see the same thing.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

---

This is all well and good when you're talking about one sense of the Izatt material. Delay exposure. But delaying or jamming the single frame in question, then overexposing it to that degree - why no bleed over to any other frames?

And, we mean to say this woman can defeat any number of the different makes she has been given as test cams?

Yes, that's one of the writing frames. Is it clear? Hell no. Is it in the shape of a cursive script of "Dorothy" complete with capital D? Yes it is. How ridiculous a coincidence would that be for an old lady faking this?

But we speak as if this is the only visual data there is - there have been strange landscapes, structured craft, and other assorted weirdness.

There have also been other witnesses, more than a few, that have seen objects and assorted strangeness with her.

The case still yet intrigues me. She fits a pattern of ambiguity consistent with marginality and anti-structure that has coincided with paranormal activity. It's an interesting case, but leaves us short of absolute proof.

There's bigger questions here:

-why has no one hooked this woman up with an HD video camera? why is she still using antiquated cameras?

-why, if this woman is faking, would her only concern these days be getting the reams of footage transferred to digital media before it degrades.

-In several stills, the light burst does not follow a set pattern consistent with camera shake or movement. The only way to do such a thing would be to have sets of lights go off and on at appointed times during the alleged time delay exposure. Not impossible, but that's a bit of a stretch in setup and possibility of being caught.

-WTF is the motive. This woman has been silent for years, and only now towards the end of her life is coming out with a film. She has quietly shot footage for decades with no public entity releasing them.

In short lemme say this: I have been trying for the better part of 6 months to get her on my radio show, and Frank Longo the film's director has been also trying to help me get this set up. I don't approach this woman cold and out of the blue. I am friends with a person they are close with and trust.

To this day, there have been false starts, delays and more delays.

If she wanted the interested public attention, she'd have jumped at the offer to come on. But it's been nothing but a nightmare to get her to confirm a date. I have, in short ceased trying. I'm not mad, but I am exceedingly dissapointed that it hasn't worked out.

This too, fits the pattern of marginality and anti-structure - and makes me think there is something to it. What? I don't know.

Getting contact with Dorothy seems as elusive as the phenomena itself. Like most of the UFO question I expect it's far stranger than we can imagine.

Do I think Dorothy is faking? Based on what I have seen, no. Is the a possible explanation? Sure. Do I know what it is? No.

I always reserve the right to be wrong but...

I certainly don't believe the answer is in the mundane answers presented by camera defects.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by jritzmann]

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by Arbitrageur

---

This is all well and good when you're talking about one sense of the Izatt material. Delay exposure. But delaying or jamming the single frame in question, then overexposing it to that degree - why no bleed over to any other frames?

And, we mean to say this woman can defeat any number of the different makes she has been given as test cams?

Well if she's popping the batteries, that will stop the film. The shutter is closed between frames so she will only get exposure when the shutter is open and the frame is lined up. Instead of asking why wouldn't there be any bleed over, we could ask why would there be bleed over? If the film is stopped for whatever reason (camera defect, batteries removed, etc) it won't bleed over.

-WTF is the motive.

This to me is quite clear in the movie. She says that people thought she was crazy. So my interpretation of her motive from that statement is to prove to people that she's not crazy by giving them evidence, even if she has to manufacture it. None of us likes to be marginalized or have other people think we're crazy so I would consider that pretty strong motivation to try to come up with some proof that we're not crazy.

Good luck getting her on your show, that would be an interesting interview!

reply to post by drjujube

---

I agree with most of your points. I would also like to add that the light behind the daughters head in the interview is stationary for the most part and it is the cameraman moving that makes it appear to move back and forth. This "ship" in the window seems to be a reflection in that window pane.

The light behind her head is interesting in that there are three grey dim lights that form a triangle, then the bottom two merge and become a bright orange light, but other than that, it looks more like the camera is moving than the light is. When they interview the husband outside during daylight and he is talking about the trees outside of the window, you can see that there is a neighbours house right in line with that window and there is a telephone pole right there as well. It is possible that the light is a streetlight or a porchlight. It doesn't explain the lights being in a triangle then merging, but it was something I saw right off the bat while viewing the documentary.

reply to post by Unknown Soldier

---

Why does it have a thick white outline like a drawn cartoon figure?

Is that something the film producers added to "point out" the shape of the being that was supposed to be in the image? Or is that cartoonish outline supposed to be a part of the original image?

Egg found in Martian Meteorite
  Posted 18 days ago with 126 member flags

Bizzare Enochian encounter for writer while working with rock band Tool on Faaip De Oiad (Tool song
  Posted 4 days ago with 55 member flags

Bad Ufologists-Lets clean the closet of any skeletons
  Posted 9 days ago with 52 member flags

Ooparts and Ancient aliens
  Posted 2 days ago with 52 member flags

Death by UFO!
  Posted 15 days ago with 49 member flags

UFOs during Satellite launch
  Posted 9 days ago with 49 member flags

Tracey Taylor - "Aliens Gave Me a Special Gift"
  Posted 9 days ago with 31 member flags

DIVINE INTERVENTION: ETs Defeating Old World Order
  Posted 17 days ago with 29 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: