It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SevenThunders
As is often the case, it seems more of a occultic or even demonological event than some advanced alien technology. She has voices speaking in her head and she sees lights and the spirit is passed on to her children. That's classic occult phenomenon.
Usually when this happens you can also pinpoint the spiritual compromise that opens the door to these manifestations. In her case it is far from obvious, but I think it is likely her Roman catholic upbringing. The old Roman church incorporated a lot of pagan rituals including various forms of idolatry and goddess worship.
We are going to see a lot more of this kind of deception in the coming years.
This whole case rests on the fact that individual frames interspersed throughout film footage taken of bright lights show dazzling "scribblings" of light. Dorothy interprets these scribblings as messages from aliens.
The problem here is that these "scribblings" look pretty much like time exposures of lights taken with a handheld (shaky) camera. The impression I get when looking at these is that the film advance mechanism in her camera is faulty and, every once in a while, a single frame is immobilized in the camera for a few seconds. This results in an unintentional time exposure on that single frame. Since the camera is handheld, camera shake alone draws these patterns of light.
That was my theory of course and only a theory until a test was discreetly conducted by a CBC crew during a segment on Mrs Izatt on a show called "On the road again". During that taping, they simply asked Dorothy to shoot film footage of regular scenery and of her grand children using the same camera she used to record those patterns of light. Sure enough, when the film was processed, flashes of light occurred in the same frequency as on her "UFO" videos. However, in this case, the frames with the "flashes" were actually completely washed out (totally overexposed).
What this means is simply that the same technical problem was occurring with her camera in the daytime but since the amount of light coming into the camera during the unintentional time exposure was much greater because of daylight, it caused the film to be totally overexposed instead of registering a single point of light as a scribble as it would do at night.
This was conclusive evidence, not that Dorothy was faking this effect, but that she misinterpreted the cause of this effect. This does not detract from the fact that some of her film footage does show unusual moving lights in the sky. But the single film frames showing the light patterns should be discounted as they can be attributed to a faulty camera. I do know that claims were made to the effect that she got the same results using two other cameras, but this has never been substantiated. What HAS been verified is that the main camera she used to get these results exhibits the same characteristics even when she is shooting footage of her grandchildren playing on the lawn.
The rest of her images are so blurry that a lot of imagination is required to try and make sense of them. That is why in most cases, an artist's impression accompanies her pictures, so we can be made to see what she would like us to see in those pictures.