More Than Meets The Eye
I am proud to be a skeptic (though not a cynic), and thus approach the Curious Tale of Dorothy Izatt from the point of view of a skeptic. To be a
skeptic is, at its heart, to be willing to accept that you can never really be sure about anything, and that it is thus best to keep an open mind.
I was originally put off by the "squiggles" that look rather obviously like overexposed frames, and therefore could be explained by mundane causes
such as mechanical glitches or simply long exposures as the camera was turned on and turned off, or something like that.
Certainly, the fact that they appear to be confined to single frames, and there don't appear to be any cases of "squiggles" being caught in
transition on two frames, ever, even in passing, would seem to point more at the camera than an external phenomenon. Then again, the fact that the
phenomenon apparently occurs even on different cameras
points away from them again.
Also, focusing on the "squiggles" excessively can lead to intellectual myopia concerning the vast amount of other phenomena involved. In classic
fashion, the "squiggles" tend to claim center stage, are "debunked"
based on cursory
examination, and then everything
else is thrown out as well in a classic fallacy
which "proves" only the rational shortcomings of the "debunker".
In other words, without proof one way or the other, declaring a phenomenon to be a hoax is just as much an act of faith as declaring it to be genuine
without proof. There is no intellectual superiority in doing so whatsoever. It's just a gratuitous act of self-deception.
Frankly, the "Capturing the Light" documentary doesn't really examine Mrs. Izatt's story in enough detail to make a strong case either way. So
it's understandable that simply seeing the documentary would lead many people to dismiss the story as hype -- and make no mistake, there's plenty of
hype in the documentary.
Ironically, however, there's apparently much more to the story than that, and the more you find out about Mrs. Izatt and what's been going on with
her and the people around her, the more interesting it gets.
At this point, I remain skeptical as always, but I am also convinced that there are many things taking place here that defy "conventional"
explanation and merit further investigation.
For fellow skeptics willing to take a look further down the rabbit hole, I suggest a very simple step.
See what's out there, study and compare accounts with a skeptical mind and see what turns up. Probably the most striking thing you'll see is that
many of the questions that aren't answered in the documentary or in this thread have been asked -- and answered -- elsewhere. You might also be
surprised to find out that some of the most interesting things about Dorothy Izatt have nothing to do with film at all.
Dismissing a story like this due to one's own ignorance of its depth is not the path of a skeptic, but of a cynic. For those who value truth seek the
truth, though it can be maddeningly elusive, and we rarely recognize it when we see it.
But it's still worth looking, in my opinion.