It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
108
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
This was discussed on the Paracast show.

I think it's total BS.




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
This was discussed on the Paracast show.

I think it's total BS.


So do you have any evidence to back up your opinion? Because this video provides clear, indecisive and definitive proof of an intelligence that we truly know nothing about.

With that said and your lack of evidence I think you are total BS!!!

If you are not going to provide any proof or facts regarding such an opinion, keep it to yourself because nobody else cares...



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by tmayhew01
 


Where is your 'proof' that those lights were intelligent?

Why can't he/she state his opinion? Even if you don't agree with it?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Great story, I'd think I'd heard of it, the name Dorothy Izzat sounds sooo familiar, but I don't remeber seeing any of her film.

I mean it's just amazing. For this to take place in 1/18th of a sec.

As far as the glow stick comparisons, I can guarantee, that this was not done in 1/18th of a sec. So the comparison is apples and oranges.

The strips of film see to have no tampering. She even let them take her camera apart, she even used 3 other cameras provided by outside sources, all the results were the same. Amazing. We can rule out CGI I think since her early work goes back before CGI was even a concept.

Sure her abduction , orshall I say meeting the beings and talking to them may seem far fetch , but this lady is as genuine as they come.

She too, whats his face (forget his names) advice, and went into hiding and cvollected as much evidence as she could before coming forward. She trusted that guy, and did what he said to the letter.

I was a true ET/UFO believer , never really liked abduction stories, except for the Travis Walton story, but this is not a physical abduction, she never claims , unless I missed it, to have been aboard thier crafts. This is good for me, cause that really is the line where I start to think hoax, or mental illness.

But this woman shows ZERO signs of mental illness, and she does exude a quiet confidance, and a small smile on her face like she knows something everyone else doesn't. It's just fantastic. I would love to meet her.

Heck I would have love to have been her age when she was in her early 20's. She was beautiful, and she still is. What a fantastic lady, and what amazing evidence.

I mean a light in one frame, then an amazing amount of light streaks and movemtns in the next frame, then back to just the ordinary spherical light in the next. All of that happening in a flash, its as fast, probably faster than lightining from what I can see, simply amazing.

Then the ones where to me I can see them writing her name in script Dorothy/dorothy/dorothy...amazing. Then humanoid shapes, all sorts of stuff.

and her story isn't over the top. She says theyre inter dimensional beings of light. and that we are all made from light (I've bel;ieved this for many, many years) Also that we are all connected. I had and experience back in 97' and that was the main theme, how we were "all Connected".

Just amazing. As I said I was a firm believer, then became a hardened skeptic after comeing here, and catching all the hoaxes, and dissecting them, but this, thishas definitely caught my attention, and it gives me a great feeling. I don't believe in "God" , but I do believe in good and evil, and I don't see how these things can be evil. It's just too amazing and too beautiful.

Inter-dimensional beings of light, it's just perfect. This thread has made my week!

Star and Flag.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by tmayhew01
 


Where is your 'proof' that those lights were intelligent?

Why can't he/she state his opinion? Even if you don't agree with it?



Have you watched the video? the only other step for her would be to take a polygraph. There are several, highly respectable people in this film that tried to "debunk" it, yet all attempts failed. The film is evidence itself, or at the very least the proof that we "believers" have provided. I have yet to see an attempt in this thread from skeptics to provide PROOF against the authenticity of this film.... I am not saying don't post you opinion, however I do feel it is completely useless without any reasoning behind your ideas or factual data.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tmayhew01
 


Yes, I have seen the video.
Yes, I understand she has filmed something extraordinary.
However, I do not see proof that whatever it is on that film is intelligent.

And yeah, you DID pretty much tell that person not to post their opinions on it.
Have you ever heard that saying "a lack of evidence is not evidence of absence?"
It works both ways. No skeptic has debunked it. Does that mean that what we see in that video is exactly what that woman claims?

The short answer is no.




[edit on 19-7-2009 by JayinAR]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I understand your point of view.... I apologize for not sharing the same opinion as you...

There are far to many things in the video that after watching the entirety of it that seem to support her view. For example when she first starting seeing the lights, and they matched her flashlight signals to them... Of course one can say she is lying, but is she really? How many independent people, not related to her, in the video have said they conducted tests to determine if she was telling the truth (again the only surefire way is to do a polygraph test).

What about the communication between her and "them?" when she knew they were there? when she said they told her they were real and to not be afraid. The first hand account of her skeptical family watching the interview video, and beginning to believe after noticing the light behind her daughter. This list go's on and on, not to mention the countless hours of video she recorded that we haven't seen.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by tmayhew01
 


I understand what you are getting at...

And I agree with you. I just didn't like the way you came at the other poster. I shouldn't have even said anything.
Apologies.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Thank you for the constructive criticism, I guess I will word my posts more carefully... but back on topic..

This has certainly changed my view on intelligent life. Whether thats what this is or not, this video has definitely got me thinking. Possibly that is the purpose of this, to have an open mind... as said in the video.

You know, when thinking about the realm of what we know as humans... We really know nothing at all. All I can say is that after watching this video my opinions have changed regarding what is possible in the universe. I think this account is fascinating.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tmayhew01
 


Oh yeah, no doubt.
This is exactly what nomads in the desert a few thousand years ago would have called a sign from God.
If we are to believe Dorothy this would really just be some species of folks from some other dimension who are playing with their "hadron collider" or whathaveyou that they use to look down on lower dimensions.

Crazy wild stuff.
The possibilities are endless.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Looks like plane flickering lights going across the sky and some street lights, then an over exposed shaky frame, its just a broken camera and a sweet old lady for god sake.

I want it to be as true as much as anyone but look at the facts shes using a rickety old camera that shows the same anomaly every few seconds

oh and that bit 0:28:00 about the red light in the window… its the recording LED off the camera most likely. I mean if you watch 0:29:54 the FX guy says "could be a reflection off somethings like a…" then gets cut off to play a spaceship sound. I'm pretty convinced the next thing he would say is "things like the camera record light" I mean it even moves with the camera

[edit on 19-7-2009 by modern]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by modern
 


I could buy that. If she hadn't produced the same effects with three cameras.
Cameras given to her by other people.

Plus the fact that there is no overlay onto following frames.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by modern
Looks like plane flickering lights going across the sky and some street lights, then an over exposed shaky frame, its just a broken camera and a sweet old lady for god sake.

I want it to be as true as much as anyone but look at the facts shes using a rickety old camera that shows the same anomaly every few seconds


Yes, others in the video said this as well. That is why she used several cameras, and they were inspected and found to be in complete working order. And what about the camera used by the interviewing crew that also captured the phenomenon. This validates her sightings as four separate cameras, of which I know consisted of 2 different manufacturers, all captured the same "lights."

More proof you say? what about the images from the three cameras she used that were inspected by a lab, which concluded that they were working completely fine and that the image in all three frames was exactly the same.

You need more? go youtube her name Dorothy Izatt and you will find other videos, one of which was an episode on unsolved mysteries before "Capturing the Light," was filmed. This account documents another private party that contacted Dorothy and saw exactly what she was seeing.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
BTW this would be a great episode for UFO hunters to investigate. Perhaps they could test all the cameras that she used to film the lights, the interviewers camera, the pictures and film that she has... and also perform some more psychological tests and a polygraph test.

However, I do know that during the filming of this Dr Lee Pulos (spelling?) conducted an MMPI, Rorschach, and IQ test to validate her authenticity. Now MMPI stands for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and is one of the most frequently used personality tests in mental health. The test is used by trained professionals to assist in identifying personality structure and psychopathology. And to my understanding she passed this test with flying colors along with the Rorschach Psychological Evaluation. Simply based on these facts I truly believe her story, all though I know this may not be "concrete" enough for all skeptics to be persuaded.

I have emailed UFO hunters and perhaps we may see an episode in the future regarding Dorothy Izatt. Hopefully, something more will happen in the future to futher prove or despute this story (Preferably prove
).



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tmayhew01
 


I wouldn't count on the UFO hunters taking this one on.
I don't expect this one to ever make big news.

I mean, it has been around for a few years now and it is still relatively unheard of as a case.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
36:04 they start to discuss what is obviously an insect flying close to the camera… I mean come on!

oh then of course we go into ORBS!! oh look out of focus dust particles, get tonnes of them when i take photos in my room and haven't cleaned up in a while

42:03………… video taping still photographs shows the same "phenomena" only with less exposure, definitely either the camera is at fault or some sort of physical tremors in her arms causing the camera to shake incredibly fast.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by modern]

[edit on 19-7-2009 by modern]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
very interesting video. i had never heard of this case before.

I really think there has to be more of an investigation though before it can be said to be 100% intelligent.

there are a couple of things i would put to this lady -

1/ can she ask them to come closer and possibly land or show themselves in person? (every clip shows them at roughly the same height and distance away from the camera which i feel is suspect)

2/ would she be willing for a group of known skeptics to travel to her house and film with her and form their own opinions



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by tmayhew01
 



Maybe we'll get lucky... From the producer of UFO hunters stand point I would absolutely air an episode regarding this... Not only do I believe this evidence to be far better than anything to date, but this is something that could make them a lot of money.... Again, this is my opinion and not theirs, but how cool would that be if they did...

Lol, I guess Im just the kind of person that says "the glass is half full" vs half empty

--------------------------

And replying to Modern's post... I think you should go back and watch the video closer. It directly refers to the cameras condition after inspection and that moving the camera that fast to produce the images in 1/8 of a sec in one frame is impossible.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by tmayhew01]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
another thing i would like to see happen to convince me is to have the whole family hypnotised to talk of their story.

maybe we can get more answers if this happened. one way or another.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
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.

Google it.

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.



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join