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: 9
108
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
ajmusicmedia:

...they should have shown proof that J. Allen Hynek investigated the case; their saying so doesn't make it so.


If you have watched the video as you state, you will have seen the photograph of Dorothy and Hynek together on Dorothy's sofa. Hyneks investigation was a low-key affair.


...why doesn't she use a modern camera?


The documentary camera crew used a modern camera and caught the lights also. Are you sure you watched the film...I'm sceptical of you doing so, or you must be a little myopic.


Why spend 30 years on a woman who is not getting attention?


Well, the lights are in the sky for anyone to see and film, Dorothy may not be the only one, but is at present the only one 'known' about.

From what I understand, the alleged entities are awaiting for us to achieve a certain spiritual level before they openly make full contact to the whole of humanity. Until then, contact with individuals around the world creates a mystery which helps to elevate our consciousness to things we are not fully aware of. It's about having (inner) eyes that see, and ears that listen. Quite possibly, we are experiencing beings of a wholly different spiritual nature (nothing to do with religion), and simply by their presence alone, are informing us, and shaping us to their level of reality.
I'm not saying this is true, even I have a hard time filtering this stuff, but we have to remain open to the possibility and potentiality. If we remained focussed on proving the physical aspects of the phenomenon alone, we deny ourselves the spiritual aspects.




posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by KaiBosh
I am deeply saddened that people are taking this garbage seriously. Come on people, this woman has taken films of LIGHTS SQUIGGLING AROUND. Guess what, I can do the exact same thing - stop a camera with the aperature open, and wiggle it around a bit before firing it up again. People are actually looking at these frames where several light sources are tracing around in the exact same pattern and seeing something paranormal? I thought we were beyond this stuff. Oh, and please spare me the "look at the cinematograper raving about how it must be real" garbage, any child can re-create a single frame wiggling around by stopping the feed on a film camera.


I'm still on the fence with this video. But if you, yourself, can do the exact same thing with a Super 8 video camera, then I would like to see it.

If you were to recreate the exact footage in this video, then you could put this entire topic to rest and solve the mystery. It's that easy right?

Up to it?


[edit on 20-7-2009 by StaringBack]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
ajmusicmedia:

...they should have shown proof that J. Allen Hynek investigated the case; their saying so doesn't make it so.


If you have watched the video as you state, you will have seen the photograph of Dorothy and Hynek together on Dorothy's sofa. Hyneks investigation was a low-key affair.


A photo proves nothing; I have pictures of myself with the guys from Arena, with Tomas Bodin of the Flower Kings. I forgot my camera when I met Steve Hackett; although I can show them to you and that these guys did meet with me; none of them have any idea of who I am or what my name is.

Sure she met Hynek; was he a friend of the family or was he investigating her case? If it was such a low-key affair, that tends to prove that Hynek saw nothing of interest. If he did, the first thing any serious investigator would do would be to document Hynek's position. Unless it's not in her favour.

And even if Hynek did meet with her, we still don't know whether Hynek knew anything about cameras.


...why doesn't she use a modern camera?
The documentary camera crew used a modern camera and caught the lights also. Are you sure you watched the film...I'm sceptical of you doing so, or you must be a little myopic.


I stopped watching about mid-way through; this just isn't worth the time; if they really have something good and solid, it shouldn't come up at the end, it should be right at the beginning. It gives the impression that they have to put you asleep to sell their idea.


Why spend 30 years on a woman who is not getting attention?

Well, the lights are in the sky for anyone to see and film, Dorothy may not be the only one, but is at present the only one 'known' about.

From what I understand, the alleged entities are awaiting for us to achieve a certain spiritual level before they openly make full contact to the whole of humanity. Until then, contact with individuals around the world creates a mystery which helps to elevate our consciousness to things we are not fully aware of. It's about having (inner) eyes that see, and ears that listen. Quite possibly, we are experiencing beings of a wholly different spiritual nature (nothing to do with religion), and simply by their presence alone, are informing us, and shaping us to their level of reality.
I'm not saying this is true, even I have a hard time filtering this stuff, but we have to remain open to the possibility and potentiality. If we remained focussed on proving the physical aspects of the phenomenon alone, we deny ourselves the spiritual aspects.


Sorry, but your explanation doesn't cut it. She says they are trying to help us avoid a big mistake that they made and that we're on the verge of doing it. They wouldn't be wasting time with her.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ExquisitExamplE
 

I choose a) when it comes to the orbs/dust......delusional


[edit on 20-7-2009 by Sam60]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
The Most Popular Pastime On ATS

reply to post by ExquisitExamplE
 

Of course the grand irony is that despite the natural impulse to draw and state conclusions about Dorothy Izatt's story "pro" or "con", I'm pretty sure none of us really has enough information to draw much in the way of solid conclusions at all.

For my part, I've seen and heard a considerable amount of evidence both in and out of this thread, but am ultimately left with more questions than answers. I am, however, quite satisfied that the documentary is far from sufficient to support any conclusion other than that more information is necessary to draw a conclusion.


I am willing to suggest that attempting to pigeonhole all this into a typical Alien/UFO paradigm would be a mistake, because there's just too much here that doesn't fit the popular Steven Spielberg/ET/Roswell/saucer/grey mold. In fact, most preconceived paradigms applied to "extraterrestrial" activity are probably more hindrance than help when seeking to understand what's actually occurring (e.g., implicitly assuming their behavior or technology are analogous to or can be readily described in terms of modern human behavior or technology).

Rather, this seems to be something more interesting than "squiggles" or "dancing lights". As I previously mentioned, there are some uncanny similarities between the Dorothy Izatt story and accounts of other "visionaries" throughout human history, and throughout every culture known to man.

Anthropologists may recognize the value of considering "cross-cultural" phenomena in identifying characteristics common to all humans. Pursuing that line of thought may lead to a more productive outcome than simply assessing and accepting/rejecting Mrs. Izatt's testimony on the basis of whether she has crop circles in her yard.

As an example, one possible explanation for all this is that "aliens" aren't involved at all, but that all the phenomena surrounding Mrs. Izatt are actually some sort of "poltergeist" manifestation. In other words, perhaps the reason she's at the center of all this is because she is the cause of all this.

Or perhaps she suffers from a mental illness that includes psychotic features such as visual and auditory hallucinations. "Eyewitness accounts" may be due to nothing more than the power of suggestion, and film evidence explainable by mundane principles of optics.

Another would be to interpret the "beings" she claims to communicate with to be "angels" and the phenomena as "signs and portents" from God.

Or maybe not. My point is not that I have anything approaching a conclusive theory, but rather that drawing a conclusion without a lot more information would be delusory.

Of course that sword cuts both ways, whether one is a "true believer" or a "die-hard skeptic" (i.e., a different kind of true believer).

The middle ground, not claiming to know at all, tends to be less glamorous, but does have its perquisites.

At the very least, it allows one to resist the toxic allure of the most popular pastime on ATS.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia


Sorry, but your explanation doesn't cut it. She says they are trying to help us avoid a big mistake that they made and that we're on the verge of doing it. They wouldn't be wasting time with her.





its always the same...'they want to help us etc'

but when asked to give us absolute proof that they exist..like swapping objects as mentioned in this thread...they..or people like the lady in this video..turn down the idea.

so how do they expect to help?..by being vague..strange lights filmed by some old woman?

seems like they dont really want to help much after all...



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by StaringBack
 


Most of the following images and descriptions can be found here: Source
The rest were from different google searches. This site (Here) has a nice slide show.

I will start with the image you asked about.
(note, these descriptions are not mine but the ones posted on the first linked site I provided)



"An angelic being seems to be guiding children into a corridor of light. This image appeared in a bright burst of blue-white light. It was shown to the author in its "moving" form during his June 2000 visit with Dorothy Izatt."



"By using a computer to carefully analyze the shadings and contrasts of the "Tending to the Children" photograph, researcher/graphic artist Lucy West produces this rendering."


This one may be my favorite:


"Dorothy was filming a bright light in the sky when it suddenly vanished in a dazzling burst. The developed film showed this apparent "landscape" with lights in the background. Dr. J. Allen. Hynek suggested that it might be a glimpse of the object's home world as it passed through a "window" or portal in time and space."




"Three framed of Super-8 film greatly enlarged. An object appears in the upper frame as a small ball of light. The second frame or "Flash Frame" shows the same object, but larger, more brilliant as it produces a sudden burst of movement in one frame. The third frame is entirely empty."




"Beginning as a tiny speck, this object grew into a bright blossom of soft white light. Dorothy was swept by a feeling of warmth and love."




"Dorothy asked, "Do you have a name?" There was a sudden flash of light and the object was gone. The developed film showed an explosion of movement with what appears to be a "signature in light" bottom right."




"A ball of light hovered and when Dorothy asked, "What do you look like?" there was a bright flash and a "Face" appeared to the right of the bright ball."




"A window appeared on the side of the disc-shaped craft. In the window several entities appeared. One was neared and held what seemed to be a clipboard-like object."




"What seems to be an image of an extra terrestrial outside of his craft"




"This huge ball of light emitted a bright and beautiful blue and lavender light. A smaller object, emitting a red and white light, emerged from the lower right portion of the larger object. Having seen this before, Dorothy identified the smaller light was a "scout" or probe of some kind."


Now I don't remember any mentioning of this in the movie. I think it's something we should investigate more about. According to this next image and quote, Dorothy actually got the chance to somehow get into the craft? I think it may be a misuse of wording and the beings are just projected the inside of their craft on the outside like they have been doing with the images of themselves, but who knows. Something I want to investigate into a little:


"From an example of Dorothy's remarkable "interior footage (filmed while inside an otherworldly craft), this still shows the arms and hands of an extraterrestrial. The right hand indicated only four digits with what may be webbing between the fingers. The alien's left hand is what seems to be n a control instrument."



A sketch of the "alien hands" photograph based on a computer analysis of the image.


And here are some more pics from random articles about Dorothy:






I'm not sure about you guys, but this stuff is pretty amazing.
I understand there will be skeptics (and you guys are awesome because SOMETIMES your right), but for those of us that believe this story, this is one of those smoking gun cases we dream of. Footage, pics, interviews, and on and on.
Its incredible that the camera crew caught some footage as well. I think these guys are trying to get noticed.
I guess if we want to see them ourselves we need to open our minds up a little. expand our consciousness. I think thats the way it was meant to happen.
Thats just my 2 cents, but this story is going to be something I come back to a lot in my UFO journey.



[edit on 20-7-2009 by Odessy]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Why are so many people getting excited over this? The footage is hardly compelling. It's shot in poor quality and the lines of light that appear on some frames look like the result of camera movement, regardless of what the investigators say. I'm not convinced.

The only thing in this cases' favour is the family's apparent sincerity. They seem like good, honest people.

The most interesting aspect is the footage of the red light outside the window towards the end of the video.

For those who are calling this "the best footage yet" and "the most convincing etc" I recommend you watch the Mexico footage from 1991 which was taken during a solar eclipse. That's what I would call quality footage.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by StevesResearch]

[edit on 20-7-2009 by StevesResearch]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by StevesResearch
 

Can you provide a link to a thread or an article regarding that event?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by StevesResearch
 


Yeah I would like to see that footage too.

I think what makes this case interesting is the sheer amount of film she has filmed and that it can't / hasn't been debunked even by some pretty high profile people.
Its a story with little question the legitimacy of it, and more of a question of what does this mean.

But yeah dude, I'm sure that mexico footage is great too



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Odessy
 


Great post!

These still images are absolutely amazing. The more I look at the video/images, the more this story intrigues me.

Regardless of the "blurring" of the light that is occurring, there is something there that is unexplained and that is hard to argue.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   
I got a chill down my spine when they showed the aliens looking through their window. It was creepy as hell but satisfying all at the same time.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Here is the link for the Mexico footage:

UFO over Mexico City on July 11, 1991

There's much more footage than this, this is just a small sample.

Also you can simply type "Mexico Ufo 1991" in Youtube or Google.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by StevesResearch
Here is the link for the Mexico footage:

UFO over Mexico City on July 11, 1991

There's much more footage than this, this is just a small sample.

Also you can simply type "Mexico Ufo 1991" in Youtube or Google.






How is this more compelling? For all we know, that's Mars or Jupiter or one of the other 6 planets. That's not compelling at all. It's a big white blob that is out of focus.


Yawn.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   
For a better compilation of videos I recommend watching the video "Masters Of The Stars" produced by Lee and Brit Elders.
I saw this video back in '97.

If you can sift through the bs on youtube you may find some better videos than the link I provided as well.

There's quite a few articles on this case, just google it and you will get a good idea of what transpired.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mookie89

Originally posted by StevesResearch
Here is the link for the Mexico footage:

UFO over Mexico City on July 11, 1991

There's much more footage than this, this is just a small sample.

Also you can simply type "Mexico Ufo 1991" in Youtube or Google.






How is this more compelling? For all we know, that's Mars or Jupiter or one of the other 6 planets. That's not compelling at all. It's a big white blob that is out of focus.


Yawn.


Are you blind? Since when was Mars, Jupiter or any other planet disc shaped or silver? White blob? Lol. It's not out of focus, that's the result of the compressed video quality of Youtube. if you watch the original film you can see the object rotating/spinning.

This bores you, but a little light in the distance doesn't? Ok.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by StevesResearch

Originally posted by Mookie89

Originally posted by StevesResearch
Here is the link for the Mexico footage:

UFO over Mexico City on July 11, 1991

There's much more footage than this, this is just a small sample.

Also you can simply type "Mexico Ufo 1991" in Youtube or Google.






How is this more compelling? For all we know, that's Mars or Jupiter or one of the other 6 planets. That's not compelling at all. It's a big white blob that is out of focus.


Yawn.


Are you blind? Since when was Mars, Jupiter or any other planet disc shaped or silver? White blob? Lol. It's not out of focus, that's the result of the compressed video quality of Youtube. if you watch the original film you can see the object rotating/spinning.

This bores you, but a little light in the distance doesn't? Ok.


Why don't you post a video of the clearer footage then? From what I see in that video, it is a white blob that is out of focus and/or compressed, so no I'm not going to be impressed with that compared to the video the OP posted.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Discussion of footage that's not from Dorothy Izatt really should go in a separate thread.

Just sayin'



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Here's a better video of the Mexico eclipse sightings

Back to the main topic, notice at the start of the video, the first time we're shown the streak of light, apparently the result of the ufo, that the streetlights also display the same effect?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by StevesResearch
 

Thanks for the links.

I won't post off topic about it.



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join