Debunk this documentary. You can´t. ET Contact DOES occur.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by GiodanoBruno

 

What part of this don't you get? She's seeing the lights, which by the way is a plasma cover for a craft, and crafts are rather interesting in themselves, for they can be doorways to other places, planes, even whole worlds, however, they often perform like machinery, and some probably are like that. In any case, received messages from them, right from the beginning. Has video'd this. Has had numerous people come over and see the same thing. Even had the same outcome with these film effects turn up when she borrowed Unsolved Mysteries Camera.

Has had on the videos things show up that were not expected including ET's in an image, that ergo, look like ETs others see, even moving. But for some reason nothing connects for some they just go, no comprehension. My children can see, the 4 year old down the street can see it, anyone else I know can see, but the few who are "blocked".

edit on 13-6-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

What I don't get is the "how do you know part"?

In reference to seeing REAL portholes,aliens,plasma not the theatrics and props been playing on this thread.

www.rense.com...

With this article, I believe it said 2004, when the Mexican Defense Department recognized the reality of UFO's, I'm not quite getting any of the skepticism or continual denial. That would have been a world wide event and a complete end to all these lies.

Why wasn't it?

Pertinent to Dorothy's sightings and my own of the crafts at night that are always covered by a red light, or the few that were covered by whitish yellowish lights. The wingless cigar shaped one flying tail down, nose in the air had a wedge shaped, almost pyramidal yellowish whitish light that had height.

So they hide behind lights.

By the way, this particular article is very good and worth using pdfit or some other pdf creating program.

This was a comment to it, but its concerning their camoflauge wiht light waves. Well it could be a plasma shield too.

This article tends to confirm my suspicions that these craft use lightwaves as camoflauge.

Think about this. Infrared picked them up, but they were not visible to the naked eye, even though they were there. Have you ever taken a camcorder, and pointed a TV Remote Control at it, holding down the channel button, while looking through the viewfinder of the camera? You will see the infrared light through the viewfinder, even though you can't see it with the naked eye. This may explain the large amount of sightings that are caught on tape, yet no visual contact was ever made with the naked eye.

Most of us are unable to see beyond the basic spectrum of light. We are unable to see ultraviolet lightwaves, and we are unable to see infrared lightwaves. Some people have more of a sensitivity to the light spectrum than others, which could explain why some people have more sightings than others. Wouldn't it be great if you had the technology to refract these lightwaves in a controlled environment to completely camoflauge your person, or vehicle? We may not have it, or at least the general public isn't aware of it, but most certainly, they do. And this article verifies that.

Originally posted by albertfothergill
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

No thought required you say! I dont get it! Please explain? Confused!

well , not a lot of thought. Just my initial gut reaction.

NOW I have been thinking about why I don't like this and skimming through some threads...now I wish I lived in a world full of benevalent light beings, but I don't. I live in a world where people would make movies and do what they have to do to make a buck. Now if you have evidence you have evidence whether your a nice old lady or not or how many facial expressions you show or how eerie your background music is. This kind of presentation is really just to sell you the evidence which is the video she took.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I don't know. Sounds more like wishful thinking. I admit I don't know.

I don't know how many these days are aware I'm a witness to one one of the classic 1960's saucers up close and personal and yet I admit it could have most certainly been military in origin and very earthly.

This takes it too far for my head to accept without proof.

ATS had a radio mix interview by Dave Rabbit of Dorothy Izzat, so I discovered, whilst digging through threads! :-)

Here is the mp3 link:

mp3 ATS Interview - Dorothy Izzat

Here is the original thread you can see for yourself:

Original ATS Post for Interview

I am looking forward to listening to this. :-) Now to climb out of the rabbit hole and go to sleep!

reply to post by Unity_99


To be honest I'd have to test that myself. It's so easy to do even with a still camera and any film SLR film camera I have. A frame rate that slow makes a lot possible. It's even possible she is being honest.

first of all, don't tell me what i can and cannot do.
second, i'm just replying so i can track the thread and watch the videos tomorrow. i'm not one of those cold-blooded debunkers!

yay ufos!!

Originally posted by potatotomato2
reply to post by kauskau

 

If it's on YouTube it must be true, especially if the people being interviewed say it's true, I mean there are no such things as acting, lying, publicity stunts, hoaxers, scammers, profiteers, people looking for attention, wanna be authors, people that just like to be filmed, story tellers, fabricators, and/or delusional people . I almost forgot, and wanna be prentend "Reporters" claiming fake undocumented arrests of them and their son.

yea.. i'm not saying .. EVERYTHING on YT is the truth either.. and you're making it sound like everything on YT is fake..

just because it's in video=doesn't make it a instant fake/Hoax NOR does it make it the full complete truth ..

there's a balance .. and making 'blanket' statements isn't denying ignorance ..

Totally separating the human feelings for this person and her family, and the trustworthiness, story believability, all of the objective information and just focusing in on those 1/18 of a second frames where there are light paths , most of us understand them as caused by vibration in the photographic community.

I want to know what the effect would be of quickly, very briefly touching a vibrator to a filming 8mm camera that is focused on multiple pin-point light sources in a dark background. If there were multiple objects, one would expect them all to ray-trace out the same trajectories and paths. In some cases we see this, and others show the objects taking independent paths. To that, I would say that the assumption that in any vibration, all objects would move the same way may not be correct.

It is possible, say , if you were to briefly touch a vibrating object to the camera, that not only does the entire camera frame vibrate, but it's internal parts may vibrate all in a different modal way depending upon the material they are made of, and how they are mounted in the camera. Specifically, the lens itself, the frame mechanism that guides the film through the aperture, the film itself, and the motor that drives the film, all may display a different characteristic vibration pattern that causes multiple modes of ray-path tracing of the bright objects being photographed..

We know that by placing sand on a vibrating metal sheet that you can produce many different kinds of patterns depending upon the frequency of vibration and the materials used as the "sheet" and "sand". This is a well know effect of the modal characteristics of different sizes, shapes when exposed to a frequency. With pinpoint laser light, we know we can make incredible multiple vibration effects by vibrating a mirror, or set of mirrors that produce very intricate patterns as the laser light is reflected from those mirrors onto a screen surface. We see the ray-tracing as intricate designs because of the latency in the retina of our eyes prevents us from seeing what is actually happening, much like frames of movie film that are exposed to very quickly moving images.

I think that this one mechanism has to be analyzed deeply to try and duplicate the effect, if anything is to be truly solved here.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by kerazeesicko

 

OH my, yes it is. NOT!

Those that simply state negatives in outrageous ways, ie, the proof is there but they deny it, are blind, cant see, suddenly devoid of input system, can't analyze, and miss what everyone else can see and get, and then state its not there, are quite frankly extremely transparent.

Not a single Video, Photo or Eyewitness account will ever be proof. Understand that.


The only accepted proof is IF a massive UFO parks above Time Square and stay still for a full month.

That's proof


Everything on ATS has been artificial-proof.


Ignorance is bliss

Enjoy your Ignorant Bliss while you have it! You are about to get a "wake up" call before long!

Originally posted by Unity_99
Sungazing, or letting the sun in the corners of your eye, chin tilted up, for stretches of time, is good.

And start to practice looking into the glow of the sun.

Momma said never to do this!

Momma was right.

Originally posted by sled735

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by kerazeesicko

 

OH my, yes it is. NOT!

Those that simply state negatives in outrageous ways, ie, the proof is there but they deny it, are blind, cant see, suddenly devoid of input system, can't analyze, and miss what everyone else can see and get, and then state its not there, are quite frankly extremely transparent.

Not a single Video, Photo or Eyewitness account will ever be proof. Understand that.


The only accepted proof is IF a massive UFO parks above Time Square and stay still for a full month.

That's proof


Everything on ATS has been artificial-proof.


Ignorance is bliss

Enjoy your Ignorant Bliss while you have it! You are about to get a "wake up" call before long!

PM me when it happens


........You have a cute laugh

how do they know those light bursts that span only 3 frames are not a glitch in the camera or light leak?

kauskau
Thank you for bringing this well researched documentary back to ATS..
I believe Dorothy Izzat to be 100% legitimate and believable,I don't see any acting involved in this... Dorothy is in contact with these "Light Beings" there comes a time when you have to say this is real not every one is lying..
I wish they would put more research into this but i know they wont they want us in the dark..peace,sugarcookie1

Originally posted by Raivan31
Also, i should add that unless a skeptic begins by saying something like " i Don't know what the truth here is so i am going to try and figure it out from an unbiased perspective" then quite frankly you may as well be a snake oil salesman.

No true skeptic has already made up their mind prior to investigation.

After all, a skeptic is basically just a scientist.

Thank you.

Around here, a skeptic is the devil who has no imagination, no research and no clue.
I really don't understand why this is. I think it just has to do with a lack of understanding. Requiring sufficient evidence is what every theory needs. Why should UFOlogy be any different? The criteria for said evidence also must be the same. Hardcore believers are actually the ones who have their minds made up beforehand. That's why they're believers. The given evidence is already sufficient for them. To each his own.

When something is debunked, the believer feeld like something has been taken away. A dream shattered perhaps. When this happens it isn't the explanation that becomes 'the bummer', it is the person who shows them why it is bunk who becomes the bummer. Instantly, that person is connected with a negative feeling. I think this is probably why skeptics are viewed with a negative light. They're the ones who take away the good feeling. They should be thanked, not ridiculed. They're the ones pushing the field forward through elaborate testing. The best UFOlogist is a skeptic first.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
That frame count is so slow that the effects they show could be made to show in a single frame so easy it's almost laughable.

For instance in the first bit. If she had the camera in one hand and waved the flashlight in the other, it would jerk in unison if she wanted it to or not.

Second if it were on a tripod, you would only need to tap your foot on the surface the tripod was sitting on to get that jitter in a single frame. Where in this do the so called experts point this out?

Buy some cheap stuff on eBay and duplicate this for us, since it's laughably easy. I would think 1/16th of a second is a pretty slim window to jar the camera without running into multiple frames?

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by GiodanoBruno

 

I guess you haven't watched the videos, or the communication given.

But i can't resist, and humor is always a good thing.

But there were aliens captured.

Aliens Filmed through UFO Porthole - Dorothy Izatt

Thats as bad as the Turkish ufo that turned out to be the bridge of a ship

Sorry but they need to give all the info on the camera settings zoom etc, how big they think the object was distance etc.

All we see is the usual BS lights in the night videos.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Does this ever get good from 2 00 on in the video. This is where what the crew caught on video is being shown to her "skeptical" family. Love it!


Now for some expressions!

Alot of stunned folk there!

I think I saw the same expressions on the Slap Chop commercial.

You'll say wow every time.

reply to post by kauskau


"she's seems like an honest person..."

"SEEMS legitimate..."

"I don't see why NOT to believe her..."

Really? Because that's not how science works. You basically just openly admitted they were telling a story and that we should buy it 'just because.'

There's nothing even here to debunk in the first place.

It's just empty garbage and anecdotes...

Originally posted by sheeplearepeople
reply to post by kauskau

 

the strange thing for me that people can not distinguish anymore between lying and acting..of course there are good actors but in this documentary there is no liar. Do you see one? Do you have a scene where you feel that someone is lying?

There's a third category that you haven't considered. Someone who is delusional isn't lying or acting. They truly believe something that is false.

of course. But in this case we have video material and a first class ufo sighting...