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.

 

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

page: 8
63
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by kauskau


People can for example not understand why i KNOW that darryl anka (channel of bashar) is not lying when he is in the channel state..


Holy crap! Darryl Anka and Bashar!!

Despite Bashar being a multi-dimensional extra-terrestrial it's all about the money!


If you have received free Bashar information from sources other than Bashar Communications and you would like to balance your energy with respect to this idea as well as show your support for the creation of new Bashar information, then please make a donation by clicking the button below. Your generous support is greatly appreciated


The quote above basically means if you've watched a Bashar YouTube clip then you better send some cash to Darryl otherwise your energy will fall out of balance (whatever that means - perhaps it's meant to worry you!)

This guy gives Steven Greer a run for his money - I mean other people's money!




posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Hecate666
 


You're saying I'm trying to be smart without doing the research? What ways did you test this and did you use the same camera? What surfaces did you try? What methods of causing the bounce did you use? I'm curious now?

Could you post the other images from your tests with descriptions of the process you used?

I'd be happy if this were true, but for now I disagree. An infinite number of examples can and would occur relying on handheld filming or the old wooden, bouncy tripods. You'll never get exact matches, only similar results.

As an eyewitness to a classic UFO myself, I'm still a skeptic because I'm not dishonest enough with myself to say it could not have been military or experimental and of earthly origin.

I've come to think that too often, too many photographers are willingly blind to critical thinking because they want it to be true and can't let myself slip into that mold.

Reality tells me it is always up to the claimant to prove their claim. People who don't believe me don't bother me, in fact it gives me more respect for them. At least they are attempting a denial of ignorance.
edit on 6/14/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I also noted she may be honest. It's very possible to be honest and at the same time mistaken. It's also possible the visitations are the result of a mental disorder. Those suffering from such disorders can be very nice people. I said possible here, not that I know for a fact. I'd be foolish if I took either side and said I know for a fact. Foolish and irrational.


I tend to agree here, this likelihood is on the table. This is not even meant in a negative, bad sense.

See sees something, and interprets it her way. What she sees, no one knows. Have any studies be done about the location and the lights - OTHER than simply looking at still frames?

People (sorry to say that) see "a lot of things", the rest is then belief, delusion or simply confusion.
I noted:

In that documentary, it looks that the lights are always at the same place which appear to be on a hill across her house? At the bottom, it always looks like there is actually houses, "basically" the lights itself are not extra ordinary at all.

Some lights looked more like planes or even cars to me, in fact, MOST of the lights would not catch my attention..but she is making a deal out of the "flashes"...basically between when she is filming the lights.

I also noticed that the light which appeared while they did the interview moved WITHOUT A DOUBT sort of in sync with the camera pans. I was first thinking..WTF...isn't this clearly a reflection of a camera control light in the window? Until it was said/shown that the window was actually open. (Thus a reflection could've not been possible since there was no glass). But it was very evident that the light in some really odd way followed the camera movement.

Here is the deal: Human psychology is deep, deep very deep and people do things some wouldn't believe for the most oddest reasons. The world is full with nutcases, psychos, liars and mentally disturbed or misled people.

Too many "extremely credible" cases in the past have turned out exactly this, hoaxes or manipulation with whatever intentions behind. It's just how it is.
edit on 14-6-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mojojojo
 


I believe her as well, I don't think she is acting and can't see why she would make it up. Whether this is actual "visitation" is up for speculation, but the documentary does have the films (and she shot with a variety of cameras) being analyzed by multiple sources and the consensus was that it was not faked.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Dear Dorothy,

I have a request. Could you please tell your visiting light friends to do the following a few times, to these people who take skepticism to insane levels:

1) Find a skeptitard.
2) Tie them to a chair.
3) Have a light being stand in front of them.
4) Ask skeptitard if they believe now.
5) When they say no, PUNCH them in the mouth. HARD.
6) Repeat until subject has no more teeth.

This teaches self limitation to skepticism. While skepticism is generally a good thing, a skeptitard will keep taking the punches to his own mouth rather than admit there is actual substance to a story. It could be fear. Fear of confronting the truth. Or they could be MIB shills, instructed to disrupt any and all conversations or stories that bring real truth about ET beings. I don't really know.


I see people here arguing about equipment, when they tried many different cameras, all with the same result. :shk:

If you are a skeptitard,
Wahaha, can't touch this one. It is solid. Live with it. Embrace it. Stop denying.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by wevebeenassimilated
reply to post by mojojojo
 


I believe her as well, I don't think she is acting and can't see why she would make it up. Whether this is actual "visitation" is up for speculation, but the documentary does have the films (and she shot with a variety of cameras) being analyzed by multiple sources and the consensus was that it was not faked.


If we accept the sources verifying it as being unbiased themselves. Their bias may be what brought them to her in the first place and being human we are prone to make evidence fit the theory.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by torsion

Originally posted by kauskau


People can for example not understand why i KNOW that darryl anka (channel of bashar) is not lying when he is in the channel state..


Holy crap! Darryl Anka and Bashar!!

Despite Bashar being a multi-dimensional extra-terrestrial it's all about the money!


If you have received free Bashar information from sources other than Bashar Communications and you would like to balance your energy with respect to this idea as well as show your support for the creation of new Bashar information, then please make a donation by clicking the button below. Your generous support is greatly appreciated


The quote above basically means if you've watched a Bashar YouTube clip then you better send some cash to Darryl otherwise your energy will fall out of balance (whatever that means - perhaps it's meant to worry you!)

This guy gives Steven Greer a run for his money - I mean other people's money!


yeahh i also dont like darryls way of handling this..

but i love bashar..and they are not the same being.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


I'm going to remain open minded on this but doubt it will ever be proven one way or the other.

Look at the tether incident and after what those discs were, was clearly proven and demonstrated, a large number of well meaning people still don't believe the facts.

I can't get a grip on how others minds work, anymore than they can get inside mine.

I suppose all I can do is enjoy life and prepare for the Soul Catcher on the Moon
I'll go to my grave not knowing what I saw hover over my head at close range, in plain sight. Even though I got as good a look as is possible, I know I'd lie if I said I knew what it was. How my head works is how it works.

Her seemingly being just a nice person in general is most certainly not helpful to rationality and truth. I hope everyone gets their answers.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I can understand the skepticism I'm reading in these posts. But there are a few factors that I don't see being discussed enough. You can not look at solely one faction of evidence that is presented, you need to look at the complete package then try to connect the dots to see where the evidence takes you. And regardless of how one may feel or believe, you have to let the evidence lead you and speak for itself.

One; We have a small old 80+ woman (that wants no media attention) and that since 1974 has shot 30,000 feet of Film, not video. That is a large amount of film. Shooting film is much different than shooting video and runs at a different frame rate.

Two; J Allen Hynek was so impressed with the initial film footage that he saw, that he met with and became quite close with Dorothy. Keep in mind this is the same Scientist working for the Air Force on Project Blue Book to try and debunk UFO Sightings. He was unable to do so with Dorothy, and it has been rumored that it was because of cases like Dorothy's that changed J. Allen Hynek's thoughts on the attempts of debunking the UFO phenomena in whole.

Three; Scientist in their desire to come to some conclusion on what the phenomena is that Dorothy films, that they gave her several new movie cameras that were preloaded with film. After she would shoot the footage, the camera and film would be picked up for their (the scientists) to process the film. The results were the same as from the 8mm camera Dorothy used and owned.

Four; More recent footage has also been taken to the ILM (Industrial Light and Magic) studios for analysis (this is George Lucas's production facility). ILM said that after analysis, that what ever is filmed and on these frames, they were not doctored.

Dorothy Izatt with J Allen Hynek


The phenomena seems to continue even after 40 years. That's a long time to keep a perpetuated hoax being filmed on 8mm cameras at 16 frames per second. And I have trouble believing that a small shake would only affect one frame which is 1/16 of a second. I'm a professional photographer/videographer who started his career in broadcasting using large and small cameras of all types. With simple 8mm cameras it would be impossible to do a "one frame-light-streak" without an actual edit in/out point with the insertion of just one frame. Otherwise there would be more light streaks before and after the proceeding frames. Just like a bouncing ball, it doesn't just bounce once, it bounces continuously but at half it's energy each bounce after.

So regardless of what may or may not be some light movement (creating trails), the researchers (both past and present) were very intrigued.

For those that want to hear the complete interview that my former deceased ATSmix partner did with Dorothy, you can hear it here (as the ATSMix version is only of nine minutes for some reason). This was one of the few interviews that she allowed to transpire and we here at ATS were lucky to be chosen.

Dave Rabbit Interviews Dorothy Izatt

Edit to add in Hynek/Izatt pic (thanks to Palasheea)


edit on 6/14/2012 by JohnnyAnonymous because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
 


So far I've passed on this thread but after reading your piece I feel compelled to check out the videos and your link , you make some interesting points .... thanks Johnny


ps ... bring back ATS news with JohnnyAnonymous



edit on 14-6-2012 by gortex because: Edit to add



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyAnonymous
The phenomena seems to continue even after 40 years.

Well, that's just the rub of the whole matter at this point, isn't it? After 40 years of collecting this "evidence," has it gotten better? Has our knowledge increased? Do we know more than we did 10 years ago? Or 20?

If the answer is no, then something's wrong. We're missing something and the flaw in our ability to understand has not been corrected -- for whatever reason. Because if you accurately, effectively study something for 40 years -- particularly if you bring in "experts" -- you usually gain a better understanding of it. And it gains value with knowledge.

This stuff just sits there as a curiosity. Nothing positive is gained.

Unfortunately, this is typical of most "contactee" activity. It just remains pointless and useless, adding up to one big shrug.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Fear also leads to hatred of skeptic's who keep the debate honest. Fear they may have a point.

I'd say if you want to punch somebody in the mouth simply because they don't agree with you, anger management is in order. Smile, it takes less muscles so they say



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


"1/16 of a second is a lifetime relating to this and no photographer is going to agree with you."

Hmm. Took way less than a lifetime, less than a day even...

I will let JohnnyAnonymous speak for me (from his post above), since I only have casual photography knowledge.

And I have trouble believing that a small shake would only affect one frame which is 1/16 of a second. I'm a professional photographer/videographer who started his career in broadcasting using large and small cameras of all types. With simple 8mm cameras it would be impossible to do a "one frame-light-streak" without an actual edit in/out point with the insertion of just one frame. Otherwise there would be more light streaks before and after the proceeding frames. Just like a bouncing ball, it doesn't just bounce once, it bounces continuously but at half it's energy each bounce after.

So the tone of your response to my "thinking out loud", which had a question mark as to not sound assuming, was prob. unnecessary. The "she stops then restarts the film" was an interesting guess, to which I can't speak to either (I don't have knowledge of these old cameras/etc.).

I am a game developer, so I am familiar with how long 1/16th of a second is (from dealing with framerate subject) -- that's about it.

That said... who knows. :-) I was reading up Bruce Lee today on Wikipedia and supposedly

"Lee's speed in terms of reacting + punching from a distance of three feet away was determined to be around five hundredths of a second (0.05 second)" -- less than 1/16th of a second.

"In a speed demonstration, Lee could snatch a dime off a person's open palm before they could close it, and leave a penny behind."

Would love a video of that, if not mythology. :-]
edit on 6/14/2012 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by JohnnyAnonymous
The phenomena seems to continue even after 40 years.

Well, that's just the rub of the whole matter at this point, isn't it? After 40 years of collecting this "evidence," has it gotten better? Has our knowledge increased? Do we know more than we did 10 years ago? Or 20?

If the answer is no, then something's wrong. We're missing something and the flaw in our ability to understand has not been corrected -- for whatever reason. Because if you accurately, effectively study something for 40 years -- particularly if you bring in "experts" -- you usually gain a better understanding of it. And it gains value with knowledge.

This stuff just sits there as a curiosity. Nothing positive is gained.

Unfortunately, this is typical of most "contactee" activity. It just remains pointless and useless, adding up to one big shrug.


its called "hands of policy" or non intervention policy.

if "they" wanted to make themselves known without respecting the choice of the mass consciousness ...they would have already done that.
In this way there is not evidence enough to force anybody to change their beliefs.
But this will change in the next few years.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by kauskau
 


There are other forms of life out there, no doubt. Dorothy Izzat seems honest indeed. But there is no evidence that disproves the possibility that those 'light shows' aren't government/human crafts. She does mention 'sensing' messages etc coming from them, but in that very unusual situation, what mind wouldn't produce such feelings and mistake them as clear thoughts? It's a very natural reaction..

If nothing else...her general message about equality and harmony are perfectly relevant and timeless.
I really, really want to believe, but the evidence itself is not very compelling in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by kauskau
 


I have seen that explanation in a lot of so-called channeled messages. They keep saying that there is something deeply wrong with the way humans conduct their lives, that these deeply wrong things are now ingrained in the human collective consciousness and there is a need for a deep cleansing at that level....All of this is perfectly evident to anyone sane. Yet...the messages say that ETs respect and are perfectly ok with collective consciousness decisions. Not very convincing.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
 

THANK YOU thank you thank you, Johnny Anonymous!
I am so very intrigued by this story, and I appreciate you laying out these important points, plus your own filming experience. I find myself frustrated because I have none and can only wait for people such as yourself to chime in. I'm listening to the podcast (I thought I posted a link to the whole thing earlier in the thread? Sorry if I got it wrong...) and am really excited to learn as much as I can. Being a newbie to ATS and ufology, I'm in sponge-mode.

I am curious about one comment I saw while digging through the Web - someone claimed a CBC crew debunked her on the show "On The Road Again." This person was very possibly a troll, and after hours of google/youtube searching I got nothing. I noticed someone else on an old ATS thread on Dorothy Izatt found the same quote and did the same thing - went to find the debunking footage or some indication she had been on that show (or even any CBC show in their archives.) Someone challenged this person to post a link and they never did (it was not on ATS - a different site entirely). It was very strange. Other than that, I've not seen anything other than similar discussion points (with varying degrees of politeness) as we are posting here. Also, someone has attached her name to a UFO Hunters segment, but after skimming the episode I didn't see any mention of her (perhaps it is buried within another story?)

Are you aware of any other footage of her out there?? I'm collecting data (will be reading the book as soon as I can get my hands on it!)

Anyway - thanks again!!
peace,
AB



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sleepdealer
reply to post by kauskau
 


I have seen that explanation in a lot of so-called channeled messages. They keep saying that there is something deeply wrong with the way humans conduct their lives, that these deeply wrong things are now ingrained in the human collective consciousness and there is a need for a deep cleansing at that level....All of this is perfectly evident to anyone sane. Yet...the messages say that ETs respect and are perfectly ok with collective consciousness decisions. Not very convincing.


there are only 2 channeling sources i trust: bashar and Seth. and i never heard something of cleansing from them.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
This is so dumb. Buncha white people talkin about UFOs. Everyone I meet now has some story about how they saw a UFO. I think people make this crap up just to sound cool.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I never take another persons word as proof.



new topics




 
63
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join