• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Capturing the Light


Forums New posts
Call me disagreeable, but I was disappointed by this episode. The evidence may be compelling (I haven't see it yet), but Peter Guttilla seemed evasive, full of obfuscation, claims he wouldn't follow up on, and a name dropper. I've dealt with folks with senile dementia for years now, and his argumentative and equivocative stance reminded me of that.

Further, he also tried his best to enforce himself as a co-experiencer, and work himself into the story, and he made bald, sweeping claims such as inventing the idea of human looking aliens, essentially nordics.

Even furthermore, if you say you have a problem with a well known scholar, such as Vallee, then you had better be able to say why. Saying that you have trouble with someone, and THEN taking the high ground, is just a simple way of equating your standing with theirs. In other words, it's to elevate the speaker. My BS detector had been going off for a while with this Peter guy, but this pretty much sealed it.

So, sorry to be contrarian, but this was not a good episode imo. Whether the information was good or not was hidden by a difficult guest.
 
David Biedny said:
Indeed, the book is written by Peter Guttilla, who, IMO, does not come across as an objective "researcher". I think the documentary is fascinating, Longo seems like a good guy, but I'm much less impressed by Guttilla.

dB
Click to expand...

Yeah, listening to this episode, he comes off as really argumentative and rather hucksterish, despite your repeated attempts to say "No really, I'm with you, this is great evidence, can we try and evaluate it carefully?"

Really unpleasant to listen to, truth be told (informative though it was; I was completely unaware of this woman and her experiences).

--Shawn
 
strange personal side note. the same week i received the Capturing the Light dvd in the mail, i also received and signed up for a photography seminar called Captivated by the Light, even more strange i received a photo from a client of her and her cat surrounded by "orbs". i am restoring, and enlarging it for her. she says they are her "spirit orbs".
a little over a year ago was my first sighting http://theparacast.com/forums/attachment.php?aid=10
http://theparacast.com/forums/ufo-alien-video-thread-t-755.html
it was very similar to some of dorothys sightings.
 
i just watched the unsolved mysteries clip in this thread and i paused it at 1:28:44

im NOT a camera expert, but i can see the number 4 in this shot repeated across the picture.

my first impression is the film has been stopped on this frame and overexposed and the camera or light source given a "jiggle" thus creating the series of "4"'s i see.

not an expert, just my gut response to the image at 1:28:44
 
The fact that this "researcher" didn't get why you'd want to cross-reference this woman's video with other similar video is mind boggling. Somehow obtaining proof is offensive to him, we should just believe in the footage she has. Huh?

Still, if it's of interest to The Boys then I'm willing to put my misgivings about the researcher aside and see if the footage doesn't speak for itself.
 
It's true, he kept asking, more or less, "what's the point of corroborating evidence?" Very unimpressive. He tried to intimate that he was "way past" the need for proof, that he had taken it all to a higher level of some sort. Ridiculous.

Boyd Bushman was better than this guy. At least He Who Must Not Be Named was more reasonable.
 
Hello one and all!! :) This is my first post (though I am not "new" here). I've been a long time fan of the show starting with the "he who should not be named" episode, I believe. Last night's episode was so intriguing that I instantly wanted to talk about it with people who listen (my girlfriend cares more about ghosts and the family thinks I'm odd for following the whole UFO theories :rolleyes: ) Anyways, I really enjoyed it. With no offense to the guys, some guests can be SOOO long winded or arrogant that it makes it hard to listen to the whole show. Or their voice is flat out annoying and you can't help but fast forward to Dave & Gene's questions. Last night's guest, Peter(?) sounded like what I imagine Luscifer himself to sound like. The guy freaked me out this morning on my way to work!!! Some of what he said was interesting but that low, deep drawl scared the crap outta me. It was a wonderful show and I'm really curious to see if David can follow up and meet Dorothy. I'm saving my $20 bucks though I'd like to see it. David: is there any way you could do an indepth cover of the footage you've seen? I'd really enjoy a long "thesis" as to how you feel about all of this :shy:. Great episode guys and I really appreciate what you do...keep up the excellent work!!!
 
Scott Story said:
It's true, he kept asking, more or less, "what's the point of corroborating evidence?" Very unimpressive. He tried to intimate that he was "way past" the need for proof, that he had taken it all to a higher level of some sort. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is the credo for all true believers, regardless of the belief. Their's is the one and only truth, to dare to question it is blasphemy!

It's an intriguiging case to be sure (and a good episode of the p-cast to boot) but it's difficult to judge given the nature of the analysis so far.
 
there is not enough actual footage left in its original context to do any real study on the events. i want to see consecutive timelines of unedited footage of individual events, from start to finish.

there was some creative editing done for the DVD by the film maker that may have taken things out of context.
 
What do you mean being let go? Are they dropping the whole thing? Could you tell us more about what you saw...most importantly (to me anyways), is there any footage of actual beings? Or is it primarily "light" related phenomena? (I can't believe this message board isn't filled to the brim...I really enjoyed the last show).
 
i was being a smart ass in reference to some difficulties in communications between a couple individuals. i do not want to make things worse so i am not going to comment further about that.

as far as the DVD goes, it is amazing and in my opinion worth every penny. yes there are a couple images that vaguely look like beings of some sort. they are indeed light related images (as everything is really). but Dorothys images are very unique. something about her films feels different.
 
grannysmith said:
An interview with the woman herself (though brief) in addition to the filmmakers can be found on the last but one most recent 'Paranormal Cafe'.

As far as I can tell the interesting phenomena in her footage are the single frame 'light bursts' with no bleeding onto other frames.
Click to expand...

Couldn't that be done with an ordinary camera flash?

I can't help but think about Paul Bennewitz....
 
DisownedSky said:
Couldn't that be done with an ordinary camera flash?

I can't help but think about Paul Bennewitz....
Click to expand...

Not like this, no. You really need to see her stills to fully appreciate what they have in them.
 
David Biedny said:
Indeed, the book is written by Peter Guttilla, who, IMO, does not come across as an objective "researcher". I think the documentary is fascinating, Longo seems like a good guy, but I'm much less impressed by Guttilla.

dB
Click to expand...

Just thought I would throw this in ... probably means nothing but apparently Peter Guttila has written a guide to 'Psychic development' ... which to me, anyway, screams 'danger danger huckster alert'

http://www.timelessvoyager.com/book/inner.asp?bookid=41#

but ... it may of course may mean nothing whatsoever. He's apparently also done some Bigfoot research as well and came up with a link between Bigfoot and UFOs in the early 70s

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/peter2.htm

So ... a researcher of sorts maybe?? but gotten a bit close to the subject for comfort??
 
Hello, first-time poster, long-time listener. I've been floating around the forums for awhile, too... figured I'd finally register.



"You'll have to bear with me because I'm so far past that point..."

Who does Mr. Guttilla think he is? Sounded like a very difficult person to interview. Relatively little knowledge of the subject of UFOs and he had an overall argumentative attitude from the get-go. Heated debate is one thing.... this guy seemed defensive from the start. Valid points were brought up regarding other UFO incidents that help the corroborate the credibility of Dorothy's footage... and Mr. Guttilla takes it as an attack on his own research.

I thought the referenced '72(?) incident was very interesting and if its true that the same photographic phenomenon was present in that case that was present in Dorothy's footage, that really helps to authenticate the claim that something exceptionally weird was going on. Definitely something to this case.
 
I am fascinated with the single frame "flash" phenomena.

Does anyone know what the exposure length is for a Super 8 camera at 18 frames a second?
I am assuming it is less than 1/18th of a second, since there is time when the shutter is closed, the film is moved onto the next frame, and the shutter then opens.

I am interested in how long the "flashes" last.
I wonder if there are "flash" events that are not captured because the shutter is closed.

I'd particularly be interested in comparing what the Super 8 camera captures, and a very fast framerate film camera captures. Would the flash events be split over multiple frames of the fast camera?

Similarly, I'd be interested in comparing what the Super 8 camera and a HD video camera with the same exposure time record.(The Unexplained Mysteries team, who I think were using video, did not get anything on their camera - so there must be something different).
 
Hey Ben, don't forget Mr Gutilla's waaaay past this kind of thinking.

That said, Frank was interesting and based on David's reaction to the DVD, I'm ordering a copy.
 
Despite the overwhelmingly negative reactions to Mr. Guttilla, I still think it's safe to say that no one, not even J Allen Heinek, have suggest that Dorothy Izzat is anything other than she appears.
 
Scott Story said:
not even J Allen Heinek, have suggest that Dorothy Izzat is anything other than she appears.
Click to expand...

As I have not seen the dvd nor read Guttilla's book I'd be interested to know exactly what Hynek documented about this case. Does Guttilla or the dvd report specific details on this aspect? My understanding is that he took the time to visit Izatt, gave or loaned her 3 different cameras and had her camera disassembled and examined by a qualified technician. So, while I understand that Hynek felt that there really wasn't much he could do about it at the time I would imagine that either he or CUFOS would have documented some details about exactly what they did do. Is anyone aware of such documentation?

-When did Hynek examine this case and how much time did he spend on it?
-Who, other than Hynek, was involved?
-What camera did she use(specific make/model)?
-Which specific cameras did Hynek send her?
-Who examined her camera?
-What exactly were the results when she used Hynek's cameras?
-If positive, was it positive for all three cameras?
-If positive, where are the frames captured with Hynek's cameras?
-What specific film stock was used?
-Who developed them then? Who develops them now? These days there aren't a whole lot of places that can process color Super8 so I'd have to imagine she's been doing it mail order for quite some time.

The assumption is that Hynek would have been smart enough to rule out any kind of blatant camera trickery and while that may be the case it seems obvious to me that being able to precisely answer the above questions would be more or less mandatory in presenting any kind of responsible account of Mrs. Izatt's experience in order to prevent the discussion from getting hung up on random speculations of simple fraud.

The Unsolved Mysteries segment references Vernon D. Miller of the Brooks Institute of Photography as one photographic expert involved in looking at the footage. Google references Miller as being involved in the 1978 STURP project that examined the Shroud of Turin. Establishing to what extent he examined her film would also seem to be of interest.

So, does documentation regarding Hynek's involvement exist or do we only have third party accounts of Hynek's involvement at this point? I'd be interested in references.
 
Back
Top