• 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!

March 2nd Show - Dorothy Izatt

Forums New posts
I'm kind of mixed on this show. All in all I thought it got fairly tedious... two hours is a long time to listen to people basically say the same things over and over about what sounded like primarily a visual phenomenon. One hour, maybe a little longer, seems like it would've covered this topic nicely.

On the other hand I'll agree with the commenters who said in effect in the course of the show, what made it get more interesting were the comments from David Biedny, and the relayed comments from Jeff Ritzmann (sp?). Their observation that there might be more to this gave me some pause and interest, but again not sure it merited two hours of talk at this point. That said, I'd be curious for some follow up now.

Not a bad Paracast but not hall of fame material either. :)
 
Dave-
as far as the single exposure, it would be virtually impossible to realign the frame after movement and the stop. I don't see the ability to do single frames an issue in this case.

Everyone-
I'll be overjoyed if we're invited to meet Ms. Dorothy, for that matter I'd be more then happy with a phone conversation too.

As David said on the show, yeah I have seen the "scout" type manifestation seen in the film on several occasions. There's also other things mentioned that I absolutely identify with, that are much more subtle.

I don't think anyone should be basing anything on their perception of the investigator involved. In my many years I've seen investigators that wont release any information unless it's a TV show, and prefer to give cryptic answers in public. It's a territorial issue. And it's ego driven. "it's MY case."

I don't think thats how Peter acts. You have to realize that he's had an extended relationship with Dorothy, and many things that we would find interesting, he is long since past worrying about. He's very convinced that there is a real enigma there, and is very much past "is it real?". We don't know how much work was put into this case by Peter, but I'll bet in 10 years it's significant. Sometimes when you're that deep in you lose a bit of the aspect that everyone doesn't see what you do about the case...and you'd rather discuss the finer points then the "is it real" notion.

I'm not saying it's right, but it happens. He's drawing his own conclusions of some parts, and thats his own prerogative. I think the "attitude" some of you are perceiving is more about trying (sometimes futility in this field) to make sure all the facts are kept straight. Thats a hard thing to do sometimes when there's a large body of data.

We all have our quirks and needles, I'm sure this man is no different. He's been at one case a long time, and feels he's found something significant, and is protective of it. I don't fault anyone for that. Don't judge the case on some perceived attitude in one interview.

Peter is not the case, Dorothy is. (even though Peter had his own experiences)

Being critical is great...but lighten up and humor me, and lets see where it goes. Look past everything to Dorothy and the data presented.

I personally find this case highly compelling, and we could stand to learn a lot from it. I've written Peter and Frank personally to discuss some things with them and Dorothy. I deeply need to speak with her, as I feel she has a lot more experience then I do, and obviously more wisdom of age and longevity with the enigma.

We'll see what happens, I'm not out to make anyone uncomfortable with my requests.
 
frank must have something to hide. he should welcome dB with open arms to help validate these films and set the stage for the 2nd and 3rd Capturing the Light DVDs. with 30,000 feat of film there must be enough to fill 2 more DVDs with nothing but lights footage, no talking, just lights.
i would purchase them in a heart beat. in fact if they kept them coming i would probably buy all 30,000 feet... unless they are fake of course.

Frank? hello? please talk to us.
 
This may be a classic case of mediumship manifestation, the type of which was so much more common in the 19th century. I'm not sure how the real ones made things manifest, but there are good case studies that some did.
 
jritzmann said:
He's very convinced that there is a real enigma there, and is very much past "is it real?".
Click to expand...

I can fully understand this from his perspective. As an individual at some point you would naturally move beyond the "is it real" phase. On the other hand, if you are presenting the case to someone else you are going to have to patiently hold their hand and present the evidence that led you to that conclusion.

I would say if that if Hynek sent her three cameras and had her camera professionally examined then we should give a Hynek a bit of credit that he would have obviously looked into the stopping on a single frame and jiggling thing. I would imagine that as a scientist trying to make the mainstream case for flying discs in the 70's there is no way Hynek was going to try to publicly promote Izatt's case as it was just too weird.

I can understand why the two researchers presented would feel protective but I would suggest to them that it is not their place to act as gatekeeper and decide who gets access and who doesn't. That choice should belong to Mrs. Izatt and her family. I would suggest that the correct course of action is to relay the request for a visit to Mrs. Izatt, send her some copies of some Paracast episodes, offer your opinion of Biedny and Ritzmann and let Mrs. Izatt decide for herself. If the central facts of the case are as they have been presented then it sounds like the entities in question would advise Izatt directly and decide for themselves if they want to put on a show for Biedny and Ritzmann.
 
David Biedny said:
Well, I woke up this morning to a long email from Frank Longo, questioning my motives regarding the posting of my comment, and has informed me that he will not allow me or Jeff to have any access to Dorothy.
Click to expand...

Whaaa?! Oh, for crying out loud. Why doesn't Frank just put on the old guilty cap at this point? And while I'm at it, who is Frank to "not allow" you access to Dorothy? Does he have power of attorney or something? If so, that's even MORE creepy.

This whole issue now officially stinks. Thanks, Frank. You've now made your situation 100x worse...well done, mate.
 
jritzmann said:
I don't think thats how Peter acts. You have to realize that he's had an extended relationship with Dorothy, and many things that we would find interesting, he is long since past worrying about. He's very convinced that there is a real enigma there, and is very much past "is it real?". We don't know how much work was put into this case by Peter, but I'll bet in 10 years it's significant. Sometimes when you're that deep in you lose a bit of the aspect that everyone doesn't see what you do about the case...and you'd rather discuss the finer points then the "is it real" notion.

I'm not saying it's right, but it happens. He's drawing his own conclusions of some parts, and thats his own prerogative. I think the "attitude" some of you are perceiving is more about trying (sometimes futility in this field) to make sure all the facts are kept straight. Thats a hard thing to do sometimes when there's a large body of data.
Click to expand...

If that is true and if he is beyond objectivity then he is not a researcher or scientist of any kind. He is now simply a cheerleader and promoter. That makes him immediately suspect in this arena.

I hate to sound like a complete d*ck (hey, sometimes I am one), but I just want to see good science and research. Personally, I'm not interested in "feelings" when it comes to these matters. But, hey, that's just me. :redface:
 
I havent seen the dvd, but I think the fact that they didn't show any of those alleged pics of the beings makes me skeptical.
 
This may be going off on a tangent, but I was interested in the part of the show where the nature of the entities/phenomenon was discussed. I think it's important to keep in mind that there may not be *one* UFO phenomenon, or at least one set of entities or general cause to the phenomenon. So, when we ascribe motives, or say things like "they exuded love," aside from the very true fact that we have no idea exactly what lies underneath such facets of the experience, the experience itself may be caused by a different set of entities or a different underlying cause than, say, those who have had negative experiences.

As an example of the assumption, the "Capturing the Light" website says that from the DVD you can "Learn about why they are here and what their intentions are." Now I realize this is marketing, and I realize it may just refer to the "they" presented in the DVD, and I use it just as an example- but 90% of books and dvds on the topic make similar claims to explain what "they" want. (This isn't a critique of the DVD itself, either, which I have not yet seen- I actually find myself after listening to this episode wanting to go out and buy a UFO-related DVD for the first time in my life. If it's good enough to impress Hynek *and* the Paracast, well then it might just be worth a small fee to cover distribution costs and such. This is a subject for another thread, though...) Why assume there is but one "they"? It's very presumptuous to assume that all experiences are caused by the same thing(s).

The problem I think with this view among serious ufologists is that it seems to open the door to those nuts who then take out their charts and lists and say, "why yes, there are many types of entities, you have the Greys and they're from Zeta Reticuli, you have the Reptilians who are from Omicron Persei 8, you have the.. etc etc," and it reads like notes to a bad movie. Which is a shame, since there should be some middle balance.

Lacking any other stronger ability to confront the enigma "at its own level" (at least at our current state of evolution), we may just be forced to take the experiences as they come in terms of ascribing motives. That is, if the results are a positive influence in our lives, then perhaps the best we can say is the experience was "positive," and if negative, then "negative," and there may be different causes to each. (Not to mention negative experiences masquerading as positive, like how tormented prisoners can eventually come to love their captors, and think they are being tormented for their own good on some level they can't understand.)

There are serious epistemological "issues" (if not downright problems) with ascribing motives that we recognize even to other human beings, so it seems rational that there would be bigger problems doing so with something that may be very, very far beyond us. At the same time, we shouldn't be so overwhelmed by the phenomena that we think all experiences are created equal and come from the same source(s). This is just a wordy way I guess of saying we should keep an open mind (but not so open we believe everything we're "told").

There may be something to Biedny's comments about the experience reflecting the experiencer in some way. From what I understand (I am not an experiencer in any form), this phenomenon, these "entities" for lack of a better term behind it, do seem to show some interest, even a reaction, to the "inner world," the psychological or psychical, on many an occasion- probably a whole lot more than they've shown any concern for the "nuts and bolts" realities of our physical world! When we look at the range of "internal" paranormal phenomenon I think we find that these are the aspects of the paranormal which "respectable" science actually devotes the most attention to (covertly or otherwise): things like ESP, p-Teleportation, "Remote Viewing," etc. To say nothing of the new crop of post-quantum scientists who are adding new respectability to the "transpersonalists" and Jungians of generations before. Definitely suggestive of a connection... (sort of like Paul Atreides the first time he seems a sandworm, for any of you Dune fans...)

Scott Story- it does strike me at a gut level of being similar to mediumship cases, not exactly the same, but at least suggestive of some connection between whatever underlies the UFO phenomenon and whatever underlies the phenomenon of mediumship or channeling.
 
From a one armed farmer to an 86 year old granny. edit: I hope I'm wrong, definitely does not seem to be that way, but one of those interviewed gave that vibe.
 
Your choice, Paracast listeners.

Stop the criticism and hope Frank changes his mind.

Ruin it for everybody by carrying on so that you can be "right" and be heard.

What's more important to you?
 
pixelsmith said:
just go around him... no big deal. he aint he boss of anyone.
Click to expand...

Right. And I'm sure Dorothy, who has been working with him for a decade, will ignore his advice.
 
Well I'm disappointed by Peters decision. He has to understand that when investigating anything, a good one will always look at every angle. If Peter really wants to get her stuff out before she leaves us then he's going to have to deal with People and the suspicions. People are going to have questions and their belief systems will be challenged. He's had 10 years of being exposed to this data, so maybe he should step back and let some new people look at it.
 
Jeremy brings up an excellent and highly relevant point here:

As someone who is sometimes reactive, I sort of understand Longo's POV, I think that he was upset that I didn't run my thought regarding the single frame exposure issue by him before posting it publicly on the forums, as well as the "plot thickens" comment. In one sense, he is right. On the other hand, to deny us access to Dorothy - which I essentially take as him telling Dorothy that we have somne ulterior agenda to discredit her, which is about as far from the truth as you could get - well, this is just not a good sign on his part.

I'd prefer that our listeners give Longo the opportunity to get a calm perspective on my comment before passing judgement on me. That said, if he & Guttilla genuinely want to help Dorothy spread the word, as well as get some deeper understanding of what's going on - I can promise you that I will understand more of the details that she is reportedly being gven my the entities, such as their propulsion methodology - they'll support us in the task of communicating with Dorothy. I'd much prefer that our listeners take it easy on Longo, let's give him to the opportunity to tell us where he's coming from himself. That's only fair.

dB
 
David Biedny said:
Of course, and it needs to be said, if Longo and Guttilla think that they have the final say on who gets to speak with Dorothy, they'll be surprised at my - and Jeff's - tenaciousness in getting ahold of Dorothy on our own. I'd much rather have their endorsement, but we'll do what we need to in order to get to the bottom of this situation. They said that she welcomes the idea of a third party visiting her and seeking corroboration. If they are honest in this statement, she'll very much want to speak with us, _especially_ with Jeff. We'll see what happens, but for now, please take it easy with the attacks on Longo.

dB
Click to expand...

I think you should just give him a call and calm the situation. You did the right thing by checking into the camera possibilities. But then you still had to deduce that there was more going on there than just a tricky camera regardless. He sounded reasonable to me, and what an opportunity, I think he would prefer your help than stay mad because you are skeptical. Hey, maybe take Jacques Vallee along to check it out? :)

I personally have the hardest part with thinking that this is a UFO experience. This is a paranormal one for sure, it sure sounds like the real deal there. But why would aliens from another planet/dimension keep in constant non-progressive contact with one little lady? I mean, what have they relayed to her to make it worth all of this time they spend with her? They have advanced technology and thinking, but they want to play around in front of her camera. That makes no sense to me.

I don't know where to go with that, I am just thinking out loud.

And it was never discussed in the show or here in the forum, but am I the only one who sees the similarity to the Stephenville lights??
 
Both Longo and Gutilla ought to know that neither David nor Jeff are going to bite anyone. They will do their job professionally, but with a critical and trained eye. What more can you ask for? There should be no discussion of protecting anyone, that just seems silly to me.
 
This thread makes me sad.

I stand by my earlier comments in this and its sister thread. But I am also saddened by the territorialism and compartmentalization of the paranormal community.

Here we have a witness with a body of work and who is probably not a hoaxer, and she and her experiences have been divided up into protectorates by different people.

This protectionism is why ufology is broken up by regions on the planet, and different regions (US, Europe, South Africa, etc.) are largely ignorant of each other. This is why the paranormal is further broken up by factions, such as exopolitics, or space brother groups, or abduction researchers, or nuts & bolts researchers, etc. Note, I didn't even mention the different fields like free energy, or ghost hunting, cryptozoology.

This is the paranormal fragmentation in microcosm.
 
Longo and Guttilla neednt feel threatened by comments posted here
if the story is true then its value can only be enhanced by any "trial by fire" it recieves.
by dealing with obvious issues of concern and removing them from the equation of posibility then what we are left with no matter how unlikely is the truth.

BUT
i am still suspicious of these single frame shots, to my mind if the light sources were fixed, and the camera firmly mounted on a tripod then a quick freeze on a single frame and a nudge of the otherwise fixed and stable camera could cause these images.
again im not an expert, but i reckon i could duplicate the effect with a camera that allowed me to freeze a single frame and over expose it.

i note also the "expert" in unsolved mysteries states it could be faked, that you could fake what we are seeing, but he doest see why this individual would. if thats ALL this hangs on then i have to be wary accepting this as a real event.

bringing the "spiritual" aspect into it doesnt help me either, history is full of examples of people who will happily lie to you if they are convinced that in doing so they will "save your soul"


"Sydney (dpa) - Pilgrimages by devout Australians to see a statue of
the Virgin Mary weep in a church hall in Queensland were in vain,
Brisbane Archbishop John Bathersby said Thursday.
An investigation has found there was no miracle, just sleight of
hand.
Bathersby called on those responsible for the hoax to come forward
and tell the truth."

i also got a strong impression that at the start of the interview they were encouraging ppl to visit Ms Izzat, but by the end were backing away from the idea of doing so saying things like shes getting on in age etc
 
Back
Top