March 2nd Show - Dorothy Izatt

[David Biedny]

It's very simple - neither Longo or Guttilla will EVER be allowed back on this show.

If Dorothy was willing to speak to us directly, we'd be thrilled, especially if Jeff was on the same show. The four of us, without any intrusion or distraction from those who have questionable motives and/or agendas. I have reasons to believe that Dorothy is the real thing, but I also feel that the two people who came on here representing her have little or nothing to offer, in terms of gaining a deeper understanding of the case.

dB

 

[DVS]

It seemed that Guttilla was more reasonable, but you obviously had a different experience with them after the show. Did you listen to the other interview I mentioned that someone posted? It was a pretty good interview and you can get to hear some of Dorothy's stories, which she tells with such certainty, of course.

I was thinking that she might just come across a great guest, but I have a feeling that it would go into some strange territory as far as where 'they' are from and seeing all different beings, their 'message' to us, etc.. You guys want answers, you want to ask the hard questions but would that be a good idea. I would much rather hear about you and Jeff's film analysis.

I also want to hear one of you guys just entertain the thought on how something like this would be faked. This is in no way shape or form questioning Dorothy's experiences. It just seems a vital part of the investigation in order to just say "there is no way that this footage can be faked." Is that at all possible?

 

[David Biedny]

DVS - you have Longo and Guttilla reversed.

I'd be happy to listen to Dorothy convey her thoughts and experiences, but I will not listen to Longo or Guttilla AT ALL.

dB

 

[jritzmann]

Really, what's this terror about? Is it something they're doing or just something that's there? Is the fear because they're sucking my emotions like vampires or because to be in their presence is to know the annihilation I have to undergo if I'm to be a complete being?

It could be something as simple as loss of control, or that feeling (and you'll know what I mean) of what David and I call "hyper reality" or 'hyper awareness". That feeling of being more real then real. But, You'll never explain that feeling to anyone not having the experience and have them know just what you mean. It's uncomfortable and scary as hell. It's all part of why I've said for years when people ask me what theyre like, I always say "they're very hard to be around".

 

[DVS]

Oops sorry about that! I got the point about them, I will not refer to them anymore.

It just seems like this case can bring some closure for those who haven't experienced anything and really wants to believe this is real, but can't...yet.

Jeff, I listened to your story when you were on the Paracast while in bed at night with headphones. It completely freaked me out just hearing it. I can't imagine how terrifying it is for you to actually experience it. Just the fact that it seems to me, out of the realm of reality and consciousness, but it's not, you are actually experiencing something extremely strange while awake..

 

[David Biedny]

Oops sorry about that! I got the point about them, I will not refer to them anymore.

It just seems like this case can bring some closure for those who haven't experienced anything and really wants to believe this is real, but can't...yet.

DVS,

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there's NO WAY that ONE person's experiences or insights are going to deliver any type of "closure", as far as getting a definitive handle on the phenomenon. In Dorothy's case, let's say that she's been told certain things by some unknown entities. What makes you believe that she is interpreting the information in a useful way? Worse, why should we even believe that the "entities" are being sincere? Because Guttilla "feels" that this is the case? I don't think so. If there's one thing I've learned about all this, it's that there are reasons to have doubts about people, entities, even onions and apples. Nothing is at it appears, and there is no one special box containing all the answers. Anyone thinking otherwise would likely be terrified by what is most likely the reality about the phenomenon. Oh, and remember, I reserve the right to be wrong about absolutely everything I say or type. See how murky this all gets?

dB

 

[DVS]

DVS,

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there's NO WAY that ONE person's experiences or insights are going to deliver any type of "closure", as far as getting a definitive handle on the phenomenon. In Dorothy's case, let's say that she's been told certain things by some unknown entities. What makes you believe that she is interpreting the information in a useful way? Worse, why should we even believe that the "entities" are being sincere? Because Guttilla "feels" that this is the case? I don't think so. If there's one thing I've learned about all this, it's that there are reasons to have doubts about people, entities, even onions and apples. Nothing is at it appears, and there is no one special box containing all the answers. Anyone thinking otherwise would likely be terrified by what is most likely the reality about the phenomenon. Oh, and remember, I reserve the right to be wrong about absolutely everything I say or type. See how murky this all gets?

dB

Yeah I know exactly what you mean..and that why this sort of stuff sucks for us. I guess thats the dilemma with this topic, answers lead to more questions that cannot be answered.

Basically where I'm coming from, is that while Dorothy is totally believable and genuine, such a nice woman and all are we bad for being skeptical of her situation? I realize that an interview with her would accomplish nothing to get closure, it wold just allow her to share her story with you guys who have also experienced something possibly very similar. That is a vital part of the story and needs to be told, but doesn't 'prove' anything.

Can we separate the person from the actual experience to get answers? Can we look at this case without fingering woman out for embellishing or not understanding the beings correctly? I think that part of the story is personal perception as it is for many people who have experiences. It like I wish she could be left out, the personal element, for a single purpose of analyzing the evidence.

This not just a single photo of a saucer and you have to interview who took it to determine if they are up to no good. This case is completely different because of the alleged evidence available for analysis. It just seems like a gold mine of footage to analyze. In other words, I want to hear some experts do a complete analysis of the footage and say "this was/could be faked by doing this" or "there is no way in hell that this could have been faked" without focusing on Dorothy, even though she is obviously the center of the case. Did that make sense? No? Good.

 

[derekcbart]

Hello.

I just started listening to this episode this morning and I just scanned through this thread. I had heard of this case on the ATSMix show a couple of months ago and one thing that was said then, and said within the first third of the Paracast program, is about the flashes on 8mm film. Please keep in mind that I have not yet seen any of the Izatt footage, but what they are describing seems to be a misinterpretation of how 8mm film cameras work. This is the same misinterpretation that the Billy Meier followers have.

All other formats of motion picture cameras (16mm, 35mm, 70mm, etc.) advance to the next frame after recording is stopped in order to prevent double exposed frames. 8mm and Super-8mm do not. This format of film camera starts recording on the previously last recorded frame of film which results in a double exposure of that frame. Because this frame is double exposed it is also creates a flash because it has received twice the amount of light as the surrounding frames.

It sounds as though this case has more to it than just flashes on 8mm film, but the flashes on 8mm film are most likely caused by the mechanical nature of that type of film format.

-Derek

 

[Loose Leaf Tea]

Dear God!
David, now you've got me worried! You've a friend here in England (me) with several pots you are always welcome to piss in. And although we've never met, I want you to know that I admire your bravery in relating your paranormal experiences and your generosity in sharing them.
I'm now sending you some virtual tea and chocolate...

 

[DVS]

Hello.

I just started listening to this episode this morning and I just scanned through this thread. I had heard of this case on the ATSMix show a couple of months ago and one thing that was said then, and said within the first third of the Paracast program, is about the flashes on 8mm film. Please keep in mind that I have not yet seen any of the Izatt footage, but what they are describing seems to be a misinterpretation of how 8mm film cameras work. This is the same misinterpretation that the Billy Meier followers have.

All other formats of motion picture cameras (16mm, 35mm, 70mm, etc.) advance to the next frame after recording is stopped in order to prevent double exposed frames. 8mm and Super-8mm do not. This format of film camera starts recording on the previously last recorded frame of film which results in a double exposure of that frame. Because this frame is double exposed it is also creates a flash because it has received twice the amount of light as the surrounding frames.

It sounds as though this case has more to it than just flashes on 8mm film, but the flashes on 8mm film are most likely caused by the mechanical nature of that type of film format.

-Derek

I really didn't understand all of that so can you explain even though you might have already (you might have to watch or look at some of her pictures):

1) How these alleged single framed bursts of light only appear on one frame and not the ones next to it. Which some state is impossible.

2) Why Dorothy's frames looks like she moved the camera and the lights appear to be trailed, but this was done in less than a second.

3) Does what you said allow one to alter the frame and how?

 

[Graphimancer]

In the previews to the Dorothy Izzat movie, there is a picture of three humanoids coming out of a bright light. Is that actually one of her pictures, or is that a graphic made to push the film?

Some people have funky auras. I can't wear a watch, and neither could my dad, and lots of solid state electronics screw up around me, such as guitar pedals and amps. Some people can't work around film developing for a similar reason. This leads me to wonder if Dorothy's aura puts bright splotches of color onto film. This would help account for why she films big events, and the neighbors don't see anything (I assume).

 

[derekcbart]

I really didn't understand all of that so can you explain even though you might have already (you might have to watch or look at some of her pictures):

1) How these alleged single framed bursts of light only appear on one frame and not the ones next to it. Which some state is impossible.

2) Why Dorothy's frames looks like she moved the camera and the lights appear to be trailed, but this was done in less than a second.

3) Does what you said allow one to alter the frame and how?

1 - This is caused by the double exposure I described above. Let's say that you are looking at 10 frames of film: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Your first shot (A) ends (camera is stopped) on frame 5: 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A
Your second shot (B) then starts and continues to frame 10: 5B 6B 7B 8B 9B 10B
This results in a double exposure of frame 5: 1A 2A 3A 4A 5AB 6B 7B 8B 9B 10B
Keep in mind that this type of double exposure only happens on 8mm film cameras.

2 - I haven't seen the footage so I am unable to comment on this.

3 - It depends on what you mean by "alter". If the double exposure is intentional (as in the Meier films where the "ufo" is moved between shot A and shot B) then yes, you are altering the frame. If it is unintentional then the "altering" still happens, but it is not directed.

I hope this makes sense.

-Derek

 

[Graphimancer]

DVS,

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there's NO WAY that ONE person's experiences or insights are going to deliver any type of "closure", as far as getting a definitive handle on the phenomenon. In Dorothy's case, let's say that she's been told certain things by some unknown entities. What makes you believe that she is interpreting the information in a useful way? Worse, why should we even believe that the "entities" are being sincere? Because Guttilla "feels" that this is the case? I don't think so. If there's one thing I've learned about all this, it's that there are reasons to have doubts about people, entities, even onions and apples. Nothing is at it appears, and there is no one special box containing all the answers. Anyone thinking otherwise would likely be terrified by what is most likely the reality about the phenomenon. Oh, and remember, I reserve the right to be wrong about absolutely everything I say or type. See how murky this all gets?
dB

David, you sound like a reasonable guy. I assume you realize that if you want peace of any sort, you are not going to find it in this field. At best you can come to a personal, subjective truth about this stuff, but let's face it: Nothing in the paranormal gets proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, and nothing stays debunked. It is truly a murky world, as you put it.

Of course, you know this. I do too. I've spent my life hungry for answers I can't ever get, frustrated at the incoclusiveness, angry at the people I believe have answers but hide behind lies and disinformation. It's made me cynical and paranoid. I've taken up meditation, and I'm trying to let go of the need to know, to find some peace. I'm a work in progress on that.

I just hate to see other people suffer the metaphysical angst that has marred my life.

Ah, nevermind.

 

[David Biedny]

Derek,

Having seen the documentary, I can tell you that the effect is not double-exposed frames in camera, it's something far more complex. And not hoaxed, IMO. I'll hold off any detailed commentary given that I have not seen original film, and sadly, the possibility of this happening is probably highly unlikely.

dB

 

[DVS]

I came across this:

http://www.flixxy.com/laser-pointer-light-show.htm

Seems very similar to those frames. What is the possibility of this on a larger scale, more complex device. Sort of a giant hologram machine that has light fixated at points in the sky, then does its weird thing for a split second causing those results when video taped? Doubt it for this one though.

I came across this on another board:

The problem here is that these "scribblings" look pretty much like time exposures of lights taken with a handheld (shaky) camera. The impression I get when looking at these is that the film advance mechanism in her camera is faulty and, every once in a while, a single frame is immobilized in the camera for a few seconds. This results in an unintentional time exposure on that single frame. Since the camera is handheld, camera shake alone draws these patterns of light.

That was my theory of course and only a theory until a test was discreetly conducted by a CBC crew during a segment on Mrs Izatt on a show called "On the road again". During that taping, they simply asked Dorothy to shoot film footage of regular scenery and of her grand children using the same camera she used to record those patterns of light. Sure enough, when the film was processed, flashes of light occurred in the same frequency as on her "UFO" videos. However, in this case, the frames with the "flashes" were actually completely washed out (totally overexposed).

What this means is simply that the same technical problem was occurring with her camera in the daytime but since the amount of light coming into the camera during the unintentional time exposure was much greater because of daylight, it caused the film to be totally overexposed instead of registering a single point of light as a scribble as it would do at night.

This was conclusive evidence, not that Dorothy was faking this effect, but that she misinterpreted the cause of this effect. This does not detract from the fact that some of her film footage does show unusual moving lights in the sky. But the single film frames showing the light patterns should be discounted as they can be attributed to a faulty camera. I do know that claims were made to the effect that she got the same results using two other cameras, but this has never been substantiated. What HAS been verified is that the main camera she used to get these results exhibits the same characteristics even when she is shooting footage of her grandchildren playing on the lawn.

Any thoughts, David or anyone else?

------------------

Here is a web page that has some photos and descriptions and those PICS OF THE BEINGS:

http://www.timelessvoyager.com/cwbol.htm

 

[mike]

im still of the mind, that if you were filming in the dark you could jam the camera on one frame with the shutter open, loading that frame with light then becomes as simple as dressing in black amd running on front of the camera and through the frame with various light sources laser pointers etc.
when you are done give the camera a jiggle for good measure and then resume the motion of the film.

the "expert" in unsolved mysteries even says the footage "could" be faked, but that he doesnt think this person has done so.
those saying it cant be faked are at odds with that opinion.

as for little old ladies

some of the most deceptive ,wicked people ive ever met were............little old ladies

 

[jritzmann]

so how is it the frame lines up as if nothing was moved. And, how was her name written 3 times in one frame by 3 lights, yet not by any others in the frame. According to the documentary she was also given other cameras and got the same result. The camera was thoroughly inspected and disassembled, and no issues found. Other witnesses have said they've seen UO's around her home.

Laser pointers weren't around when she started as far as I know.

To me it comes down to motive and how far someone is willing to go. What I find interesting in what I have seen of her films is not what they show (although some are really fascinating), but how they show it. They have a subtle quality...hoaxers usually go for the dramatic and sensational.

And again...why. No cult, no pushing of beliefs, no nothing really.

This is all what I find interesting.

 

[mike]

dont get me wrong, im not about debunking her, just about going at the case with eyes wide open.

keeping the objects and frames lined up is easy all you have to do in ensure the camera and light source are kept perfectly still, and it need only be kept still in the moments leading up to the freeze frame, you could have the camera on a tripod and the lights fixed at a distance, you could carry the camera tripod and all while you film the objects creating that normal drift we see in hand held cameras them keeping the objects in frame set the tripod/camera down. freeze the frame and proceed to load that frame with light, torches candles any light source will do, then unfreeze the film and pick up the tripod/camera and film away.

in fact thats what i would be looking for in the original film if i could get my hands on it. id be looking to see if there was hand held "drift" in the footage and whether or not it stabilises just prior and just after the frame that has been loaded with light. that would indicate to me that the tripod has been carried then set down as part of the process of overexposing that single frame and loading it with light

again im not about debunking Ms Izatt, if we can remove my theory from the equation then thats all for the better.
i would rather my reality was debunked than hers. it would be a lot more interesting

 

[jritzmann]

again im not about debunking Ms Izatt, if we can remove my theory from the equation then thats all for the better.
i would rather my reality was debunked than hers. it would be a lot more interesting

hey don't worry about being considered a debunker on it...these are all questions that have to be asked. I'll look over the film segments and tell you what I see tonight in the MP3 file. I just have a hell of a lot to clarify and say about this thread, and no time for typing...faster to talk and upload.

 

[lotusland]

I live in Dorothy Izatt's city, and until this last paracast, I had never heard of her. So thank you G & D for bringing this fascinating story to our attention.

I was intrigued enough to a search through our city's local papers archive (electronic archive only goes back to 1993) and was able to find only 1 article about her. The story dates from 2001. For those who are interested, here is the full-text of the article:

Publication Date: June 23, 2001
(Copyright Vancouver Sun 2001)

[size=large]Something out there is reading my mind, UFO spotter says: Dorothy Izatt to show 26 years of film of unearthly visitors at planetarium show.[/size]

On Nov. 9, 1974, Richmond resident Dorothy Izatt says, she awoke at 4 a.m. and went to the window. She looked up to see a huge spaceship hovering in the sky, with all sorts of smaller craft coming and going out of it, "like little bugs."

Alarmed, she phoned the Vancouver airport tower to report her sighting of an Unidentified Flying Object, a UFO. They told her nobody else had seen it. She tried the newspapers, who said nobody else had seen it. She phoned radio hot-liner Pat Burns, whose producer suggested she document the UFOs on film.

So she went out and bought a Keystone XL 200 Super-8 movie camera, and started filming. Twenty-seven years later, she has 500 home movies she says capture the strange phenomena she sees most everywhere she goes: flashes of light, squiggly lines that look like "neon spaghetti," and round dealies that look like mini-planets.

Izatt's UFO movies have brought her worldwide renown among those who believe we are not alone in this universe. She's been featured on TV shows like Unsolved Mysteries, Sightings, Strange Universe and Hard Copy, and this Saturday night at 7 p.m. at the H.R. MacMillan Space Centre she'll be showing her movies for local UFO buffs.

"Saturday I'm going to show something special that has never been out . . . families of beings, aliens, getting on their ship," said Izatt. "I call them light beings. I don't call them aliens, because we are aliens, too."

Since her fateful 1974 UFO sighting, the 78-year-old Izatt claims to have had almost daily contact with the "light beings" and their craft.

"There are all different types of beings," she explained. "Some are like us. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference if they walked among us. Some are different, but down here on this earth we are all different, too. It all depends on where you come from and where you are born.

"With them it's the same. I guess it depends on which planet or dimension they come from. Their skin colour, hair, everything is different. I've met many many many many different ones."

She claims to communicate with the extra-terrestrial visitors telepathically.

"You talk mind to mind," she said. "They can pick up your thoughts, and I have the ability to pick them up, too."

She feels her own ability to see them is the result of having a special sense she possesses.

"I was born with it," she said. "My parents have it, and my family all have it. My aunts and uncles all seem to have this second sight. People call it the sixth sense.

"To me everyone has it. We're born with it, it's just some of us don't make use of it, and you lose it."

She said "hundreds" of researchers from around the world have studied her to ascertain what is going on in her films, but have come up empty. Her Web site (www.manari.com) includes stills from her UFO movies, along with commentary from UFO experts who have met Izatt.

"It's not some kind of flaky, wishy-washy, woo-woo type phenomena," said Dr. Lee Pulos, a clinical psychologist and paranormal researcher who will be one of several UFO experts speaking Saturday night.

"Something's there, but we don't know what. I have no doubt that whatever she's experiencing is real, but the question is . . . what is it?"

Incidentally, Sunday has been dubbed Worldwide International UFO Research Day. If you spot a UFO that day, you can report it to www.ovni.net, which deals with all sorts of UFO phenomena.

Izatt herself doesn't belong to any UFO group. Until she spotted the spacecraft in 1974, she was just a regular mother of four who worked at Eaton's, the post office and Canada Manpower.

She figures she has spent about $50,000 making home movies of the aliens and UFOs she has encountered over the years. When she wants to make contact, all she has to do is concentrate, and they appear.

Oddly, some people can see the aliens when she points them out, others can't.

The H.R. MacMillan Space Centre is located at 1100 Chestnut. Saturday's event runs from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Admission is $15, $10 for seniors and students.